Let's Have Fun With the Gnome Calculus!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I was thinking over the post I made here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?614897-Looking-for-optimized-archer-build-please!&p=24596535&viewfull=1#post24596535) for someone else's archery build regarding an artificer 20 using an aptitude/morphing/etc bow of the wintermoon to (among other things) use it as a gnome calculus, from the Arms & Equipment Guide, and my ruminations took me to considering the text in the A&EG itself.

Basically, it's a sling with a 50' range increment that fires alchemical vials (and similar) as ammo instead of lobbing sling stones. However, since it is described as a sling, it uses the sling rules unless otherwise noted, meaning that the calculus adds your Str mod to damage, and it applies weapon enhancements to the ammo (which deals base damage and has secondary effects according to whatever is hurled with it). So a gnome with a 20 Strength score using a +1 collision gnome calculus to hurl alchemist's fire deals 1d6+11 fire damage, and deals additional fire damage the following round (while also dealing splash damage as normal for a grenade-like weapon).

Do weapon enhancements affect the ammo in later rounds? Would +1 collision/ghost touch alchemist's fire continue burning a ghost on the following round with no miss chance due to still being ghost touch? Would it add the enhancement bonus and the collision damage the following round for 1d6+6 fire damage? I can only assume that the bonus damage from Str (or Int, from a factotum, say) wouldn't apply. Or would it? Would other weapon effects apply over multiple rounds?

What other fun can we have with this?

Obviously, there's adding a weapon augment crystal to the gnome calculus, such that you could deal additional energy damage, or add ghost touch. Stacking multiple weapon augment crystals into one (via the rules in the MIC) is quite nice, like it is for any other weapon. But would the +1d6 acid/cold/electricity damage apply to the following round's burning damage for alchemist's fire? Would it apply to the splash damage?

What other weapon enhancements and tricks could be useful with this thing?

[Vizzerdrix]

I used one of these in a game once, on a wizard. Worth having if you have the time to craft up acid flasks. It carried me damage wise from 1 to about 7. Didn't bother picking up proficiency with it, just used a masterwork version as you only need to hit touch ac.

[Jowgen]

Right, rule wise I think the technically correct way to look at this is to pretend that you're firing a regular ranged weapon, and the ammunition you're firing just happens to have extra effects.

The fact that your ammunition is normally its own thing is incidental. As you said, all the sling rules apply, we just happen to add alchemists stuff onto it.

Its well established that sneak attack damage works with alchemists fire and thus deals fire damage, so no reason the str bonus shouldn't apply to the fire damage by the same token.

As for the resursive damage however, as you're not making another attack, I don't think the Str would add.

Collision and such damage enhancers carry the issue that they are damage type specific, and since the damage we deal is always ammo dependents, I don't think that sort will fly; but that might change depending on what we fire.

As for ammo... MK1 Voidstone grenades come to mind, but I feel like that's not exactly the sort you're looking for

[Gruftzwerg]

With an Oil Chamber (+1000g) we could add another liquid onto the projectiles fired with the sling.

Aren't there any substance combinations that we can abuse with this?
I mean, since Oil Chamber covers the entire vile of the alchemical substance, the two substances will have contact once the vile breaks on contact. We just need to find a good combo.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As for ammo... MK1 Voidstone grenades come to mind, but I feel like that's not exactly the sort you're looking forHow do you handle voidstone without voiding yourself in the process?


With an Oil Chamber (+1000g) we could add another liquid onto the projectiles fired with the sling.

Aren't there any substance combinations that we can abuse with this?
I mean, since Oil Chamber covers the entire vile of the alchemical substance, the two substances will have contact once the vile breaks on contact. We just need to find a good combo.I wonder if we could make FOOF (or something similar)...

Can you coat a vial of powdered Mentos with Coke?

[Vizzerdrix]

How do you handle voidstone without voiding yourself in the process?

I wonder if we could make FOOF (or something similar)...

Can you coat a vial of powdered Mentos with Coke?

Isn't their some mold that grows when it burns/freezes? Could a vial of that work with the triggering alchemical sprayed on the outside?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Isn't their some mold that grows when it burns/freezes? Could a vial of that work with the triggering alchemical sprayed on the outside?Brown mold (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#slimesMoldsAndFungi), yes.

It would also work with any source of fire damage, including a weapon crystal or similar.

Good thought, that.

I think any of the entries there could be interesting, really.

[Gruftzwerg]

Brown mold (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#slimesMoldsAndFungi), yes.

It would also work with any source of fire damage, including a weapon crystal or similar.

Good thought, that.

I think any of the entries there could be interesting, really.

Spell Storing weapon + Flaming Sphere with the Brown Mold = the mold should double in size each turn the Flaming Sphere lasts.

leaves us still room in the oil chamber to fill.^^

[Jowgen]

How do you handle voidstone without voiding yourself in the process?

Only surefire RAW way is to have a Fort save bonus of at least +24 and the Steadfast Determination feat (or be a Demigod for equivalent benefit). Depending on DM, proof against transmutation type effects might work as well.

Either case, having the Quick-loading WSA on our sling so our ammo get stored in a dedicated extradimenional space is probably a good shout. Edit: nvm, is crossbow only

[Gruftzwerg]

Sovereign Glue (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#sovereignGlue) could be a thing for the oil chamber. We just need something to fill the flask that impairs all movement for a single round for the glue to take effect.

[Toliudar]

I can't believe that I've been missing this weapon all these years. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If you're big into sand (via sandshaper, the MM3's sand blaster, etc), you could use shapesand to craft the vials from, and use black sand (Libris Mortuum Mortis) to fill the vials. Plenty of negative energy damage (or healing, for undead or Tomb-Tainted Soul individuals). If you can enhance black sand as shapesand, you could rebuild your ammo after every fight pretty easily.

