PDA

View Full Version : +1 Arrows of Spell Storing



drevil
2008-12-07, 07:02 AM
1. I have a +1 Spell Storing Dagger with a Blindness stored inside it.
2. I throw the dagger and hit the enemy, will the enemy be affected by the Blindness spell?
3. If yes, can I use the same principle to make an awesome quiver of 50 +1 spell storing arrows?

Considerations:
- the spell storing ability is not mentioned on "the ranged weapon magic ability table"
- longbow, crossbow ++ are ranged weapons, but is an arrow a ranged weapon? (Legolas did penetrate an orc eye with his arrow)
- there are no restrictions on the spell storing ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#spellStoring)


Thanks!

Talic
2008-12-07, 07:41 AM
The ranged weapon table lists enhancements that may be applied to ranged weapons.

Spell storing is not on that list. Thus, whenever a weapon is used as a ranged weapon, it may not activate an ability not on that list.

The text for the ability does not contradict that.

Thus, a thrown dagger will not activate blindness, and a shot arrow will not benefit from spell storing.

Heliomance
2008-12-07, 07:44 AM
Unless you ask your DM nicely and he rules otherwise, of course.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 07:46 AM
Spell Storing

A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. An arrow flying through the air has no wielder, so there's no possible option to cast the spell.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-07, 08:31 AM
The ranged weapon table lists enhancements that may be applied to ranged weapons.

Spell storing is not on that list. Thus, whenever a weapon is used as a ranged weapon, it may not activate an ability not on that list.

The text for the ability does not contradict that.

Thus, a thrown dagger will not activate blindness, and a shot arrow will not benefit from spell storing.

The table only means that it cannot be found as random treasure, not that it is not possible to put that ability on that type of weapon. The table is only for generating random treasure, it has absolutely nothing to do with the use or activation of magic items, nor does it impose any limitation on what types of items can be created. The text of the ability does not say that it cannot be placed on ranged weapons or ammunition, therefore it is definitely possible to make this type of item.


An arrow flying through the air has no wielder, so there's no possible option to cast the spell.


wield
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
3. Archaic. to guide or direct.
4. Archaic. to govern; manage.
Just because it is not in your hand doesn't mean you're not wielding it. By definition, if you're the one making the attack roll then you're the one using or employing the weapon, therefore you're considered to be wielding it.

woodenbandman
2008-12-07, 08:44 AM
Plus there's no DnD rule specifically stating that you are not wielding a piece of ammunition that you fire, and plus, do you really need to worry about the implications that a 3rd level spell comes with when your world probably has reality manipulation on the level of a nuclear holocaust just walking around?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 09:23 AM
Just because it is not in your hand doesn't mean you're not wielding it. Yes, it does, unless you're using telekinesis or similar ability.
By definition, if you're the one making the attack roll then you're the one using or employing the weapon, therefore you're considered to be wielding it. No, that just means you did recently employ the weapon. You no longer exercise any control over the projectile when it leaves you.

Kizara
2008-12-07, 09:38 AM
The table only means that it cannot be found as random treasure, not that it is not possible to put that ability on that type of weapon. The table is only for generating random treasure, it has absolutely nothing to do with the use or activation of magic items, nor does it impose any limitation on what types of items can be created. The text of the ability does not say that it cannot be placed on ranged weapons or ammunition, therefore it is definitely possible to make this type of item.




Just because it is not in your hand doesn't mean you're not wielding it. By definition, if you're the one making the attack roll then you're the one using or employing the weapon, therefore you're considered to be wielding it.


Plus there's no DnD rule specifically stating that you are not wielding a piece of ammunition that you fire, and plus, do you really need to worry about the implications that a 3rd level spell comes with when your world probably has reality manipulation on the level of a nuclear holocaust just walking around?

Pretty good definition of "Muchkin Ruleslawyering" if I ever saw one. These aren't 'reasonable interpretations', they are "I want it to be this way because its more beneficial to me, and the book doesn't explicitly deny it."

If anyone pulled this kind of hair-splitting, rules-lawyering crap with me at my table I'd throw their request/argument out without further consideration. I'll let others pull apart your thin arguments and disprove them to you, I'm just decrying them as general rules lawyering nonsense.


Also, I hate it when people do this:
"and plus, do you really need to worry about the implications that a 3rd level spell comes with when your world probably has reality manipulation on the level of a nuclear holocaust just walking around?"

Just because the setting contains wizards and magic, it doesn't mean your illogical crap is perfectly acceptable; or that any rule you want bent to benefit you is fair game; or that your class/trope can have some really amazing ability that you HAVE TO HAVE even if it makes no real sense or bares any consistancy to the rest of the class.

I'm not talking to you directly so much as griefing against everyone who uses "but wizards cast spells!" as a license to try to excuse anything they think would be cool/benefit them/otherwise nonsensical.

Some English major needs to make this into a formal Fallacy with acedemia-speak; the "Wizard Fallacy".

Heliomance
2008-12-07, 09:42 AM
As I've already said, if you want spell-storing arrows, ask your DM nicely. If he seems reluctant, suggest that you spend time and gold researching how to make them.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-07, 11:40 AM
Wield: 2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively

Employ: 3. to make use of (an instrument, means, etc.); use; apply

When you fire an arrow, you are using it effectively, you are making use of that arrow actively. Until that arrow strikes its target, you are wielding it in every sense of the word. A person's ability to understand the rules in English is dependent on their ability to understand the English language.

Furthermore, the random magic item tables have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of magic items. Note DMG page 223, you have random magic item generation which refers to the tables, and then you have magic weapon special ability descriptions which only says that a weapon must have at least a +1 Enhancement bonus, not that one of the tables be capable of generating the desired item. To say otherwise is to impose a clearly unintended limitation on magic item creation. Arguing against Spell Storing on thrown weapons or ammunition is an arbitrary ruling that goes against both RAW and RAI.

Animefunkmaster
2008-12-07, 12:23 PM
For odd uses of the word wielder, take a look at screaming bolt.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 12:35 PM
I'm not talking to you directly so much as griefing against everyone who uses "but wizards cast spells!" as a license to try to excuse anything they think would be cool/benefit them/otherwise nonsensical.

Some English major needs to make this into a formal Fallacy with acedemia-speak; the "Wizard Fallacy".

I can understand why you dislike the argument, but in a lot of places it is a very valid point. The argument it makes is this:

1) Wizards are commonly known to have a level of power unmatched by other classes.
2) Balance is usually an important part of the game
3) As such, classes should be able to equal the wizard
4) Why not allow this to help the balance just a wee bit?

Granted, some people can use that argument inappropriately, but all in all it is something that should be considered. More specifically, the ability to have a weapon trigger a spell ability at a range hardly seems broken or unreasonable to me- no more broken than using Reach spell, at least, and that metamagic is used by a lot of people.

If you get more specific into the argument, you realize that the other implication is that non-wizard classes are hindered in a lot of ridiculous ways. What reason is there not to allow ranged weapons to have spell storing? If a wizard can disintegrate a wall by the rules, and a fighter can chop a wall into pieces with his sword by the rules, why is it that the fighter is often told 'no' when the rules support him as well? Why is it that a fighter has to jump through hoops and put tons of effort into making someone fall down when the wizard can just Grease them?
The rules are riddled with imbalance and nonsensical choices, and the argument of 'why can't we even things up a little' is quite fair game.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-12-07, 12:42 PM
But... spell storing is not on the list of Ranged Weapon / ammunition enhancements. It's as simple as that. I dealt with it and moved on. :smallwink:

Jayabalard
2008-12-07, 12:46 PM
I can understand why you dislike the argument, but in a lot of places it is a very valid point. The argument it makes is this:No, it's not valid point. At best it's a bunch of handwaving, phased in such a way so that it can distract people from the fact that there is no valid reasoning involved.

Zeful
2008-12-07, 12:46 PM
Wield: 2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively

Employ: 3. to make use of (an instrument, means, etc.); use; apply

When you fire an arrow, you are using it effectively, you are making use of that arrow actively. Until that arrow strikes its target, you are wielding it in every sense of the word. A person's ability to understand the rules in English is dependent on their ability to understand the English language.

Furthermore, the random magic item tables have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of magic items. Note DMG page 223, you have random magic item generation which refers to the tables, and then you have magic weapon special ability descriptions which only says that a weapon must have at least a +1 Enhancement bonus, not that one of the tables be capable of generating the desired item. To say otherwise is to impose a clearly unintended limitation on magic item creation. Arguing against Spell Storing on thrown weapons or ammunition is an arbitrary ruling that goes against both RAW and RAI.

D&D uses it's own definition of wield. So English definitions don't apply. When a weapon is in hand, you are wielding it. If you are not, then you are not wielding it. You never wield arrows shot from a bow, or bolts from a crossbow.

Spell storing on thrown weapons applies, because thrown weapons are wielded for the first attack you make with them (unless they have returning). You can make 50 spell storing Shriuken as they are thrown weapons, but cannot make 50 spell storing Arrows/bolts, because they are never wielded.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 12:49 PM
No, it's not valid point. At best it's a bunch of handwaving, done to distract people from the fact that there is no valid reasoning involved.

Ah, I see. So by that logic class balance via more options for non-casters is an invalid method. :smallannoyed:

Jayabalard
2008-12-07, 12:51 PM
Ah, I see. So by that logic class balance via more options for non-casters is an invalid method. :smallannoyed:Not at all.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 12:53 PM
Not at all.

Then how can you dismiss my entire argument as invalid?

My post was made to point out that "wizards can do such and such, why can't I do this" is (or at least can be) a condensed and shortened form of "this limitation is nonsensical, and we should probably remove it to give more balance and options to non-casters."

Jayabalard
2008-12-07, 01:00 PM
Then how can you dismiss my entire argument as invalid?Because it is invalid.


My post was made to point out that "wizards can do such and such, why can't I do this" is (or at least can be) a condensed and shortened form of "this limitation is nonsensical, and we should probably remove it to give more balance and options to non-casters."The two quoted statements are not logically equivalent; you're claiming that they are (that the former is, in fact, a condensed and shortened form of the other), which is part of what makes your argument invalid.

The former indicates that for each option a wizard has, non-wizards should have an identical option. The latter just says that non-wizards should have more options, not that they should necessarily have the same options.