If you have morphing on your calculus (or whatever it started out as before it became a calculus) and used that to turn the weapon into a crossbow, could you add an auto-loading feature on it and have it still work as a calculus to auto-load vials as sling ammo? What if you enhanced the weapon as a Hank's energy bow (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a)? Would you get free ammo for whatever alchemy items you want, but made from force? Would the exit wounds property (CW) affect multiple targets in a line equally? Would the explosive property be especially nasty when combined with alchemy? Inquiring minds want to know!

[edit] If you have levels in shaper psion with the psionic minor creation power (or have the minor creation spell known), creating amber vials of poison and other plant-based liquids and powders is a good way to get freebie ammo. Contact or inhaled poisons would, of course, poison enemies. Flour could reveal invisible (non-incorporeal) enemies, and it could even cause a flash explosion fireball if exposed to flame or sparks. Tiny wooden ball bearings could cause a slip hazard in the area. Vegetable oil could cause a grease fire (along with a grease-like effect). Tar could potentially entangle one enemy, and it would also be flammable. Small amber or ironwood shards could act as caltrops by slicing open the opponent's feet.

[Menzath]

Would this weapon make the alchemist savant actually useful? Pair it with eternal wands of spells you want and quick potion.

And of course add splitting to the calculus.

As for rulings on how enhancements affect vial damage, I think the secondary effects would be much like poisons, or spell effects and would remain unchanged. Same with duration stuff.

Still exit wound is a great pairing as well, with splitting you really up the ante on what you can do.

[Vizzerdrix]

Would this weapon make the alchemist savant actually useful? Pair it with eternal wands of spells you want and quick potion.

And of course add splitting to the calculus.

As for rulings on how enhancements affect vial damage, I think the secondary effects would be much like poisons, or spell effects and would remain unchanged. Same with duration stuff.

Still exit wound is a great pairing as well, with splitting you really up the ante on what you can do.

Oooh! Could we use splitting to make more alchemicals? Maybe by tossing vials at something soft?

[Gruftzwerg]

Oooh! Could we use splitting to make more alchemicals? Maybe by tossing vials at something soft?

Imho the exit wounds only apply to the projectile (aka solid state), so either the vile doesn't break entering a body and exiting it, or (more realistically) it breaks on the first enemy and only the broken parts of the vile get the "exit wounds".

The vile is the projectile and anything in it, is not part of that. It's not like a enhancement where there projectile is magical.


And Splitting is imho the same. The vile gets duplicated, but the double is empty.

[Hish]

Oooh! Could we use splitting to make more alchemicals? Maybe by tossing vials at something soft?

Nonmagical ammunition is always destroyed after firing. even enchanted ammunition has a 50% chance of being destroyed, so on average you break even. Idk if you can enchant alchemical vials, but either way the best you can hope for is break even.

[Menzath]

Imho the exit wounds only apply to the projectile (aka solid state), so either the vile doesn't break entering a body and exiting it, or (more realistically) it breaks on the first enemy and only the broken parts of the vile get the "exit wounds".

The vile is the projectile and anything in it, is not part of that. It's not like a enhancement where there projectile is magical.


And Splitting is imho the same. The vile gets duplicated, but the double is empty.

So for the emphasized section, is there even listed damage for an empty vial? Also fountain head arrows give us a precedent for the liquid also being duplicated. The difference is that fountain head arrows have specific ranged attack rules for targeting a location, that i suppose overules normal ranged attack rules. While slings and grenade likes use their own rules that are the same across the board.

Oh also the explosive sling quality to add for more aoe damage.(from the same book, MiC)

I guess when checking how things get duplicated, its explicit in wording. A vial(alchemist fire) is not the same as vial(empty). Therefore not a duplicate.

Edit: I should also clarify, that if I recall correctly (which I may not) that the second projectile from splitting is temporary, and even if it doesn't break disappears shortly after hitting(end of your turn?). One would assume that all ongoing effects from it would also immediately end.

[Gruftzwerg]

I reread "Splitting" (has been a while since I read it last time)..



Any missile fired from a splitting weapon, or an arrow or bolt enchanted with the splitting ability, breaks into two identical missiles before striking the intended target.
V-shaped engravings adorn a splitting weapon or splitting ammunition.
The splitting ability of a ranged weapon (must be a bow, crossbow, arrow, or bolt) only functions if its wielder has the Precise Shot feat.
Any arrow or bolt fired from a splitting weapon magically splits into two missiles in mid-flight.

Splitting is disqualified sadly.

[Menzath]

I reread "Splitting" (has been a while since I read it last time)..


Splitting is disqualified sadly.

Well, the first section specifies a missile from a ranged weapon, the parentheses section states that only bows, crossbows, arrows, and bolts can be enchanted.

So enchanting splitting onto a bow with morphing is still legal, splitting only refers to missiles fired from a weapon in the first section.

The section near the outside of the parentheses only states we need precise shot for the quality to work at all.
And the last section reiterates the first but specifically uses arrorws and bolts for language instead of missiles, most likely because it was assumed with the above restrictions that only arrows or bolts would be applicable (morphing quality not yet printed).

So since the first two sections refer to missles only, any "missile" is still valid for splitting, so long as it was enchanted onto a bow or crossbow, and we have precise shot.

Edit: new idea, hanks energy splitting explosive catapults. Then animated to fire themselves. Wait, animated catapults don't have precise shot...I'll have to work that out.

Edit2: do two casting of heroics for bonus fighter feats stack if they add different feats?

[Darrin]

Edit: new idea, hanks energy splitting explosive catapults. Then animated to fire themselves. Wait, animated catapults don't have precise shot...I'll have to work that out.



DMG page 100: "Ballista: A ballista is essentially a Huge heavy crossbow fixed in place." (emphasis added)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If you had alchemically enhanced black sand (that works as shapesand) to make the vials, which you then fill with alchemist's fire/acid/whatever, with an oil chamber that applied poison or whatever when firing, that would be a good start. And not even any magic yet.

Are there any other nifty things we can think of prior to magic enhancements? There're wand chambers, but those don't affect the ammunition directly -- at least, not without the wands being of spells that affect the ammo or calculus, and the spell is applied beforehand. It'd be nice if you could simultaneously cast while firing ammo, though.