UserClone
2008-12-07, 01:12 PM
Shuriken are enchanted as ammunition, so they can't be spell-storing either.

ericgrau
2008-12-07, 01:13 PM
Besides the various interpretations of "wielding" it seems odd to be able to activate a magic item you aren't even holding. Plus would you enchant a single projectile or 50? Cast the spell into 1 or 50? Even though there are 50 projectiles typically enchanted? Even though the description describes casting it into 1? Plus this would be horribly unfair to have 50 stored spells at the ready instead of 1 which must be replaced every time it is used. Etc. While the rules aren't 100% clear, spell storing projectiles just don't seem plausible.

If I were the DM I would allow players to research and craft spell arrows similar to sleep arrows. Each spell arrow would have to be individual researched, and priced similarly to sleep arrows and slaying arrows. Slaying arrows seemed to be priced at spell level x caster level x 25 gp, plus 7gp for the cost of the arrow. Sleep arrows cost 125gp + 7gp not 25gp + 7gp for some reason. Maybe it's because of the nonlethal damage, or b/c +1 arrows cost 47gp each or maybe for some other balance reason. Like all custom magic items, the DM would have to review each one to watch for abuse and then either ban or increase the price on potentially overpowered items.

For an arrow that could store any spell on the fly, I'd likely double the price and price according to the max spell level it can store, since that seems common in customizable magic items. Options for max spell level storable would only be 3, 6, or 9. Price of the first would be 757gp per arrow (or 37,850gp for 50). And I'd carefully review whether such an arrow would be overpowered compared to other magic items, or even if just the added versatility would be overpowered compared to the player's normal options, before allowing it in the game.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 01:15 PM
Plus there's no DnD rule specifically stating that you are not wielding a piece of ammunition that you fire

No rule specifically stating that you can't take actions while dead either.


What reason is there not to allow ranged weapons to have spell storing?

I don't think anyone's saying it would be a bad houserule, just saying that it's not raw.

NEO|Phyte
2008-12-07, 01:16 PM
No rule specifically stating that you can't take actions while dead either.

You mean aside from the one where you're unconscious if your nonlethal damage exceeds your hitpoints? 0 > -10

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 01:18 PM
You mean aside from the one where you're unconscious if your nonlethal damage exceeds your hitpoints? 0 > -10
You know what I mean.

Heliomance
2008-12-07, 01:18 PM
Actually, that one got debunked. If you're dead, your HP is less than your non lethal damage, so you ae unconcious. If you are unconcious, you are helpless. If you are helpless, you are treated as having a dex of 0. If your dex reaches 0, you are paralysed and cannot take any actions.

*may have got some of those in the wrong order.

Seffbasilisk
2008-12-07, 01:18 PM
It gets even worse, you're not trying to balance anything Vael. You're just stating 'Wizards are powerful. So, non-wizards shouldn't have the rules apply to them.'

True, a Wizard can disintegrate a 10x10 chunk of wall, but a fighter can chip it away via mundane means. Will it take longer? Yes. Will it be less precise? Likely so. Is that supported by the rules? Yes.


I too, grow frustrated with people deliberatly breaking the rules for 'balance.'

It's not listed as a property for ranged weapons, and while it doesn't exactly spell it out, I take that to mean that it doesn't apply when the melee weapon is thrown.

Is allowing Spellstoring as an enhancement to Ranged weapons especially game-breaking? Well, in certain situations it could be, but for the most part I'd advocate house ruling it in. Because that's what it would be. A house rule. One a DM would have to make, knowing his game and the people he's playing with.

The argument that making spell-storing ranged weapons would add balance to the game is ridiculous. A wizard or other spellcaster would be far more likely to get a bonus out of such a set-up, and at best, it just means inserting more of thier magics into the game, in a new way, which, eventually, would lead to more 'Wizards are broken, boo-hoo-hoo.'

MisterSaturnine
2008-12-07, 01:21 PM
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

I'm far from an expert, but I don't see how a ranged spell-storing weapon would be detrimental to the game balance, and thus, why it shouldn't be possible. Who cares if the rules say it doesn't work? The rules are there to help the player execute their idea, not hinder the player's imagination. In this case, I think, the Rule of Cool wins out over the actual rules.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 01:23 PM
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

I'm far from an expert, but I don't see how a ranged spell-storing weapon would be detrimental to the game balance, and thus, why it shouldn't be possible. Who cares if the rules say it doesn't work? The rules are there to help the player execute their idea, not hinder the player's imagination. In this case, I think, the Rule of Cool wins out over the actual rules.

Whether or not it *should* work is for a different discussion. What we are talking about here is if it *does* work according to the rules.

Just because I think something *doesn't* work according to the rule does not mean that I think it *shouldn't* work that way in game, and vice versa.

I would wager that many other people think the same.


Honestly, what do you want us to do when someone asks us "what do the rules say"? Answer his question or just tell him "it doesn't matter, change the rules as you see fit?"

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-07, 01:25 PM
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus. No where does it say that it has to be a melee weapon. In fact, the entry seems to indicate it's not either a melee or a ranged weapon ability, and it could be argued that either is not allowed. Compare that to, say,
This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon. A melee weapon crafted with this ability gains a range increment of 10 feet and can be thrown by a wielder proficient in its normal use.

Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, magic stone; Price +1 bonus. Yes, Spell Storing is only listed on the table for Melee weapons, but that table is only for randomly generating treasure, not a list of abilities.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 01:29 PM
The implications of the statement are what I am pointing at.
Within the context of a rules argument and a DnD 3.5 game, there are many implications and assumptions that have to be made. One of these is that class balance is a goal people aim for.
Another is that class balance, within the core rules, has not been achieved.

As such, before we even have the argument, we all know the statement: Wizards are powerful, other classes are not powerful, this is bad because the ideal is class balance.

In viewing the statement: "Wizards are powerful, why can't I do this" within the above light, many things change. Especially since the implication of the above statement is that you're not playing a wizard.

From that, the argument flows smoothly. Wizards are powerful. Other classes (this gets generalized- wizards are sort of the symbol of all overpowered classes) are not powerful. The ideal is that wizards and other classes are of equal power. I am not playing a wizard, and thus I am not powerful. Yet I should be as powerful as the wizard, and thus I want to be able to do this [insert house rule / rules change here].

So yes. I am arguing for class balance, and I do believe that the statements- within the appropriate context and with properly viewed implications- are equivalent.

MisterSaturnine
2008-12-07, 01:29 PM
Whether or not it *should* work is for a different discussion. What we are talking about here is if it *does* work according to the rules.

Just because I think something *doesn't* work according to the rule does not mean that I think it *shouldn't* work that way in game, and vice versa.

I would wager that many other people think the same.


Honestly, what do you want us to do when someone asks us "what do the rules say"? Answer his question or just tell him "it doesn't matter, change the rules as you see fit?"

Alright, I guess I misunderstood the argument somewhat.

Um...talk amongst yourselves...

...look, a magpie!

*throws a dagger with fog cloud stored in it* *disappears*

Paul H
2008-12-07, 01:30 PM
Hi

If you want to add something to a ranged weapon then use Flame Arrow. Adds D6 Fire damage to projectiles (D6+Edge+Extra Edge from Warmages).

Also Whirling Blade allows you to use a slashing weapon to attack everything in a 60' line. Since it is a melee wpn, you can store spells.

I play Warmages - typically cast Flame Arrow on the Scout's arrows, & Scorching Ray on the Bard's Spell Storing Longsword. (He uses Whirling Blade, as can I).

In answer to original post, the dagger can be used with Whirling Blade. (I'd allow it as a thrown weapon). Stick to Flaming Arrow & Wpn Crystals for arrows.

Cheers
Paul H
PS Slightly off topic - but a Spell Storing Gt Axe with CL 11 Scorching Ray does extra 36 D6 Fire dam on crit!

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 01:31 PM
Isn't the whirling blade spell the one that allows you to make the attacks as if you had swung in melee? that could work...

Paul H
2008-12-07, 01:36 PM
Hi

Yep - that's the one. Also the simplest answer.

I do love Warmages..........:smallbiggrin:

Cheers
Paul H

Keld Denar
2008-12-07, 01:55 PM
Isn't the whirling blade spell the one that allows you to make the attacks as if you had swung in melee? that could work...

Yes...Whirling Blade, probably one of the most fun spells ever...

Anyway, I'd actually disallow spell-storing arrows from a balance PoV because it actually HURTS fighters more than it helps. Unless the fighter has ready access to a caster to fill up all of his arrows on a regular basis, hes in trouble.

Now look at a standard gish type character who reaches CL18 and 17/20 BAB. Give him PB Shot and Rapid Shot, and a couple stacks of +1 Spell Storing Arrows. He loads them up with Combust on his own. Firing them under the effects of Haste (self cast) with Rapid Shot, he makes 6 attacks with 6 Combust arrows. He's just done 60d6 damage in a single round, not counting the base damage of the arrows, the Str draw or enhancements of the bow or arrows, or any other factors. He's essentially cast 6 spells in a round(without using his swift action!), something outside of the reach of even most optimized casters. Thats where the balance issues come in, IMO. It further accelerates the caster, without giving much to the fighter without a heavy dependance on the caster.

Avilon Rayne
2008-12-07, 01:56 PM
So, I just cracked open the Magic Item Compendium, which does list every possible ability for armor, shields, melee weapons, and ranged weapons. Spell Storing is, sadly, not on the ranged weapon list. Throwable melee weapons would probably be able to get this enchantment, but it's up the DM if the ability could be used when throwing it.

For those who won't be taking the time to open up the MIC (the list starts on page 241 btw), this list is not a random chart for determining random treasure. It is a listing of all possible enchantments for ranged weapons from the DMG and MIC. Do keep in mind that the MIC is a set of all enchantments not in the DMG (as well as a few from it that have been tweaked), so this list will only mention the DMG and MIC as sources, though many of the enchantments appeared elsewhere first.

EDIT: Heliomance, I have been looking for something disproving the "I can act while dead" claim forever it seems. Thanks! *flying-tackle-glomps*

Seffbasilisk
2008-12-07, 02:06 PM
The implications of the statement are what I am pointing at.
Within the context of a rules argument and a DnD 3.5 game, there are many implications and assumptions that have to be made. One of these is that class balance is a goal people aim for.
Another is that class balance, within the core rules, has not been achieved.

As such, before we even have the argument, we all know the statement: Wizards are powerful, other classes are not powerful, this is bad because the ideal is class balance.

In viewing the statement: "Wizards are powerful, why can't I do this" within the above light, many things change. Especially since the implication of the above statement is that you're not playing a wizard.

From that, the argument flows smoothly. Wizards are powerful. Other classes (this gets generalized- wizards are sort of the symbol of all overpowered classes) are not powerful. The ideal is that wizards and other classes are of equal power. I am not playing a wizard, and thus I am not powerful. Yet I should be as powerful as the wizard, and thus I want to be able to do this [insert house rule / rules change here].

So yes. I am arguing for class balance, and I do believe that the statements- within the appropriate context and with properly viewed implications- are equivalent.

He wasn't asking for for game balance. He was asking, if it worked. And who says we're striving for class balance? Hell, I don't want to live in a world where a guy with a hunk of metal can match the might of a master of the Arcane. I personally prefer melee classes and mundane builds, and I don't need the rules tweaked...especially when someone just wants an answer to a question, rather than a debate on class balance.


Short Answer: No. When you use your dagger as a Ranged weapon, the properties that only trigger for Melee weapons, don't work.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 02:17 PM
He wasn't asking for for game balance. He was asking, if it worked. And who says we're striving for class balance? Hell, I don't want to live in a world where a guy with a hunk of metal can match the might of a master of the Arcane. I personally prefer melee classes and mundane builds, and I don't need the rules tweaked...especially when someone just wants an answer to a question, rather than a debate on class balance.


Short Answer: No. When you use your dagger as a Ranged weapon, the properties that only trigger for Melee weapons, don't work.

It's a common goal, though obviously not all people share it (I meant to put a 'many' in there, but I seem to have forgotten to).
Also, I was arguing a side point which was brought up by someone else, which in retrospect has little bearing on the first/main subject, so my apologies for leading the main topic off track.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 02:34 PM
The ideal is that wizards and other classes are of equal power. I am not playing a wizard, and thus I am not powerful. Yet I should be as powerful as the wizard, and thus I want to be able to do this [insert house rule / rules change here]. Adding spell storing to arrows will not help this at all. A non-Wizard might be able to shoot 6 arrows in a round; adding spell storing will let them be that much more powerful, if they can find someone to add the spells to the arrows in the first place. A Wizard can use Telekinesis to shoot a whole big pile of arrows in one round, and needn't look elsewhere for spells if spell storing is an option.

No, adding spell storing to projectiles is not going to narrow the gap between Wizards and other classes. It would widen it quite a bit.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 02:57 PM
Adding spell storing to arrows will not help this at all. A non-Wizard might be able to shoot 6 arrows in a round; adding spell storing will let them be that much more powerful, if they can find someone to add the spells to the arrows in the first place. A Wizard can use Telekinesis to shoot a whole big pile of arrows in one round, and needn't look elsewhere for spells if spell storing is an option.

No, adding spell storing to projectiles is not going to narrow the gap between Wizards and other classes. It would widen it quite a bit.

If a wizard wants to spend their time and money making spell storing arrows, casting targeted spells in them, and then using them up in mass by slinging about 15 of them at a time at a target... sure. Fine.
If you want to take it to that level though, they can already use the same sort of method via Explosive Runes (write up a ton of explosive runes on small scraps of paper, wrap them up into a ball, toss them down next to someone, and then cast Dispel Magic and choose to fail/lower your caster level/whatever. Boom. Take about a hundred d6 force damage.) Not like there is much difference between killing someone with 15 targeted spells and 15 or so Explosive Runes. I mean sure, maybe you're a bit more versatile, and maybe Shivering Touch would be slightly more efficient, but in the end the strategy doesn't differ so much.

Skjaldbakka
2008-12-07, 03:07 PM
I have seen this argument before. By RAW, you gain no benefit from putting spellstoring on ammunition or thrown weapons.

That being said, I have always allowed it, and it has never caused any kind of balance problem. The PC that used it was a gish gunslinger, which is very likey worst case scenario for spell storing ammo.

Paul H
2008-12-07, 03:21 PM
Hi

Plenty ways to add extra damage to arrows without adding spells. Eldritch Theurges can add area effect spells to eldritch blasts - though it takes a full round action to cast. So you can still blast someone & add a Fireball to soften his support.

Besides, a Scout with Str 18 & a Holy Mighty Comp Bow, Flaming Arrow spell & a Wpn Crystal can do massive damage. Been there, etc. (Except it wasn't a mighty bow).

Cheers
Paul H

Person_Man
2008-12-07, 03:24 PM
Smiting Spell feat from PHBII let's you charge a weapon or piece of ammo with a spell. You can do it as often as you want, though you can hold only one spell at a time, and you need to discharge it within one minute.

Also, your familiar can hold the charge of a spell for you. So you can throw your familiar at your enemy. Though more commonly, it will use its own action to move into your enemy's square and attack, and then you'll use your action to cast a second spell.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 03:54 PM
Explosive Runes (write up a ton of explosive runes on small scraps of paper, wrap them up into a ball, toss them down next to someone

Any creature using an improvised weapon in a fight is considered to be nonproficient with it and thus takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with it.
An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments.
An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier.
Rune scraps are improvised weapons, and you don't automatically get to "toss them down next to someone". It's true that an unoccupied 5' square only has AC 5 (from DEX of 0), but you've still got to hit it with your -4 nonproficiency penalty and -1/10' range penalties.

, and then cast Dispel Magic and choose to failThere is no "choose to fail" in D&D, except for saving throws. Dispel Magic has no such option.
/lower your caster levelYou cannot lower your caster level below the minimum necessary.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
/whatever. The biggest variable in Dispel Magic is the d20 roll:
You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell While there are some luck feats that let you re-roll 1s on attacks or saves, there are no feats that let you choose low d20 values. So unless you have cast all your Explosive Runes at CL 15 or higher this isn't guaranteed to work. By the time the caster reaches CL 15+ they've got more certain ways of doing damage.

Also note that it takes a standard action to make the thrown attack with your ball of Explosive Runes, and another standard action to cast Dispel Magic. Most times you won't have anybody around this improvised bomb by the time you can detonate it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-07, 04:02 PM
Rune scraps are improvised weapons, and you don't automatically get to "toss them down next to someone". It's true that an unoccupied 5' square only has AC 5 (from DEX of 0), but you've still got to hit it with your -4 nonproficiency penalty and -1/10' range penalties.
There is no "choose to fail" in D&D, except for saving throws. Dispel Magic has no such option.You cannot lower your caster level below the minimum necessary. The biggest variable in Dispel Magic is the d20 roll: While there are some luck feats that let you re-roll 1s on attacks or saves, there are no feats that let you choose low d20 values. So unless you have cast all your Explosive Runes at CL 15 or higher this isn't guaranteed to work. By the time the caster reaches CL 15+ they've got more certain ways of doing damage.

Also note that it takes a standard action to make the thrown attack with your ball of Explosive Runes, and another standard action to cast Dispel Magic. Most times you won't have anybody around this improvised bomb by the time you can detonate it.Book of Explosive Runes(bind the pages together). If you make the Runes when buffed by, say, a Bead of Karma and an Iwin stone, you'll win 70% of the time. Figuring a Barbarian BBEG, with 30 Con while Raging and level 20, you'll need 32 detonations to kill him, on average, meaning you need 45 Explosive Runes. Not that hard to make, especially once Metamagic is taken into account.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 04:08 PM
And instead of tossing it, you could just levitate or fly, then drop it as a free action. Or get your familiar to fly it over and drop it.

Besides, AC of 5 isn't so hard to hit. Furthermore, you can target a larger area than that due to the radius of explosive runes.

*shrug*

It is doable, though granted it is easiest at a higher level when your caster level allows you to effectively autofail on the dispel check.

Immutep
2008-12-07, 04:24 PM
Wield: 2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively

Employ: 3. to make use of (an instrument, means, etc.); use; apply

When you fire an arrow, you are using it effectively, you are making use of that arrow actively. Until that arrow strikes its target, you are wielding it in every sense of the word. A person's ability to understand the rules in English is dependent on their ability to understand the English language.

Furthermore, the random magic item tables have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of magic items. Note DMG page 223, you have random magic item generation which refers to the tables, and then you have magic weapon special ability descriptions which only says that a weapon must have at least a +1 Enhancement bonus, not that one of the tables be capable of generating the desired item. To say otherwise is to impose a clearly unintended limitation on magic item creation. Arguing against Spell Storing on thrown weapons or ammunition is an arbitrary ruling that goes against both RAW and RAI.

Ok i admit that i skipped ahead and this might have already been answered further down the thread but i couldn't let it slip and so went straight to reply.

The person who wrote this has fisrt lawyered the rules to his own needs and then the english language. BUT the fact that the arrow has been loosed from the bow means that unless you are using telekenesis or similar ability you are no longer in control of the said arrow. A number of outside factors all of a sudden have more control over the outcmoe of the arrow hitting or missing than your aim (such as the wind, your target moving out of they way, an object blocking its path ect.) so to claim to be in control of the arrow at that point is ludicrous and if you are not in control of something you cannot attest to be "wielding" it You would be wielding the bow not the arrow.

P.s. the key issue the OP seemed to be asking was wether he was able to create a spell storing device to use that device as a delivery system for a ranged touch attack. so the key question is does the spell storing ability say this is the case . . . . . Yes you can. but remember that magical ammunition has a chance of being destroyed upon impact and so this could prove expensive for you.

P.s. having read the rest of the posts i concur with the sensus that, while you "could" create these in theory, it would ultimately need the support of the DM as their is no price given for doing so.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 05:12 PM
And instead of tossing it, you could just levitate or fly, then drop it as a free action. Or get your familiar to fly it over and drop it. Dropping doesn't change anything except that you can't target a square any more. The DM is perfectly within the rules to say that the wind took it 5 squares away from where you wanted it to go, or that one flap of paper made it a glider and it went even further astray.

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 05:21 PM
Drop an Item

Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.

So I think it should work just fine, really. If you want to avoid wind effects, tie it to a brick, drop it into an adjacent square (one right below you, as in five feet), and watch it fall straight down. If you have a DM who wants to rule you really have to aim particularly if it drops, just send in your familiar, have it fly 5ft above where you want it, have it drop it in that square, then fly off. Move action, free action, move action.

You can keep nit-picking all day, but this method will still work.

metagaia
2008-12-07, 05:35 PM
I have no problem with the dagger of spell storing beyind the wielding debate.

However, when it comes to the arrows, I believe they cannot be used as spell storing for the simple reason that the ammunition would be destroyed before you had a chance to activate the spell.