[edit] How about applying an explosive runes spell to writing on the flask? If the flask is destroyed, thereby erasing the rune...

[RSGA]

If you had alchemically enhanced black sand (that works as shapesand) to make the vials, which you then fill with alchemist's fire/acid/whatever, with an oil chamber that applied poison or whatever when firing, that would be a good start. And not even any magic yet.

Are there any other nifty things we can think of prior to magic enhancements? There're wand chambers, but those don't affect the ammunition directly -- at least, not without the wands being of spells that affect the ammo or calculus, and the spell is applied beforehand. It'd be nice if you could simultaneously while firing ammo, though.

[edit] How about applying an explosive runes spell to writing on the flask? If the flask is destroyed, thereby erasing the rune...

You'd have to rule that it's a failure to use the Erase spell on the runes which is going to be a bit of a stretch. It's also possible to rule that it's impossible to use Erase on that use of Explosive Runes because glass isn't like paper or parchment and/or that the flask isn't equivalent to two pages in which case the only way to accidentally set them off is a failed Dispel Magic.


EDIT: And on a closer reading of Explosive Runes, the vial would also have to count as being similar to a book, map or scroll and that contains written information. First qualia seems harder to argue than the second.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You'd have to rule that it's a failure to use the Erase spell on the runes which is going to be a bit of a stretch. It's also possible to rule that it's impossible to use Erase on that use of Explosive Runes because glass isn't like paper or parchment and/or that the flask isn't equivalent to two pages in which case the only way to accidentally set them off is a failed Dispel Magic."Similar" is extremely relative and subjective. A vial is similar to a piece of parchment if stuff is written on it, as they both convey information. Stone tablets and even cave walls conveyed info well before books came along, and so long as something can be written on it (and if my bottle of Aleve is anything to go by, this is entirely within the realms of reason), it's not unreasonable to say that they're "similar" in that vein. If explosive runes could only be added to paper or parchment, the Target line would say so, instead of merely stating that it can be any object of no more than 10 lbs. If the DM says an object with words on it isn't similar enough to another object with words on it, simply inscribe explosive rune on a postcard-sized piece of tissue paper and wrap the vial in it, which will obviously be deleted when it bursts into flames.


EDIT: And on a closer reading of Explosive Runes, the vial would also have to count as being similar to a book, map or scroll and that contains written information. First qualia seems harder to argue than the second.It says "erase," not "erase" (italicized to indicate the spell effect) so any attempt to erase the writing on the object from existence, including destroying the object, erases the rune, which activates the rune's effect. And if "erasing the writing from existence" isn't "erasing" it, then the dictionary appears to be wrong about the definition of "erase."

Or I guess a contingent erase spell could be added, if it's absolutely necessary to cast the spell.

[RSGA]

"Similar" is extremely relative and subjective. A vial is similar to a piece of parchment if stuff is written on it, as they both convey information. Stone tablets and even cave walls conveyed info well before books came along, and so long as something can be written on it (and if my bottle of Aleve is anything to go by, this is entirely within the realms of reason), it's not unreasonable to say that they're "similar" in that vein. If explosive runes could only be added to paper or parchment, the Target line would say so, instead of merely stating that it can be any object of no more than 10 lbs. If the DM says an object with words on it isn't similar enough to another object with words on it, simply inscribe explosive rune on a postcard-sized piece of tissue paper and wrap the vial in it, which will obviously be deleted when it bursts into flames.

It says "erase," not "erase" (italicized to indicate the spell effect) so any attempt to erase the writing on the object from existence, including destroying the object, erases the rune, which activates the rune's effect. And if "erasing the writing from existence" isn't "erasing" it, then the dictionary appears to be wrong about the definition of "erase."

Or I guess a contingent erase spell could be added, if it's absolutely necessary to cast the spell.

In general you're right about erase, but it's given in the context of another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase (both the italicized terms for the spells) but an unsuccessful dispel or erase (being used as verbals or perhaps infinitives) sets them off instead. Seeing only the Erase spell has a defined method of failure for erasing things, it must be referring to the spell because otherwise it should be an entirely separate clause. Especially because for DC 33 a rogue can disable the trap and leave no trace of having done so and further only get a 32 which doesn't disable the spell but also doesn't set it off.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

In general you're right about erase, but it's given in the context of another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase (both the italicized terms for the spells) but an unsuccessful dispel or erase (being used as verbals or perhaps infinitives) sets them off instead. Seeing only the Erase spell has a defined method of failure for erasing things, it must be referring to the spell because otherwise it should be an entirely separate clause. Especially because for DC 33 a rogue can disable the trap and leave no trace of having done so and further only get a 32 which doesn't disable the spell but also doesn't set it off.Point to you, I guess. Though I'm not sure why only a rogue can attempt use an eraser, a sponge, or a washcloth, or try to tear up a piece of paper for...some reason. Unless destroying the item the explosive runes spell is cast on doesn't disable it? Ooh. It doesn't. We can use this.

You could totally cut an affected piece of parchment or paper into confetti, and load it up in a vial of a dry explosive compound, which explodes when it contacts the air. If the target you hit sees any part of the confetti'd explosion, it explodes again. Even better if you cast explosive runes on each piece of the confetti. Good luck avoiding the thousand saving throws for 6d6 force damage each. Even better if you follow it up with a minimum CL dispel magic immediately thereafter. If the confetti is considered attended by the creature, failing to dispel it with a dispelling weapon (Player's Guide to Faerun) would make it asplode.

Is there some way we can improve the loadout with Shalantha's delicate disc or something similar? Improved spell storing that stacks with regular spell storing? It's rather too bad polymorph any object won't work on them, shrink item likewise only works on non-magical items, and any attempt to grind them into powder to mix into your shapesand would set 'em off.

How about the alternative scrolls (specifically, clay tablets) that truenamers are known for using as scrolls (which are cast when you break 'em)? Making tiny clay tablets that are broken when they strike a target could be useful if added to a calculus's projectiles...

[Menzath]

How about the alternative scrolls (specifically, clay tablets) that truenamers are known for using as scrolls (which are cast when you break 'em)? Making tiny clay tablets that are broken when they strike a target could be useful if added to a calculus's projectiles...

I second Clay tablets, just make them really oversized, then use some sovereign glue(or fuse/shape stone, though might be iffy) to make them into a huge vat.
Fill vat with desired alchemicals. Shrink object.
Fire. Enjoy fire works.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Say, black sand is nonmagical, right? So shrink item works on it. Alchemy items are nonmagical, as well. And shrink item fails when struck with force, right?

Good idea!

Also, I wonder if there's a way to fire a hypodermic syringe from a calculus. Just add water, fire at an enemy, and watch as it grows explodes?

[tiercel]

I can’t help but think that with this weapon, a certain amount of wordplay would be integral to its use, no matter how derivative some of its particular tricks might be from general ranged weapon tactics. Whether it’s simply seeing how much flaming alchemist’s fire you can hurl (Oiler’s Method), alchemical cold damage to handle fire-immune foes (Polar form), substances to target foes’ protective gear (Tailor Series), enemies who underestimate you will soon be needing L'Hospital.

[Tvtyrant]

If you shrink item Alchemist's fire vials and use a bunch together does it deal normal alchemist fire damage or the amount of all of them together? Same question with poison.

[Fizban]

Basically, it's a sling with a 50' range increment that fires alchemical vials (and similar) as ammo instead of lobbing sling stones.
A reasonable description.

However, since it is described as a sling, it uses the sling rules unless otherwise noted,
Says where?

meaning that the calculus adds your Str mod to damage, and it applies weapon enhancements to the ammo (which deals base damage and has secondary effects according to whatever is hurled with it).
No, it doesn't. It has a damage entry of "-". It deals no damage. The footnote directs you to the weapon description. The weapon description says it fires flasks of liquid, and "Alchemical ammunition deals damage according to its properties, but it gains the range increment of the gnome calculus." Alchemical splash weapons do not add strength to damage, period. They deal what it says in their item entry. The weapon description in no way says that it functions as a sling, at all. It fires flasks filled with liquid, dealing no damage, unless they're full of alchemical liquid, in which case you change the alchemical item's original range to 50'. Liquids that do not have written stats for a flask splash will need to be finalized by the DM.

Maybe you could make a tiny case that weapon enhancements should apply, but that's it. This could be justified with the fact that the calculus can only be fired 1/round due to reloading speed, and Eldritch Blast and the Chausible of Fell Power are clearly priced at +2/+3 weapon rates, but when your reasoning starts with "hey let's add full strength to a touch attack that never involved strength," and continues into "oil chambered slings" and "arbitrarily large numbered of chained explosive rune explosions" (which don't even have anything to do with the calculus) I doubt that's the kind of reasoning you're looking for.

But considering how blatantly the base reasoning here contradicts the actual text of the item in question, I figured someone should mention it.


Its well established that sneak attack damage works with alchemists fire and thus deals fire damage, so no reason the str bonus shouldn't apply to the fire damage by the same token.
I'm flabbergasted that you're actually presenting this line of reasoning. Since when has sneak attack's application justified applying any other bonus? Sneak attack has special mention for applying to touch spells (and possibly also noted for splash/grenadelike weapons, though now I want a citation*), specifically because it is not strength, it's not a bonus to normal attack damage, it's a class feature that adds outside damage to an attack through precision. How could that possibly justify adding a strength bonus to grenadelike weapon damage, which explicitly does not include strength bonus? If anything sneak attack on grenadelike weapons is counter evidence, because it works the same for both thrown and ranged versions- so strength bonus to damage should work the same for both, and hey look grenadelikes get no bonus for strength no matter how hard you throw them. Though again, sneak attack has nothing to do it, so this counter evidence doesn't exist either, there's just no evidence.

It's not a logical justification- if anything it feels like an obfuscation. The text of the weapon doesn't support any of this, but even knowing that it would be a stretch based on "it doesn't say it doesn't," I didn't bother looking it up and thus didn't see just how directly contradictory it was at first. If one considers the concept, they can easily imagine that the description reads something like "the damage of the calculus is the damage of the alchemical weapon fired," and under that phrasing you could try to argue that it's a sling with different base damage which should add strength. If you also presumed that it would automatically get the same 3.5 changes as the sling- which it does not, even if it "RAW" exists due to the grandfather clause. To the casual reader it just looks like those wily char-op'ers have done it again.

But that's not what the item says at all. The text clearly gives no damage rating which would be modified by strength, and then says that alchemical liquids deal damage "according to their properties," which never includes strength, and that you simply replace the range increment, which has nothing to do with damage.

Can we stick to wacky op that matches the text, or at least has presented a clear line of evidence and interpretation? I don't really have a better description for this than "making stuff up." Which is fun, but not when it's presented as initial fact.

*Said citation is from the FAQ, and the rules for weaponlike spells, I know. And neither give any justification for adding strength.

[Endarire]

What about adding poison from minor creation, major creation, etc.?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Says where?Says in the description of the item itself:

"Gnome Calculus: This oversized sling is made to fire flasks filled with liquid."

It's an oversized sling. Therefore, it acts like a sling does, aside from where otherwise noted, and slings add +Str to damage, as well as the ranged weapon properties that add to the effects of ammunition. As per the entry for projectile weapons in the PHB:

"Projectile Weapons: Light crossbows, slings, heavy crossbows, shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows, hand crossbows, and repeating crossbows are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it’s a specially built composite shortbow, specially built composite longbow, or sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he or she uses a bow or a sling."

The gnome calculus is a sling. Slings deal +Str damage on a hit. Thrown alchemical weapons don't add +Str damage, but these aren't thrown; they're hurled from a projectile weapon: a sling, which does.