There is no action or time listed for the destruction of ammunition, so it has to be assumed it's no action (the D20 equivalent of split second) which trumps the free action required to activate the spell (does anyone know if any FAQs have upgraded it to swift?). A broken item loses it's magic, so no spell is availible once it strikes the target and breaks.

Immutep
2008-12-07, 06:03 PM
I have no problem with the dagger of spell storing beyind the wielding debate.

However, when it comes to the arrows, I believe they cannot be used as spell storing for the simple reason that the ammunition would be destroyed before you had a chance to activate the spell.

There is no action or time listed for the destruction of ammunition, so it has to be assumed it's no action (the D20 equivalent of split second) which trumps the free action required to activate the spell (does anyone know if any FAQs have upgraded it to swift?). A broken item loses it's magic, so no spell is availible once it strikes the target and breaks.

It does actually state that it "immediately" casts the spell upon the weapon causing damage (in this case obviously the ammunition causing damage) so you would still obviously need to hit and to cause damage for the spell to be able to be released which makes sense. If the ammunition stuck in the targets suit of armour or missed completely or wouldn't even break the skin the the spell shouldn't affect them either but the ammunition casts the spell stored in it instantaneously against a viable target for the spell.

metagaia
2008-12-07, 06:14 PM
It does actually state that it "immediately" casts the spell upon the weapon causing damage (in this case obviously the ammunition causing damage) so you would still obviously need to hit and to cause damage for the spell to be able to be released which makes sense. If the ammunition stuck in the targets suit of armour or missed completely or wouldn't even break the skin the the spell shouldn't affect them either but the ammunition casts the spell stored in it instantaneously against a viable target for the spell.

It 'immediately' casts the spell on the victim once the wielder has decided he wants it to go off (a free action). Free actions are definitely not 'immediate' but neglible, an important differnce.

The common sense way to think about it is this, it is what would have to happen:
"Ok, lining up my spell storing arrow of silence, and...firing!"
<arrow strikes>
"Did it hit? It hit, it hit!"
"Now do I want to activate the spell? Hmmmmm....I guess I might as well."
<silence spell activates>
<arrow snaps/breaks>

Seem a little improbable?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 06:17 PM
So I think it should work just fine, really. If you want to avoid wind effects, tie it to a brick, drop it into an adjacent square (one right below you, as in five feet), and watch it fall straight down. That's fine. You'll be in 5' reach of the character in the adjacent square, so they'll get an AoO against you when you attempt to leave, and then be able to move away on their turn. Or you could immediately cast Dispel Magic and take just as much damage as they do from your Explosive Runes. Seems fair either way.

Heliomance
2008-12-07, 06:47 PM
That's not what he was saying. He said that you tie it to a brick, fly overhead, drop it in the square immediately below you, and it then falls the rest of the way down.

You really live up to your user name, you know. Is there anything you don't argue the point over?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 06:59 PM
That's not what he was saying. He said that you tie it to a brick, fly overhead, drop it in the square immediately below you, and it then falls the rest of the way down. It won't fall to any particular square below automatically; D&D requires a ranged attack roll for that. So the DM is free to say that it had noticeable lateral velocity when dropped, and will fall somewhere arbitrary. There is no "free targeting" when you drop something. After all, if using an attack action to make a ranged attack isn't automatic, then a free action with no attack roll should have an even lower chance of the object landing where you want it to.

Heliomance
2008-12-07, 07:07 PM
Actually, you can't miss. You aim at the 5 foot square that has AC 5. If you miss, the scatter rules state that it lands in one of the 8 adjacent squares. That's absolutely fine; the explosion is 10 ft radius. It is actually impossible by the rules to miss a 15 foot square.

allonym
2008-12-07, 07:13 PM
Edit: Need to read more 3.5 and less 4th.

I fail at rules.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 07:15 PM
You aim at the 5 foot square that has AC 5. If you miss, the scatter rules state that it lands in one of the 8 adjacent squares. That's absolutely fine; the explosion is 10 ft radius. Again, that's fine. You use an attack action to make the ranged attack, and the opponent has a chance to move before you can cast Dispel Magic. With half of your miss options they'll only need to move 5' to be outside the 10' blast radius.

- - - -


Vael stated 'choose to fail' and 'choose to lower CL', it should be obvious to everyone that what she meant was 'automatically succeed'. ... But automatically succeed she nevertheless does.I'm confused. You need to fail on your Dispel Magic check to make the runes explode:
attempting to dispel or erase the runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion. Automatically succeeding will reliably turn those spell bombs into blank parchment.

:confused:

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 07:20 PM
Dispel Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) - o hai

While yes, looking at it absolutely pedantically, Vael stated 'choose to fail' and 'choose to lower CL', it should be obvious to everyone that what she meant was 'automatically succeed'. Automatically succeeding on dispelling your own spells is taken for granted by pretty much everyone I have seen to be discussing it, especially in reference to the explosive runes bomb trick, so it's entirely excusable that Vael forgot the exact reason why she automatically succeeds. But automatically succeed she nevertheless does.
Um... but you don't want to succeed on the explosive runes trick. Quote:

attempting to dispel or erase the runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion.
Which is obviously the goal you're going for.

Of course, the most expedient way to get all of this done would be to use a quickened Launch Item to send whatever form the explosive runes bomb takes to its place, then shoot an area dispel at it. It would unfortunately be a little more costly in spell slots (4th + 3rd level), but hey, whatever works
If you were a sorcerer an Arcane Fusion could do the trick nicely as well, replacing Quicken.

allonym
2008-12-07, 07:26 PM
Ah, right. Now I'm the one who fails.

*slinks away*

For the record, nice avatar.

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 07:27 PM
I'm confused. You need to fail on your Dispel Magic check to make the runes explode: Automatically succeeding will reliably turn those spell bombs into blank parchment.

:confused:

As someone who has thoroughly abused this trick in char op, the trick is to get your familiar to use dispel magic from a minimal caster level wand.

Zeful
2008-12-07, 07:33 PM
It's still 1d20+5 though, which means that the ER needs to be CL26 to prevent failure, which is very hard at anything other than 20th level (Wizard 15/Archmage5 (all spell power) and a +1 CL Ioun Stone).

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 07:34 PM
The DC is 10+ caster level.
>.>

Zeful
2008-12-07, 07:45 PM
Um, it's 11+CL which means you need a CL of 15 to get a 26 to make the minimum CL Dispel magic fail on a 20 (for 25)

AmberVael
2008-12-07, 08:21 PM
My bad, one off. But CL 15 is a lot easier than CL 26. =P

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 08:30 PM
Um, it's 11+CL which means you need a CL of 15 to get a 26 to make the minimum CL Dispel magic fail on a 20 (for 25)

So make a lot of them. :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 11:17 PM
So make a lot of them. :smalltongue: The problem there is if you fail on only one or two, you'll get small damage -- but it will certainly be enough to shred the other scraps of parchment. Lots of spellcasting down the drain.

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 11:26 PM
The problem there is if you fail on only one or two, you'll get small damage -- but it will certainly be enough to shred the other scraps of parchment. Lots of spellcasting down the drain.

By math alone, at level 5, you still will fail half the time on average. Later levels, you can fail it guaranteed. You don't roll area dispels in sequence, it detonates them all at once.

Seffbasilisk
2008-12-08, 12:01 AM
You can voluntarily fail the caster level check.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 12:09 AM
I'll not concede the Spell Storing Arrows point, for two reasons:

1. If WotC had intended for you to only be able to activate a Spell Storing weapon that you were holding, they would have replaced "wielder" with a more appropriate term. The weapon itself is what casts the stored spell, triggered by the wielder's desire for it to do so which technically has no range limitation, the person who fired the arrow is the one who wielded it for that attack and is the one who chooses for it to activate regardless of range. Arguing that the arrow's automatic break occurs before it can release the spell makes just as much sense as arguing that it would break before it gets to deal damage;

2. The Core DMG overrides the MIC by primary source, the text overrides the table by primary source. Just because a quick reference card doesn't take non-random treasure into account does not mean that it adds an unintended limitation into the text of the ability. The same goes for Keen Arrows or Defending Arrows, both of which are possible according to the text but neither of which are listed as a possibility on the random treasure tables or on the MIC's quick reference list.

And I always try to cast the benefit of the doubt in favor of the players/PCs when a ruling is in question.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-08, 12:15 AM
WotC had intended for you to only be able to activate a Spell Storing weapon that you were holding, they would have replaced "wielder" with a more appropriate term.

This isn't the first time that WotC has completely and utterly failed to provide properly written documentation.

Talic
2008-12-08, 12:46 AM
The table only means that it cannot be found as random treasure, not that it is not possible to put that ability on that type of weapon. The table is only for generating random treasure, it has absolutely nothing to do with the use or activation of magic items, nor does it impose any limitation on what types of items can be created. The text of the ability does not say that it cannot be placed on ranged weapons or ammunition, therefore it is definitely possible to make this type of item.


In your opinion, that's what the table means. It's a pretty non-intuitive argument, and your entire argument hinges on it. If you're so open for interpretation on "wielder", let's interpret "Ranged Weapon Special Abilities". I'd say that means... Special abilities... that go on ranged weapons. Spell storing is not on that list.

Now, let's interpret "Melee weapon special abilities". Well, that sounds like it means... Special abilities... that go on melee weapons.

Now, some enhancements are on both, leading one to believe that some are designed to be used on either. Some enhancements only exist on one table, leading one to believe that those enhancements are for either melee OR ranged...

Not that the DM is prohibited from giving them out in a treasure pile, but they're otherwise fine for players to semantic in. :smallamused:


The table states: "Ranged Weapon Special Abilities".

It does not state: "Ranged weapon Special abilities for random generation purposes only".

Thus, in the absence of any text that states that those tables are designed solely and expressly for the generation of random treasure, and certainly not to be used, in any way, shape, or form, as a handy reference table for enhancements... once could say reasonably, by omitting spell storing as an option on the ranged weapon enhancements table, that it was not intended for a spell to be placed in an arrow without levels in Arcane Archer.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 12:53 AM
In your opinion, that's what the table means.

HOWEVER. The table states: "Ranged Weapon Special Abilities".

It does not state: "Ranged weapon Special abilities for random generation purposes only".

Thus, in the absence of any text that states that those tables are designed solely and expressly for the generation of random treasure, and certainly not to be used, in any way, shape, or form, as a handy reference table for enhancements... once could say reasonably, by omitting spell storing as an option on the ranged weapon enhancements table, that it was not intended for a spell to be placed in an arrow without levels in Arcane Archer.

By that reasoning, you could say the same thing for the Keen weapon property, which clearly should be possible for piercing or slashing ammunition or ranged weapons. Regardless, the table does not say or even imply that a weapon-ability combination not listed on the table is impossible. Just because it is not explicitly listed as a possibility does not imply that it is an impossibility. The text of the ability is the primary source, the core book is always the primary source over a supplement, and whenever there is a melee or ranged weapon limitation on a special ability it is explicitly listed in the text description.

Talic
2008-12-08, 01:03 AM
Biff... Hold up for a second.

We have one view. This view is consistant with all tables, text, and requires no special arguments or interpretations to make it legal.

We have another. This second method requires a loose interpretation of "wielder"...

"Mighty Ragnar drew back this Thundering bow, and let loose, wielding his mystical arrow against the foul troll"...
Wait... that makes pretty much no sense... ?

AND requires a handwave away of the fact that the ability is not even an option for creation by generation rules for items. It's not possible.

And if it's not possible to ever find it in the world. Absolutely impossible...

What makes you think it's possible to make?

Really. I mean really... Are you actually buying the pitch you're selling?

Cause nobody else is.

Yes, text is primary source. But, so long as secondary text does not contradict it, it is still valid. In this instance, it is possible to interpret both statements, both sources, so that there is no contradiction.

Or you can jump through hoops to create a contradiction... So you can ignore an omission.

Talic
2008-12-08, 01:09 AM
Let's analyze "wield". Of the definitions you gave, "guide or direct" is the only applicable.

So let's put this to the test.

You launch an arrow, its aim is true. Your opponent then dodges leftward, out of the path.

Quick, the arrow's in flight still! Just turn it a bit to the left and your shot will land true!

Wait... you can't?

Oh, right. Because the moment the arrow leaves the bow, all control you had to guide or direct is GONE. The moment it leaves that bow, you are no longer guiding it. You're watching it, yeah. But not guiding. Not directing. Once that arrow leaves the bow, you are powerless to change its course.

You no longer guide it. You no longer direct it.

You no longer wield it.

Kizara
2008-12-08, 01:11 AM
By that reasoning, you could say the same thing for the Keen weapon property, which clearly should be possible for piercing or slashing ammunition or ranged weapons. Regardless, the table does not say or even imply that a weapon-ability combination not listed on the table is impossible. Just because it is not explicitly listed as a possibility does not imply that it is an impossibility. The text of the ability is the primary source, the core book is always the primary source over a supplement, and whenever there is a melee or ranged weapon limitation on a special ability it is explicitly listed in the text description.

Lol, what makes you think that keen should "clearly be possible" on ranged weapons?

I think its fairly obvious that such is not intended. Wishful thinking aside, your arguments don't contain much logic.


As to the question of "would you allow spell storing on ranged weapons as a houserule?", my answer is: Yes, as an enchantment 2 higher. If this opens up too much abuse, I would reconsider.

Also, the Arcane Archer PrC really needs a re-write, as it has a few interesting ideas, but taken as a whole is a terrible class.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 01:22 AM
Lol, what makes you think that keen should "clearly be possible" on ranged weapons?

I think its fairly obvious that such is not intended. Wishful thinking aside, your arguments don't contain much logic.

Keen

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

Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +1 bonus.
Nothing at all in that description even implies that it can't be put on ranged weapons or ammunition;

Keen Edge
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One weapon or fifty projectiles, all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)

This spell makes a weapon magically keen, improving its ability to deal telling blows. This transmutation doubles the threat range of the weapon. A threat range of 20 becomes 19-20, a threat range of 19-20 becomes 17-20, and a threat range of 18-20 becomes 15-20. The spell can be cast only on piercing or slashing weapons. If cast on arrows or crossbow bolts, the keen edge on a particular projectile ends after one use, whether or not the missile strikes its intended target. (Treat shuriken as arrows, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.)

Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.
You're right, this clearly defies logic. There's absolutely no way that you could conclude that Keen projectiles are even a possibility in this edition of the game.

Talic
2008-12-08, 01:28 AM
Nothing at all in that description even implies that it can't be put on ranged weapons or ammunition;

You're right, this clearly defies logic. There's absolutely no way that you could conclude that Keen projectiles are even a possibility in this edition of the game.

By that logic, a Belt of Giant Strength should only provide +4 enhancement bonus to strength...

Because, you know, all item enchantments are utterly beholden to follow the exact text of the spell they're based on. [/silliness]

Bottom line, the spells listed are the ones you must know to create the item. Yes, it explicitly says that in the SRD and DMG.

Beyond that, they don't mean diddly. They don't alter the way it works. They don't define how it works. The are there to create it. AND THAT'S IT.

Who you trying to convince here? I'm done arguing. You're not gonna change your mind. You're not even open to the concept without text in the SRD stating words to the effect of "you're wrong, Biff. how do I know you? Your PC? It interfaced with my Linux processor last week. All night long. So yeah, I know you specifically. And you're wrong."

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 01:32 AM
"Mighty Ragnar drew back this Thundering bow, and let loose, wielding his mystical arrow against the foul troll"...
"Mighty Ragnar drew back this Thundering bow, and let loose, actively making use of[1] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5431090&postcount=10) his mystical arrow against the foul troll"...
Yes, it does make sense, though your way is more cinematic than in layman's terms.


AND requires a handwave away of the fact that the ability is not even an option for creation by generation rules for items. It's not possible.

And if it's not possible to ever find it in the world. Absolutely impossible...

What makes you think it's possible to make?
It is not possible to generate a random treasure cache containing the item. You are trying to impose this limitation onto the item creation rules, which is clearly against the intent. Take the following:

Spell Storing

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

Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.
Replacing wielder with an expanded definition of the word, is there anything at all that you can find in that special ability description that even implies that it cannot be placed on a projectile weapon's ammunition, without your predisposed reference to its absence in the random treasure tables?

Kizara
2008-12-08, 01:37 AM
Nothing at all in that description even implies that it can't be put on ranged weapons or ammunition;

You're right, this clearly defies logic. There's absolutely no way that you could conclude that Keen projectiles are even a possibility in this edition of the game.

You know, you have way more of a point there then in your original argument.

If you actually used that as supporting evidance you would've gotten a lot further.

Mind you, what you are trying to say: "Keen can be used on ranged weapons" is not the same as your evidence, which says: "Keen can be used on ammunition."


But even with some pretty decent evidence, 3e is an exclusive system. What I mean by that is, if it doesn't say "you can do X", then you can't actually do X. Extrapolation and intrepretation come into play at times, as does common sense, but generally the rules not saying that you can't isn't good enough, they have to say that you can.

Another example:

Ziggity the Monk wants to use a Spiked Chain, because its based on a asian weapon and he has all kinds of backstory reasons and OoG logic about why his character trope (monk) should have the Spiked Chain as a monk weapon. He even pulls out the "but wizards can cast spells, so therefore I must be right and allowed to do this" tromp card. There is also nowhere it says outright "spiked chains cannot be monk weapons", and they are even finessable! Surely this is the same thing.

Now, what he ISNT doing is making a reasonable case to his DM to make him an exception/houserule. He is just trying to ruleslawyer his way into having the weapon on his proficiency list as a special monk weapon using half-truths, extrapolation, real-world evidence (that is not generally applicable) and wishful thinking.


To summerize:

1) If the rules don't say you can, you can't. They don't have to explicitly exclude the action.

2) If you want a houserule, make a case for it. Don't pretend your right because you think it would be better if things were interpreted the way you can concock.

Talic
2008-12-08, 01:42 AM
"Mighty Ragnar drew back this Thundering bow, and let loose, actively making use of[1] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5431090&postcount=10) his mystical arrow against the foul troll"...
Yes, it does make sense, though your way is more cinematic than in layman's terms.By this logic:
You're wielding your keyboard.
I wielded my car to work.
My grandmother wields an oven with great skill when making Thanksgiving dinner.
I wielded the toilet while waiting for your response.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 01:50 AM
To summerize:

1) If the rules don't say you can, you can't. They don't have to explicitly exclude the action.

2) If you want a houserule, make a case for it. Don't pretend your right because you think it would be better if things were interpreted the way you can concock.

"This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen."
By your reasoning, nothing can have any weapon property unless it specifically says that it can only be applied to ranged or melee weapons. The fact of the matter is, any manufactured weapon that is at least +1 can have any weapon special ability, the exception being that certain special properties specifically cannot be placed on certain types of weapons.

My point is this: The random treasure table has nothing to do with whether or not a given type of weapon can have a given special property. The text of a special property is the only thing that limits what types of weapons can have that property, both as-written and as-intended. A +1 Arrow can have any special property that does not specifically say that it can only be applied to melee or non-piercing weapons. How those special properties interact with ammunition is another matter, but as-written it is inarguably possible to put abilities such as Spell Storing, Keen, and Defending on arrows.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 01:52 AM
By this logic:
You're wielding your keyboard.
I wielded my car to work.
My grandmother wields an oven with great skill when making Thanksgiving dinner.
I wielded the toilet while waiting for your response.

That is both grammatically correct and hilarious.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 01:55 AM
You know, you have way more of a point there then in your original argument.

If you actually used that as supporting evidance you would've gotten a lot further.

Mind you, what you are trying to say: "Keen can be used on ranged weapons" is not the same as your evidence, which says: "Keen can be used on ammunition."


But even with some pretty decent evidence, 3e is an exclusive system. What I mean by that is, if it doesn't say "you can do X", then you can't actually do X. Extrapolation and intrepretation come into play at times, as does common sense, but generally the rules not saying that you can't isn't good enough, they have to say that you can.

Another example:

Ziggity the Monk wants to use a Spiked Chain, because its based on a asian weapon and he has all kinds of backstory reasons and OoG logic about why his character trope (monk) should have the Spiked Chain as a monk weapon. He even pulls out the "but wizards can cast spells, so therefore I must be right and allowed to do this" tromp card. There is also nowhere it says outright "spiked chains cannot be monk weapons", and they are even finessable! Surely this is the same thing.

Now, what he ISNT doing is making a reasonable case to his DM to make him an exception/houserule. He is just trying to ruleslawyer his way into having the weapon on his proficiency list as a special monk weapon using half-truths, extrapolation, real-world evidence (that is not generally applicable) and wishful thinking.


To summerize:

1) If the rules don't say you can, you can't. They don't have to explicitly exclude the action.