No, it doesn't. It has a damage entry of "-". It deals no damage. The footnote directs you to the weapon description. The weapon description says it fires flasks of liquid, and "Alchemical ammunition deals damage according to its properties, but it gains the range increment of the gnome calculus." Alchemical splash weapons do not add strength to damage, period. They deal what it says in their item entry. The weapon description in no way says that it functions as a sling, at all. It fires flasks filled with liquid, dealing no damage, unless they're full of alchemical liquid, in which case you change the alchemical item's original range to 50'. Liquids that do not have written stats for a flask splash will need to be finalized by the DM.The weapon damage is the alchemical item's damage, as per the item's entry, plus whatever the sling adds (as per the rules for slings). That's why it doesn't have a damage rating; it's replaced as per the description.


Maybe you could make a tiny case that weapon enhancements should apply, but that's it. This could be justified with the fact that the calculus can only be fired 1/round due to reloading speed, and Eldritch Blast and the Chausible of Fell Power are clearly priced at +2/+3 weapon rates, but when your reasoning starts with "hey let's add full strength to a touch attack that never involved strength," and continues into "oil chambered slings" and "arbitrarily large numbered of chained explosive rune explosions" (which don't even have anything to do with the calculus) I doubt that's the kind of reasoning you're looking for.

But considering how blatantly the base reasoning here contradicts the actual text of the item in question, I figured someone should mention it.Not a tiny case for adding weapon enhancements:

"Magic Weapons: Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat."

And:

"Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the...power upon their ammunition."

Magic weapons have the indicated properties, and ranged weapons bestow such properties on their ammunition. The gnome calculus is a sling, and it uses alchemical items as its ammunition. Or are you arguing that the gnome calculus doesn't need or use ammunition?

It's a case of specific vs general. The general rules indicate that all magic weapons add magic properties unless otherwise stated. I see no "otherwise" here.

[Fizban]

Says in the description of the item itself:
Which is immediately followed by what its damage actually is, which is not sling damage. Notice how exotic bows don't say "it's a bow" and then expect you to reference something else? How they don't have a damage entry on the table of "-", but actually list their weapon damage? The description of oversized sling is physical/visual, not telling you to reference other game mechanics. If it did, it would say so.


The gnome calculus is a sling. Slings deal +Str damage on a hit. Thrown alchemical weapons don't add +Str damage, but these aren't thrown; they're hurled from a projectile weapon: a sling, which does.
No, it is a gnome calculus. Which has no weapon damage on the weapon table. From 3.0, where even if it was a sling it wouldn't have added str to damage. The PHB sling entry was specifically changed to include str damage, but this one wasn't and a gnome calculus is a gnome calculus, so RAW you're already stuck. The calculus throws alchemical items further than you normally could, and even calls that out as the point in the description. There is no damage entry on the table. There is no damage for throwing or shooting a flask at someone. There is only damage from the entries for acid/etc being splashed on people, which does not include str. The wording of "gains the range increment" puts all the emphasis on a concept of "this works the same as normal acid/etc but with more range."

You're filling in a gap that isn't there, trying to apply a new rule to a weapon that almost certainly would have had text to negate it, if that rule had existed when it was printed. But unlike most cases, this one actually happens to have been written so it doesn't even need the extra defense.

Seriously, you're trying to back up a rules-hole argument with the logic that acid/fire/etc should deal more damage if they're thrown extra hard at someone, but only if they're fired from a sling, because even though str doesn't count for throwing them a sling says it does? When the 3.5 sling entry explicitly calls out the fact that you're adding that str to damage "just like a thrown weapon?" Either you've got a rules-hole that isn't a hole because the calculus doesn't deal damage like a sling, or logic that doesn't make sense because thrown acid doesn't include str.

The gnome calculus is a sling, and it uses alchemical items as its ammunition. Or are you arguing that the gnome calculus doesn't need or use ammunition?
I'm arguing that you're completely missing the point. It's incredibly obvious to me that the point of this item is to let you throw flasks further, no more and no less. You're trying to backport a 3.5 change to a specific weapon to make this one do something it very obviously did not do, was not meant to do, and which goes against against the spirit (and possibly letter) of all physical/energy damage conventions and the very fire and acid mechanics (which are based entirely on quantity), while ignoring the majority of the weapon's text in order to do so. It's "dnd as a bad computer program but also I'm ignoring this inconvenient part and changed this ref id to make it compile."

Ironically, the strongest argument you could provide that the calculus should involve sling mechanics is from the same book in a different section in the alchemical sling bullets, which directly state that they deal normal damage plus an alchemical effect (which are also their own effects, not referencing the same items the calculus throws). But that's not the argument you're using, and once again it's actually more evidence against, because hey look we've got an alchemical sling bullet that when fired from a 3.5 sling hits harder and deals. . . exactly the same amount of energy damage. The same book with an item you say should somehow add str to acid damage when thrown from a sling, says that acid thrown from a sling does no extra acid damage. The disconnect required to read the calculus as increasing energy damage, I don't even.


As for weapon properties, still hinges on the weapon being read as a standard projectile weapon, when it's not. Obviously if you've decided that's how it works then you'll be applying all the weapon properties you want. As a launcher of splash weapons, a DM could go either way, and as I said the Warlock indicates that it's probably no major balance problem if allowed. Weapon properties are not the part I take most issue with here.

[Menzath]

Which is immediately followed by what its damage actually is, which is not sling damage. Notice how exotic bows don't say "it's a bow" and then expect you to reference something else? How they don't have a damage entry on the table of "-", but actually list their weapon damage? The description of oversized sling is physical/visual, not telling you to reference other game mechanics. If it did, it would say so.


Snipped the rest for redundancy.

So, a weapon that uses alchemicals as ammunition, and has a damage value listed as "-" and yet is being treated as a sling seems to be the issue.

My counter arguement would be, how do you list the damage of EVERY alchemical item, as a value? Especially those that have no damage value.
If a ballista says its a crossbow, than for feats, uses, and enchants it is.
If a bone bow says it is a composite longbow for the same, then thats how we treat it.

If the gnome calculus says its an oversized sling, than as previous examples, that's what we treat it as, for feats, enchants, and attack rules unless otherwise noted.