2) If you want a houserule, make a case for it. Don't pretend your right because you think it would be better if things were interpreted the way you can concock.Under your definition, Keen can't be applied to any weapon type. Read it.
This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat). After all, where does it say it can be applied to a melee weapon?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-08, 01:57 AM
You can voluntarily fail the caster level check. Huh? That makes no sense.
Caster Level Checks

To make a caster level check, roll 1d20 and add your caster level (in the relevant class).
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level. The minimum CL for Dispel Magic is 5. There's nothing to "voluntarily fail". Roll a d20; add 5. That's it. You can't go lower than that.

Talic
2008-12-08, 01:58 AM
My point is this: The random treasure table has nothing to do with whether or not a given type of weapon can have a given special property. The text of a special property is the only thing that limits what types of weapons can have that property, both as-written and as-intended. A +1 Arrow can have any special property that does not specifically say that it can only be applied to melee or non-piercing weapons. How those special properties interact with ammunition is another matter, but as-written it is inarguably possible to put abilities such as Spell Storing, Keen, and Defending on arrows.

So, let's go with this, since it's clearly not the intent of the game to have any relation between what exists out there and what can be made...

If it's so clear, answer me this.

Assuming your DM generates treasure... Is it ever possible, under any roll of those tables, to generate a result of "Longbow Arrows (50) +1, Spell Storing"?

How about "Javelin +1, spell storing"?

Is it?

And you think the fact that it is absolutely impossible to find said item in the world to be completely irrelevant, and have no relation to what can be made?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 02:02 AM
So, let's go with this, since it's clearly not the intent of the game to have any relation between what exists out there and what can be made...

If it's so clear, answer me this.

Assuming your DM generates treasure... Is it ever possible, under any roll of those tables, to generate a result of "Longbow Arrows (50) +1, Spell Storing"?

How about "Javelin +1, spell storing"?

Is it?

And you think the fact that it is absolutely impossible to find said item in the world to be completely irrelevant, and have no relation to what can be made?So, do item creation feats not exist for you?

Talic
2008-12-08, 02:02 AM
That is both grammatically correct and hilarious.

Proper use of grammar has no relevance on the correctness or proper application of a statement.

"The sky is plaid." - gramatically correct.

"Thirty foot tall marmalade monsters are sitting in my tiny microwave, and are making jokes about Rush Limbaugh." - gramatically correct.

One is wrong. One is nonsensical. Both are gramatically correct. Grammatical correctness has no bearing on how much sense a statement makes.


So, do item creation feats not exist for you?

What on earth could possibly be contained in the statement that you responded to that would give you any impression that I am unaware of an explicitly listed part of the SRD?

Incidentally, there is no "not exist for me". They exist. Whether I acknowledge them or not, that can be debated, but their existence? Yup, right there in the SRD. Case closed.


Wield

1. have and exercise something: to have and be able to use something, especially power or authority
the immense economic power wielded by large companies


2. use weapon or tool: to hold and use a weapon or tool
If you have and are able to use an arrow, you haven't fired it.
If you use a ranged weapon, you are no longer holding it.

Incidentally, even by your definition, the moment an arrow leaves a bow, you are no longer making use of it. You have made use of it. But you are no longer exercising any control or ability to direct it. Your input into that arrow is done. You used it. And if you used it, you may have wielded it.

But at the moment the arrow hits? You are no longer wielding it. It was wielded, maybe, but you are exerting no control over the arrow at the moment of hit. When it hits (which is when the Spell storing would trigger) you are not making use of it. It was used, controlled, directed. But when you need to be a wielder? You're not using it, controlling it, or directing it. Big difference between past and present tense.

Kizara
2008-12-08, 02:27 AM
Ignoring inconvient evidence because it proves you wrong doesn't make your case true; just saying.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 02:32 AM
**** it. I'll PM the beholder with a link and a specific request for his opinion. He's almost always right.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 02:34 AM
A Potion of Guidance isn't on the random list, but it could certainly exist. It's not possible to randomly roll a +1 Dragonhide Breastplate, but it could exist.

Just because you won't find it among randomly generated treasure doesn't mean you won't find it in intentionally placed treasure, it doesn't mean you won't find an NPC who can be paid to craft it for you, it doesn't mean a PC with the proper feats and other prerequisites can't make it. Not finding it randomly and it not existing are two completely different things.


Ignoring inconvient evidence because it proves you wrong doesn't make your case true; just saying.

Isn't that exactly what you did? Then I pointed out that any property can be added to any weapon of at least +1, barring a limitation in a given property's description that prevents it from being applied to a specific type of weapon.

Heliomance
2008-12-08, 02:38 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Seriously, whether or not spell-storing can be put on arrows depends completely and entirely on what your DM says. If he says yes, then brilliant, go for it. If he says no, then sorry, you can't. You're not going to reach a conclusion arguing on the internet, and the rules are vague enough that it could go either way. Both sides have some very valid points, but the fact remains that Rule 0 is the only way to adjudicate it one way or the other.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 02:38 AM
Isn't that exactly what you did? Then I pointed out that any property can be added to any weapon of at least +1, barring a limitation in a given property's description that prevents it from being applied to a specific type of weapon.I actually thought he'd changed sides when I read that post.

BTW Talic, even accepting your definition for Wielded it wouldn't make Spell Storing ammo useless. Rather, it would change the activator from the person who fired to the target, meaning Healing Arrows are still possible.

Talic
2008-12-08, 02:44 AM
Biff, the rules for making potions explicitly allow other spells to be made, or other caster levels to be used.

So even though a specific level 0 spell isn't in the potion list, the rules explicitly outline the requirements for a spell to be made into a potion. It must have a target, and that target must be a creature (oils target objects).

It's very clear in that regard. There's no confusion, no contradicting evidence...

Well, there's no contradicting evidence with this one either, so long as you say "no" to spell storing. Saying yes is when you have contradicting evidence.

And even IF you're right, you still don't address the fact that you have no control or influence of a projectile at the time it impacts the target. You're done.

Thus, even if you wielded it when you shot it, you're not wielding it when it hits. You have no control over it, thus you cannot be using it.

Talic
2008-12-08, 02:46 AM
I actually thought he'd changed sides when I read that post.

BTW Talic, even accepting your definition for Wielded it wouldn't make Spell Storing ammo useless. Rather, it would change the activator from the person who fired to the target, meaning Healing Arrows are still possible.

You'd think, but ammunition that hits a target is destroyed. Odd, there's another argument against.

At the moment you'd choose to enact the ability... The arrow no longer exists.

And that's the primary source for arrows. "An arrow that hits its target is destroyed..."

The timing of the activation of spell storing is:
when the weapon hits, then you may take a free action and have the WEAPON cast...

When you'd have the weapon do that... it's already been destroyed. The weapon cannot do anything. It's no longer in existance.

metagaia
2008-12-08, 06:14 AM
Arguing that the arrow's automatic break occurs before it can release the spell makes just as much sense as arguing that it would break before it gets to deal damage; Could you be more specific? Damage does not require a free action to activate, but spell-storing does? The dealing of damage is given no action, therefore one has to assume it's immediate, the same is not said of spell-storing, it even says it's a free action, what more do you need?

And I always try to cast the benefit of the doubt in favor of the players/PCs when a ruling is in question. So your NPCs cannot use arrows of spell-storing? There is no such thing as a ruling 'in favour' of the PCs when it occurs to items, since the NPCs can use it as well. If you want spell arrows, take some levels in arcane archer.

Talic
2008-12-08, 06:58 AM
Exactly. Damage dealt is an automatic function of hitting.

Spell storing is a choice, made consciously, and activated after the hit is made.

In other words, built into every ranged attack is:

Roll to hit.
Roll concealment/other miss chances.
Roll damage, apply resistances/DR/etc. Weapon has now hit. Make the choice as to whether to activate effects that are activated on hit.
Such effects activate.

Now...
The weapon cannot use spell storing before you choose to activate it.
You choose to activate it when you hit.
When an arrow hits, it is destroyed.
You choose to activate it when it is destroyed. (If A=B and B=C then A=C)
By timing, an arrow, if spell storing were allowed to be enchanted on it, would not be able to activate before it was destroyed.
A destroyed weapon cannot cast a spell.

Thus, an arrow with spell storing, by RAW, cannot activate it through ranged shot.

Now, if you used it as an improvised melee weapon, it has a 50% chance to not break, and then you could activate it.

Why is this different from damage? Why, because the rules for attack resolution (primary source for this) specifically outline damage as a part of hitting. They do not outline triggered optional effects.

When you get to gloat if you percieve that RAW is for you, even when not common sense... Then you get to suck it up when it's against you. Even if you feel it "doesn't make sense".

Makes sense to me though.

Fragile arrow flies at target... Impacts, tearing into the armor and flesh, snapping in the process. You try to trigger your item, but alas, it's too late. It's already splintered into dozens of pieces.

Compare to flaming, where the arrow burns on the way in, searing and tearing flesh when it hits, and shattering in the process.

In other words, delicate triggered enchantments probably shouldn't be put on items that are designed to break.

Zen Master
2008-12-08, 07:10 AM
- there are no restrictions on the spell storing ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#spellStoring)


Thanks!

However, you must cast the spell from the item.

Not throw the item away, then expect the item to cast the spell itself.

Coidzor
2008-12-08, 07:15 AM
So, ammunition/arrow rules prevent mechanics of spell-storing to work after shooting barring house-rulings to make it so. What about spell-storing for purpose of rechargeable, one-shot "wands" that double as disadvantageous melee weapons of last resort? (are melee'd arrows destroyed with a successful attack?)

Talic
2008-12-08, 07:25 AM
Arrows used in melee count as improvised weapons (-4 to hit), deal damage as a dagger of their size (1d4 for medium creatures), and have a 50% chance of being destroyed on a successful hit. In that case, you'd have a 50/50 shot.

Dagger would be more reliable, if more expensive.

jcsw
2008-12-08, 08:46 AM
When an arrow hits, it is destroyed.
You choose to activate it when it is destroyed.

BUT.

The effect triggers when the arrow hits the target.
The decision to activate it, is by RAW, a free action.
Activating it, is by RAW, a free action.
Free Actions, by RAW, take zero time.


Free actions don’t take any time at all

Thus since all the intermediate actions take zero time to occur, it occurs at the same time as the trigger event, aka "Arrow hitting the target".

Therefore, the item is destroyed at the same time as the spell is cast, not after.

Canine
2008-12-08, 08:59 AM
2. The Core DMG overrides the MIC by primary source, the text overrides the table by primary source. Just because a quick reference card doesn't take non-random treasure into account does not mean that it adds an unintended limitation into the text of the ability. The same goes for Keen Arrows or Defending Arrows, both of which are possible according to the text but neither of which are listed as a possibility on the random treasure tables or on the MIC's quick reference list.

I don't have the MIC with me right now, so I can't comment on the text overriding the table, but in general wouldn't the MIC override the DMG by virtue of being the latest printing of this information?

metagaia
2008-12-08, 09:50 AM
BUT.
Free Actions, by RAW, take zero time.

While that may be read as written in one part, it's directly contradiction of

Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. which implies it *does* take time and it also contradicts this:

Not an Action

Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else.

If free actions take no time, how can you have an action that takes even less time? (I would include an arrow breaking in this catagory).

Look at it this way, if you rule that the spell does go off (which I have shown is wrong but just to show why you would have to houserule it carefully) you could use something like 'quickeded telekinesis' to retrive your arrow of death after it causes damage but before it snaps, which is just ludicrous.

drevil
2008-12-08, 10:28 AM
Thanks for all the response!

To wield or not to wield. That is the question.

Could this work?
+1 spell storing returning daggers thrown at the enemy?

Do I wield a returning dagger?
Can I activate the blindness spell stored in the dagger?

I don't want to brag, but I find my questions rather interesting.

metagaia
2008-12-08, 10:33 AM
Thanks for all the response!

To wield or not to wield. That is the question.

Could this work?
+1 spell storing returning daggers thrown at the enemy?

Do I wield a returning dagger?
Can I activate the blindness spell stored in the dagger?

I don't want to brag, but I find my questions rather interesting.

Personally I have no problem with that, and I would consider you to be the wielder of a returning dagger since you still have control over it.

You're not bragging, it's produced a good debate :smallsmile:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-12-08, 10:58 AM
You're not bragging, it's produced a good debate :smallsmile:


That really depends on your criteria when evaluating the debate. :smallamused:

Regardless, this is not a new argument. It has been repeated a few times on this board.

The argument could have ceased after the first three responses. In those you have all you need.

First response clarified the rules as supported by the MIC.

The second suggested allowing it as a house rule.

The third made it clear that even without the clarification by the MIC any definition allowing you to wield something flying through the air only applies to more abstract concepts of wielding.

Immutep
2008-12-08, 02:44 PM
While that may be read as written in one part, it's directly contradiction of
[B] which implies it *does* take time and it also contradicts this:
[B]

If free actions take no time, how can you have an action that takes even less time? (I would include an arrow breaking in this catagory).


An arrow would NOT break instantly. not untill it has impacted against something sufficiently hard with sufficient force would the arrow break otherwise by your argument no magic projectile will ever benefit from the magic bonuses as it would break BEFORE such abilities could be added, since it apperently broke on impact? Although a more likely theosis is that the arrow would break before successful retrieval not before it had chance to do what it was designed for otherwise surely it simply would have counted as a miss.
Furthermore, it states in the specific rules for spell storing and i quote

"Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can imediately cast the spell as a free action if the wielder desires"

Which is where the problem for saying that the rules instantly support the spell storing "ammunition" Because the arrow is a projectile not the "weapon" this is the problem not wether or not the arrow would have chance to cast the spell. The only issue here is that you WILL need your DM's approval to be able to do this and "count" arrows as "weapons" for the pruposes of this ability.

That as far as i can see it is the argument both for and against. If you want to make them then you'll need your DM's consent. Just as if you were creating any other magical item that would not be possible to create from the weapon creation tables. If it's any consolation, they'd be allowed if i was your DM but beware that they don't come cheap for disposables.

Immutep
2008-12-08, 02:57 PM
Could you be more specific? Damage does not require a free action to activate, but spell-storing does? The dealing of damage is given no action, therefore one has to assume it's immediate, the same is not said of spell-storing, it even says it's a free action, what more do you need?
So your NPCs cannot use arrows of spell-storing? There is no such thing as a ruling 'in favour' of the PCs when it occurs to items, since the NPCs can use it as well. If you want spell arrows, take some levels in arcane archer.

The decision to cast the spell or not is a free action the ability to cast the spell is "IMMEDIATE" this is the last time i'm going to put this as you don't seem to be getting the message. It is a free action for the user of the arrow to let the arrow cast the spell in order not to impede on his ability to fire multiple arrows or to move in the same round. Also lets discuss arcane archer since you brought it up. Turn to page 177 of the Dungeon Masters Guide (second to top right paragrapgh).

Arrow of Death (sp): At 10th level, an arcane archer can create an arrow of death that forces the target, if damaged b y the arrows attack, to make a DC 20 Fortitude save or be slain immediately.

Ect. ect.

By your very definition, since the arrow has already caused damage it is no longer in tact to force the fortitude save, so surely . . . you're wrong aren't you?

Zeful
2008-12-08, 03:20 PM
I don't have the MIC with me right now, so I can't comment on the text overriding the table, but in general wouldn't the MIC override the DMG by virtue of being the latest printing of this information?

No. New printings of material only count if said material is a primary source of that information. Anything in Complete Psionics, for example, does not override the XPH as the XPH is the primary source of the Psionic ruelset. The MIC overrides the DMG only in the department of magic items because it is the Primary Source of Magic items.

That is the Primary Source rule.

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:28 PM
Even if its a Fix of relavent spells? Several in XPH were overpowered and reprinted in Complete Psionics. It also clarified certain forms of damage- from powers that create sprays of shards.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 03:36 PM
Even if its a Fix of relavent spells? Several in XPH were overpowered and reprinted in Complete Psionics. It also clarified certain forms of damage- from powers that create sprays of shards.

That's where the primary source rule breaks down. According to the RAW, no, none of the fixes in CompPsi are valid, because of the Primary Source rule. But then it becomes obvious that that was the intent behind the printing of the changes.

It would have been better to label the fixes as Ettera and place an index in the back listing the Primary Source changes. Then publish them on the Website under XPH Ettera.

Immutep
2008-12-08, 03:37 PM
Even if its a Fix of relavent spells? Several in XPH were overpowered and reprinted in Complete Psionics. It also clarified certain forms of damage- from powers that create sprays of shards.

At the end of the day, wether or not you use the rules originally printed or the most recently printed is up to the DM (otherwise we'd all be playing 4th Edition by now) :smallwink: So long as everyone is aware which rules are being used them it shouldn't matter.

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:39 PM
I've always been a bit sceptical of "primary source rule" anyway for some things, when it comes to, say, devils, or mind flayers- the sourcebooks expand on them- so just because what they say isn't mentioned in MM, doesn't mean its not valid.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 03:45 PM
I've always been a bit sceptical of "primary source rule" anyway for some things, when it comes to, say, devils, or mind flayers- the sourcebooks expand on them- so just because what they say isn't mentioned in MM, doesn't mean its not valid.

Libris Mortis and the like right? Those are the primary scource compared to the DMG or MM. Libris Mortis for undead, Fiendish Codex for Devils, Demons and other fiends.

The primary source rule isn't "The DMG, MM, and PHb are LAW!", it's "The Book most focused on subject x is the primary source for x". XPH for psionics; ToM for binding, shadow magic, and truenaming; MIC for magic items; and so on.

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:49 PM
And, perhaps, Fiendish Codex 2 on Lawful alignment?

Champions of Ruin, while a Faerun book, has pretty generic info on Evil- more nuanced than earlier books.

Signmaker
2008-12-08, 04:10 PM
I have a question to ask Biff.

Suppose your theory is right, that one can 'wield' an uncontrollable flying object.

You fire at a monk. (gasp!)

Said monk has snatch arrows, and promptly chucks it back at you.

Who wields it now, hm?

A. The Monk, who then spell stores you back, via convenient insta-knowledge effect of spell storing projectile.

B. You, but you can't discharge it (unless, of course, you're a masochist).

Personally, I'd love to be Green Arrow and do all this crazy stuff. Spell Compendium would be my plaything. But, unfortunately, I can't, and most of my DMs know me better. :smallwink:

Zeful
2008-12-08, 04:11 PM
Something like that, yes. The way the rule is written creates a hierarchy of Material. In-setting material comes first. Then you have the body of highly detailed setting-void material (Lords of Madness, Libris Mortis, etc.), Ruleset Source (PHb, XPH, ToB, etc.), Ruleset expansions (ComPsi, CA, CD, CW, etc.), then Out-setting material. If your playing FR, Ebberon material is counted last.

Of course there are some sticking points, Complete Mage or Complete Arcane. Which is primary? I wouldn't be able to say.

Talic
2008-12-08, 04:44 PM
BUT.

The effect triggers when the arrow hits the target.
The decision to activate it, is by RAW, a free action.
Activating it, is by RAW, a free action.
Free Actions, by RAW, take zero time.
WRONG.

SRD, Free actions:
Free Action

Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.
Very small does not equal 0. Premise 4 is contradicted by RAW. And since you make the decision (as a free action) WHEN the item is destroyed, and that free action takes a small amount of time, THEN the item cannot activate until AFTER the item is destroyed... At which time, it cannot activate.

To reiterate...

You think 0.
Truth is "very small".
Truth wins.


Thus since all the intermediate actions take zero time to occur, it occurs at the same time as the trigger event, aka "Arrow hitting the target".Immediate action is a reserved term. This is not one. This is a free action. Even if it were, immediate actions on your turn have the same timing as swift actions. Swift actions have the same timing as Free actions. Free actions take a small amount of time. Thus, so do swift and immediate.

Therefore, the item is destroyed at the same time as the spell is cast, not after.Flawed conclusion based on a flawed premise.

Talic
2008-12-08, 04:48 PM
No. New printings of material only count if said material is a primary source of that information. Anything in Complete Psionics, for example, does not override the XPH as the XPH is the primary source of the Psionic ruelset. The MIC overrides the DMG only in the department of magic items because it is the Primary Source of Magic items.

That is the Primary Source rule.

There is an exception to this. Reprinted rules and abilities follow Most Recent Printing.

I.E. If a book reprints an entry for Ogre mages, even though it's in the SRD, and the MM, the most recently printed text holds sway.

"Primary source" is for incidental contradictions.

Jack_Simth
2008-12-08, 06:39 PM
There is an exception to this. Reprinted rules and abilities follow Most Recent Printing.

I.E. If a book reprints an entry for Ogre mages, even though it's in the SRD, and the MM, the most recently printed text holds sway.

"Primary source" is for incidental contradictions.

I've heard this before; but I haven't seen this particular section published; I don't suppose you happen to have a page reference on it, do you?