I myself do not have the book which it is in, so unless a kind poster assists with the full description, I am afraid the original post, and two others, is all I can go on for explanation of the weapon.

[Gruftzwerg]

@Fizban

Sry but imho Maxi is right.


This oversized sling

It doesn't say "this oversized sling looking weapon". It says "this oversized sling". No point to debate. Everything else is a specific exception to a regular sling. Even the fact that it has no base dmg ( since it can't be uses with regular sling munition ) doesn't change that.

_________________________________
@Menzath

Splitting still doesn't work with calculus. Even if you have it on a morphing weapon.

Any arrow or bolt fired from a splitting weapon
Sadly a splitting weapon still can only enhance arrows and bolts, nothing else.

[RSGA]

Point to you, I guess. Though I'm not sure why only a rogue can attempt use an eraser, a sponge, or a washcloth, or try to tear up a piece of paper for...some reason. Unless destroying the item the explosive runes spell is cast on doesn't disable it? Ooh. It doesn't. We can use this.

You could totally cut an affected piece of parchment or paper into confetti, and load it up in a vial of a dry explosive compound, which explodes when it contacts the air. If the target you hit sees any part of the confetti'd explosion, it explodes again. Even better if you cast explosive runes on each piece of the confetti. Good luck avoiding the thousand saving throws for 6d6 force damage each. Even better if you follow it up with a minimum CL dispel magic immediately thereafter. If the confetti is considered attended by the creature, failing to dispel it with a dispelling weapon (Player's Guide to Faerun) would make it asplode.

Is there some way we improve the loadout with Shalantha's delicate disc or something similar? Improved spell storing that stacks with regular spell storing? It's rather too bad polymorph any object won't work on them, shrink item likewise only works on non-magical items, and any attempt to grind them into powder to mix into your shapesand would set 'em off.

How about the alternative scrolls (specifically, clay tablets) that truenamers are known for using as scrolls (which are cast when you break 'em)? Making tiny clay tablets that are broken when they strike a target could be useful if added to a calculus's projectiles...

Well, no it doesn't explode on being seen, but on being read which the spell makes distinct because you have a much greater range that you can see things and even text than just right next to the object which is necessary to read the Explosive Runes. Also anyone can destroy the Explosive Runes, only a rogue can non-magically disable them in such a way that doesn't harm the underlying information bearing object and optionally doesn't even seem to have disabled the secret protecting abjuration. How a normal person destroys Explosive Runes is by destroying the object it's on by strength check or sundering. This isn't done too much because this accomplishes Explosive Rune's actual purpose, which is keeping info secret.

Other things of note, Explosive Runes only damages one object, the one it's placed on. Any object in the ten feet is completely unharmed. It also doesn't go off if you destroy what it's on because there is no wording that it does unlike, say, Symbol of Death. But then again, Symbol of Death is Necromancy and Explosive Runes is Abjuration. Which leads to another potential reason to not put one on Every Single Page. Sadly both the SRD and the actual Player's Guide are a bit vague on how this should resolve for more than just two effects, but after one day every Abjuration that's active in ten feet of another becomes easier to find. The best interpretation for the caster is that it's only a -4 DC regardless of how many are actually in that area relative to each other but the description of why it happens should, IMO, give a bigger penalty for more Abjuration effects.

[Menzath]

@Fizban
@Menzath

Splitting still doesn't work with calculus. Even if you have it on a morphing weapon.

Sadly a splitting weapon still can only enhance arrows and bolts, nothing else.


"Any missile fired from a splitting weapon, or an arrow or bolt enchanted with the splitting ability, breaks into two identical missiles before striking the intended target.

The splitting ability of a ranged weapon (must be a bow, crossbow, arrow, or bolt) only functions if its wielder has the Precise Shot feat.

Any arrow or bolt fired from a splitting weapon magically splits into two missiles in mid-flight. Both missiles are identical, sharing the nonsplitting properties of the original missile; for example, a +1 splitting arrow splits into two +1 arrows in mid-flight. Both missiles strike the same target. Make a separate attack roll for each missile using the same attack bonus."

So the book was written horribly, we can agree on that I hope.

I had originally done a lovely wall of txt response, but I felt it to be unnecessary.
You are right that 3rd sentence is stupidly specific, and the horrible book format for feats and enchntments has the first sentence normally being a short descriptor.
I just find it so odd that sentences 1 and 4 use the same terminology of missiles, while the third is specific. That and the first sentence also sounding more like rules than fluff. And no errata.

But new idea, morphing splitting arrows Into vials. Needlessly expensive, but should be rules legal.

[Gruftzwerg]

So the book was written horribly, we can agree on that I hope.

I had originally done a lovely wall of txt response, but I felt it to be unnecessary.
You are right that 3rd sentence is stupidly specific, and the horrible book format for feats and enchntments has the first sentence normally being a short descriptor.
I just find it so odd that sentences 1 and 4 use the same terminology of missiles, while the third is specific. That and the first sentence also sounding more like rules than fluff. And no errata.

But new idea, morphing splitting arrows Into vials. Needlessly expensive, but should be rules legal.

Yeah 3.5 text format can sometimes be very misleading...

to your new idea:

a morphing weapon can reshape it into any other weapon of the same type (light, one-handed, or two-handed) as a standard action.

Type is (re-)defined for this ability as "light, one-handed, or two-handed". A finite list of 3 options. It doesn't indicate anywhere that the list is expandable to ranged weapons nor to ammunition. It would need to say "like light, one-handed, or two-handed", cause "like" would indicate that are other categories than those mentioned. But that is not the chase here. We have 3 categories to work with, nothing else.

[Menzath]

Yeah 3.5 text format can sometimes be very misleading...

to your new idea:


Type is (re-)defined for this ability as "light, one-handed, or two-handed". A finite list of 3 options. It doesn't indicate anywhere that the list is expandable to ranged weapons nor to ammunition. It would need to say "like light, one-handed, or two-handed", cause "like" would indicate that are other categories than those mentioned. But that is not the chase here. We have 3 categories to work with, nothing else.

When wielding an arrow

An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon... phb.114

And vials/flasks would fall under improvised weapons when used In meele, but are still part of the ranged weapons category according to splash rules. Based on size and weight they would also be light.
Good ole improvised weapons rules makes everything possible.

[Gruftzwerg]

When wielding an arrow


And vials/flasks would fall under improvised weapons when used In meele, but are still part of the ranged weapons category according to splash rules. Based on size and weight they would also be light.
Good ole improvised weapons rules makes everything possible.
k, lets try again^^



An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon

Are you wielding the arrow when you want to use it with a ranged weapon? No.

Does the arrow count for the purpose of spells and effects as a light improvised weapon? No again. (compare to monk's unarmed strike which explicitly calls out that "for the purpose of spells and effects..").

Further, while we have rules for "improvised weapons" and this may imply at first glance that they are "weapons", in fact they are not. They are not listed in any weapon list IIRC (correct me if I should be wrong here pls). And nowhere it is mentioned that you may enhance improvised weapons as normal (masterwork) weapons.
Further masterworks improvised weapon is logically a dead end. It can't be improvised and masterwork at the same time. These two words conflict with each other.

what's next? "Splitting gold coins" ? ^^ (and no it doesn't work either)

[Menzath]

k, lets try again^^



Are you wielding the arrow when you want to use it with a ranged weapon? No.

Does the arrow count for the purpose of spells and effects as a light improvised weapon? No again. (compare to monk's unarmed strike which explicitly calls out that "for the purpose of spells and effects..").

Further, while we have rules for "improvised weapons" and this may imply at first glance that they are "weapons", in fact they are not. They are not listed in any weapon list IIRC (correct me if I should be wrong here pls). And nowhere it is mentioned that you may enhance improvised weapons as normal (masterwork) weapons.
Further masterworks improvised weapon is logically a dead end. It can't be improvised and masterwork at the same time. These two words conflict with each other.

what's next? "Splitting gold coins" ? ^^ (and no it doesn't work either)

Sorry if I was misleading, the contention I made was that both vials/flasks and arrorws are called out as weapons already, and that improvised rules labels them into the ligh category, which qualifies them under morphing category changes.

To reiterate both arrows and splash weapons are called weapons already in different locations. How we get their category is under improvised weapon rules since a size was not already stated.

And though splitting on gold coins would be rather funny, they are not classified as a weapon anywhere to the best of my knowledge.

[Gruftzwerg]

Sorry if I was misleading, the contention I made was that both vials/flasks and arrorws are called out as weapons already, and that improvised rules labels them into the ligh category, which qualifies them under morphing category changes.

To reiterate both arrows and splash weapons are called weapons already in different locations. How we get their category is under improvised weapon rules since a size was not already stated.

And though splitting on gold coins would be rather funny, they are not classified as a weapon anywhere to the best of my knowledge.

They are called out for a special/specific purpose as such. But that doesn't turn em generally for all other purposes into weapons.

The rule is: Specific beat General.
and not: Specific becomes General

there is a huge difference between that.

[Menzath]

They are called out for a special/specific purpose as such. But that doesn't turn em generally for all other purposes into weapons.

The rule is: Specific beat General.
and not: Specific becomes General

there is a huge difference between that.

So, the specific rules text of arrows as light weapons, doesn't trump general rules of ammunition?

If the condition for it to be a light weapon is met under specific rules, I still don't see the issue.
Since as you said, specific > general.

[Gruftzwerg]

So, the specific rules text of arrows as light weapons, doesn't trump general rules of ammunition?

If the condition for it to be a light weapon is met under specific rules, I still don't see the issue.
Since as you said, specific > general.

specific means "for a specific situation".

in our chase the situation where you may treat em as light weapons is when you use em as improvised weapons and for nothing else.

When you try to craft enhancements on you arrows, you aren't wielding em as weapon. You are crafting atm. remember? You are not holding the arrow readied as improvised weapon. When you are crafting, you are busy with crafting.
And even if you could, they would still only count as light weapon for the purpose of things like TWF and special attacks like disarm, cause that is what the text is referring to.
We have other abilities like the monk's unarmed strike, where the wording is clear when they want you to be able to enhance things like they where other things. But that is not the chase here.

I'll try to explain it to you with "mushrooms". In daily live, we misslable em as vegetables often. This is a cultural accepted phenomenon (specific exception). But that doesn't turn mushrooms into vegetables or makes them in any other way more compatible or related with them. They are still fungi and behave in every way as such.
We are allowed to treat em as improvised vegetables to some degree. Selling and to some part of how we digest it are similar. But that doesn't effect any other things vegetables and mushrooms don't have in common.

Arrows may only count as light weapon for the purpose of using em as improvised weapon and nothing else. You lack the permission by the rules to treat em for any other purpose as light weapon.

[Menzath]

specific means "for a specific situation".

in our chase the situation where you may treat em as light weapons is when you use em as improvised weapons and for nothing else.

When you try to craft enhancements on you arrows, you aren't wielding em as weapon. You are crafting atm. remember? You are not holding the arrow readied as improvised weapon. When you are crafting, you are busy with crafting.
And even if you could, they would still only count as light weapon for the purpose of things like TWF and special attacks like disarm, cause that is what the text is referring to.
We have other abilities like the monk's unarmed strike, where the wording is clear when they want you to be able to enhance things like they where other things. But that is not the chase here.

I'll try to explain it to you with "mushrooms". In daily live, we misslable em as vegetables often. This is a cultural accepted phenomenon (specific exception). But that doesn't turn mushrooms into vegetables or makes them in any other way more compatible or related with them. They are still fungi and behave in every way as such.
We are allowed to treat em as improvised vegetables to some degree. Selling and to some part of how we digest it are similar. But that doesn't effect any other things vegetables and mushrooms don't have in common.

Arrows may only count as light weapon for the purpose of using em as improvised weapon and nothing else. You lack the permission by the rules to treat em for any other purpose as light weapon.

Though I like your mycopial alliteration, I fail to see the relevance of it in this particular case.

Same with the how you hold a weapon while crafting. Now, if you had used shuriken as an example, it would have made more sense, but either point notwithstanding arrows have rules to be a meele weapon.

Yes it may be in specific circumstances, and i would even say that meele weapon properties would not function correctly if fired, like the impaling property or similar.
But we can still use morphing when using it as a meele weapon, to change it into another light meele or thrown weapon, such as a flask/vial.

My own alliteration would be instead a javelin, a meele or thrown weapon that can have odd properties attached due to it being both. But would all those properties function correctly during either usage of it?
Or in other cases that stupid sword bow(I think that was it) that acts as a club/staff for the shortbow/longbow, the properties they can have are a little ludicrous to add to fired arrows, but the weapons can still be enchanted with those properties, even if they don't necessarily function most the time.

And yes, you can enchant improvised weapons. I believe there was a wotc module that had a drunken brawler with an enchanted bottle or some such(maybe there was a bard with a lute too...). So there is precedent in modules having improvised weapons enchanted as well.

[Gruftzwerg]

Though I like your mycopial alliteration, I fail to see the relevance of it in this particular case.

Same with the how you hold a weapon while crafting. Now, if you had used shuriken as an example, it would have made more sense, but either point notwithstanding arrows have rules to be a meele weapon.

Yes it may be in specific circumstances, and i would even say that meele weapon properties would not function correctly if fired, like the impaling property or similar.
But we can still use morphing when using it as a meele weapon, to change it into another light meele or thrown weapon, such as a flask/vial.


Sorry, but no you can't.

1. you may use it as improvised weapon. And when you use it as improvised weapon it counts only for that purpose as light weapon.

2. It doesn't count as light weapon when enchanting, cause that is a different purpose as using it as improvised weapon. We have way more clear term to make this clear if the rules want to to be able to do so. Like in the chase of monk's unarmed strike.
As long as you can't direct me to a clear rule that allows you to "treat arrows as light weapons for the purpose of enchanting them" it won't work. You are missing the permission to do so. As said, just because we treat mushrooms as vegetables for selling, doesn't change any of their other properties.
If you want to enhance your improvised weapon, first find the rule that allows you to do so and point me where it is. I'll wait.

3. "Improvised weapon" is a specific exception for "items that are not weapons", but "can be misused as weapon to some degree". That doesn't turn em into full weapons. Nowhere in the improvised weapon rule are you allowed to treat em as masterwork weapon for the purpose of enchanting them. If you should find/know a rule which says otherwise, pls let me know and point me to it.

4. You can't enchant (e.g.) a table as improvised weapon, because it fails to be a masterwork weapon. The same goes for your viles.


Try to apply more logic and less wish thinking pls. You ignore my arguments and try to interpret things into words, that have clear 3.5 definitions where you may not do so. So far I disproved you every time just to get a slightly altered response with the same arguments that already have been disproved. I repeating the same rules since the beginning and I get the impression that you try to ignore em where you can. Try to gasp the rules that I point you to and your questions/assumtions will vanish.

edit:
5. As said morphing has 3 categories in what the weapon can switch to: light, one-handed, or two-handed. You are not allowed to add ranged weapons to that list or any other extra category. The rule never gave you permission to alter that list and hasn't any indicators that the list would be extendable. Arrows still only count as Improvised Weapon and thus don't count as light weapon for the purpose of either enchanting it with morphing, nor does it allow a light morphing weapon to change into an "improvised light weapon", cause these terms are not exchangeable.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Would you guys mind moving the extraneous conversation to another thread?

[Gruftzwerg]

Would you guys mind moving the extraneous conversation to another thread?

Sorry but you "asked" for it. When you ask for, how you can have "fun" with xyz, don't you mean what kind of cool tricks/cheese can you pull off? This will automatically lead to rule discussions if the mentioned option (morphing, splitting) is a legal option or not.
I tired to address this and had to explain it to someone who didn't even had a concept of what "specific beats general" means. This takes up some time. you know..
It's not my intention to derail the thread, but when you make this kind of topics, you have to expect and bare rule discussion that can go over several pages.
I mean, I have and I am still trying to provide more options to the topic, but that won't stop me from rule discussion if I feel it is necessary. (imho a common practice on the boards here).

____________________

btw, do we (3.5) have any liquids that buff you in some kind on contact? Since the Calculus doesn't do any dmg on its own, we could abuse it for potential buffs maybe?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Sorry but you "asked" for it. When you ask for, how you can have "fun" with xyz, don't you mean what kind of cool tricks/cheese can you pull off? This will automatically lead to rule discussions if the mentioned option (morphing, splitting) is a legal option or not.
I tired to address this and had to explain it to someone who didn't even had a concept of what "specific beats general" means. This takes up some time. you know..
It's not my intention to derail the thread, but when you make this kind of topics, you have to expect and bare rule discussion that can go over several pages.
I mean, I have and I am still trying to provide more options to the topic, but that won't stop me from rule discussion if I feel it is necessary. (imho a common practice on the boards here).And offshoot discussions should start their own threads after a half-dozen or so posts if they go far enough afield.


btw, do we (3.5) have any liquids that buff you in some kind on contact? Since the Calculus doesn't do any dmg on its own, we could abuse it for potential buffs maybe?Magical oils, yes; basically, they're potions that are affected via contact instead of ingestion -- see the potion/oil of (greater) magic weapon for an example.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm?pagewanted=all

[Darrin]

Flasks are thrown weapons. You can add weapon capsules (Complete Adventurer) to them. Swift action for... +3d6 damage, I think?

[Menzath]

@gurftzwerg
I made a new thread for this argument, here

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615636-3-5-improvised-weapons-and-enchntments&p=24607382#post24607382

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I suppose you could use the Loyalty's Reward feat (which is a DIY feat from Kingdoms of Kalamar) to give yourself the ability to fire power stones (from the XPH) or soul crystals (from MoI) as ammo, triggering them upon breaking. That would be kind of...insane.

I wonder if you could do something similar using preexisting RAW. Isn't there a quick potion spell or something?