Talic
2008-12-08, 07:46 PM
The decision to cast the spell or not is a free action the ability to cast the spell is "IMMEDIATE" this is the last time i'm going to put this as you don't seem to be getting the message. It is a free action for the user of the arrow to let the arrow cast the spell in order not to impede on his ability to fire multiple arrows or to move in the same round. Also lets discuss arcane archer since you brought it up. Turn to page 177 of the Dungeon Masters Guide (second to top right paragrapgh).

Arrow of Death (sp): At 10th level, an arcane archer can create an arrow of death that forces the target, if damaged b y the arrows attack, to make a DC 20 Fortitude save or be slain immediately.

Ect. ect.

By your very definition, since the arrow has already caused damage it is no longer in tact to force the fortitude save, so surely . . . you're wrong aren't you?
Specific text of the ability trumps general guidelines. Though if you want to interpret that as literally as some are, the ability can only trigger if the arrow makes an attack. Hope you have Animate Objects handy. (Hint: This is a poorly worded ability.)

As clarified by the MIC (which does not contradict SRD, so no primary source issues), Spell storing cannot go on a ranged weapon.

Period. (http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/persistence.jpg)

That said, specific explicit text of a specific item's function takes precedence for that specific item. For example.

Arrows follow the rules for an arrow.
Slaying Arrows follow the specific rules for slaying arrow first, THEN the rules for arrows.

This is the concept of "primary source".

Arcane Archer Death arrows follow the Arcane archer ability first. Second, they follow the standard arrow rules (unless the arcane archer ability applies).

Why doesn't this work for spell storing? Spell storing can't take precedence for arrows because it doesn't explicitly list itself as an ability that applies to arrows. If it did, then it would list as a modification to arrow rules. But it only refers to weapons in the abstract, which means that specific weapon entries can contradict or modify its general function.

Now, we've got about 15-20 people saying no here. Including the most respected rules gurus on the board.

And we have you. Saying yes.

psychomech
2008-12-08, 07:48 PM
If the bow has spell storing instead of the arrows, would that work? Enchanted bows imbue their ammunition with their enchantment, creating a magical link between the bow and the arrow. The bow is being wielded, not the arrow, if the arrow is destroyed at the moment of damage the bow is still whole and magically linked with the point of damage (Bow imbues arrow with enchantment, arrow inflicts target with effect of enchantment). Also this would be more balanced, one stored spell instead of 50. What do you think?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-08, 09:05 PM
If the bow has spell storing instead of the arrows, would that work? Enchanted bows imbue their ammunition with their enchantment Only some weapon properties have lines like this in their description:
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the chaotic power upon their ammunition. Ghost Touch is an example of a property that does not transfer from bow to arrow. Spell Storing is obviously another.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-08, 10:55 PM
Signmakerens: A is the correct answer, the Monk attacked with it last and is its current wielder for that attack.

The MIC "clarification" is anything but that, considering first of all that it only repeats what could be created randomly and omits other valid choices such as Keen Arrows. They probably didn't include such things on the random tables so that inexperienced DMs wouldn't be forced to figure out how it would work if, for example, they rolled a Keen Bow (since bows have no damage type, but the arrows do). Second of all, it is still a question of primary source vs secondary source, in which primary source takes precedent. An omission from an already incomplete list is not a ruling.

The arrow itself releases the stored spell automatically, as long as you desire for it to do so. You don't activate it, not even a free action is taking place, the arrow automatically releases the spell just like it automatically deals damage. Arguing that you don't have time to tell it to release before the arrow breaks is exactly like trying to argue that you don't have time to tell it to deal damage before it breaks. Releasing the spell is an automatic result of a successful attack, just like the damage it deals, and just like the arrow breaking.

Talic
2008-12-09, 12:22 AM
Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.


not even a free action is taking place

Methinks the rules disagree. So, um, yeah. A free action is taking place, or well, it would, if it wasn't for this:

Weapon hits and deals damage.
Rule effect: weapon destroys.; Free action: weapon casts... oh wait, it can't. Because it's destroyed before the action is finished.

Think of it this way.

Caster starts casting a spell. It provokes an attack.
Before the caster is done with his action, he gets hit, and takes 40 damage.
He has 22 hp.
So now, halfway through the action, the caster is destroyed.

Now conversely:
Item hits and deals damage.
You choose to have it do the free action and it begins. At the same time, it's destroyed.
Free actions can be interrupted (for example, a high enough tumble check can allow you to stand up as a free action. It still provokes AoO's though, allowing an interruption).
Since the free action takes a small amount of time...
and the destruction does not take any time, as far as RAW is concerned...

Then the arrow is destroyed before it can complete casting.

By the rules, what happens when a spell that is being cast cannot be completed?

a. It fizzles. Fails. Doesn't work.

EDIT: Oh, and Biff. Keen Arrows are not a valid choice for an enchantment. You may cast the base spell on arrows, yes. But the enhancement makes no such specific distinction for arrows (even though the spell does).

By RAW, if every valid 3.x rules source "omits" your 'valid' choice...

Perhaps the choice isn't valid after all, hmm?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-09, 05:43 AM
In addition to enhancement bonuses, weapons can have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

Keen

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

Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +1 bonus.

This appendix contains all the magic items from Magic Item
Compendium and the Dungeon Master's Guide arranged by body
slot and price.
These tables serve as shopping lists—a way to find magic items
that fall within your budget. The tables are in the same general
order as the body of this book, but clothing is separated by body
slot. Item set pieces are integrated into the tables that correspond
to their body slots.
An arrow is a piercing weapon. Anyone who meets the prerequisites can make a stack of +1 Keen Arrows, regardless of whether or not it is a randomly occurring item. The list in MIC is specifically designated as a shopping list, not an all-inclusive ruling on what legal combinations of items and special properties are possible.

Likewise, anyone who meets the prerequisites can make a stack of +1 Spell Storing Arrows. An incomplete shopping list does not override the primary source core rules, and if WotC had never intended for these types of items to be possible it would have been included in the errata.

Magic Ammunition and Breakage

When a magic arrow, crossbow bolt, shuriken, or sling bullet misses its target, there is a 50% chance it breaks or otherwise is rendered useless. A magic arrow, bolt, bullet, or shuriken that hits is destroyed.
It does not say when or even how it is destroyed. You assume that it spontaneously disintegrates on impact. I say it probably gets lodged in the victim and is destroyed in the same sense that a disjoined artifact is destroyed: becoming nonmagical, and is thereafter unusable since its energies have been spent. Spent in the sense that once its special properties have been used they no longer function, just as any other single-use item, therefore it would only be destroyed after it has had the opportunity to deliver the stored spell.

Talic
2008-12-09, 06:05 AM
An arrow is a piercing weapon. Anyone who meets the prerequisites can make a stack of +1 Keen Arrows, regardless of whether or not it is a randomly occurring item. The list in MIC is specifically designated as a shopping list, not an all-inclusive ruling on what legal combinations of items and special properties are possible.
Shopping list = List of items available for purchase.
Not on the list? Not available for purchase.


Likewise, anyone who meets the prerequisites can make a stack of +1 Spell Storing Arrows. An incomplete shopping list does not override the primary source core rules, and if WotC had never intended for these types of items to be possible it would have been included in the errata.Yes, they can. And if they ever use them in melee, they've got a 50% chance of getting that ability off.

It does not say when or even how it is destroyed. You assume that it spontaneously disintegrates on impact. I say it probably gets lodged in the victim and is destroyed in the same sense that a disjoined artifact is destroyed: becoming nonmagical, and is thereafter unusable since its energies have been spent. Spent in the sense that once its special properties have been used they no longer function, just as any other single-use item, therefore it would only be destroyed after it has had the opportunity to deliver the stored spell.Now you're semanticing destroyed? Since you were so keen on the definition of wield, let's look up destroyed, shall we?

To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.
To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.
Improper definitions referring to non-objects stricken through. So... Ruined completely. Rendered useless. As in, this object has no use any more. None. Releasing a spell would certainly qualify as a use.
Further, WHEN? You're arguing that when is unclear? lol. The arrow isn't destroyed 17 years after hitting the target, while sitting at home with its arrow wife and its arrow kids. For when? Let's look at sentence tense.

"An arrow that hits its target and deals damage IS destroyed."

Present tense. Not, destroyed after dealing damage. Not "will be destroyed". IS.

"A driver that runs a red light is breaking the law."

When are they breaking it? After they get through the intersection and are done crossing? Or the moment they satisfy the condition by entering the intersection?

The moment the condition is satisfied, the item is destroyed. Since you are so keen on wielding toilets and grammatical correctness, let's go with dictionary definitions on this one, and proper use of grammar to interpret the meanings of sentences, shall we?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-09, 06:26 AM
Not available for purchase =/= impossible to make. Certain things for one reason or another are not available on the open market, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

Again, by your interpretation an arrow would break before it has a chance to deal damage. Furthermore, by your interpretation the Exit Wound property (CW p134) and the Penetrating Shot feat (PH2 p81) do not function as written. I say it is destroyed when it "hits" as in at the completed resolution of a successful attack, after every effect included in that attack has been completed, rather than immediately upon touching the surface of whatever opponent it was meant to harm.

BardicDuelist
2008-12-09, 06:28 AM
But... spell storing is not on the list of Ranged Weapon / ammunition enhancements. It's as simple as that. I dealt with it and moved on. :smallwink:

But that list is not necessarily all inclusive. Generally, if it does not specify in text that it cannot be placed on a ranged weapon or ammunition, it can.

Talic
2008-12-09, 07:15 AM
Not available for purchase =/= impossible to make. Certain things for one reason or another are not available on the open market, but that does not mean that they do not exist.Items not on the open market that exist have a reserved term in D&D. They're called Artifacts.


Again, by your interpretation an arrow would break before it has a chance to deal damage.Wrong. "An arrow that hits its target and deals damage is destroyed." I don't appreciate being misquoted. If you're going to dispute my views... Dispute MY views. Not ones you invent.

Furthermore, by your interpretation the Exit Wound property (CW p134) and the Penetrating Shot feat (PH2 p81) do not function as written. I say it is destroyed when it "hits" as in at the completed resolution of a successful attack, after every effect included in that attack has been completed, rather than immediately upon touching the surface of whatever opponent it was meant to harm.Incorrect. Primary source for an ability is with the ability.

Thus, an ability that explicitly mentions how it functions with respect to arrows will take precedence over the general arrow rule. It is what is known as an "exception". It is also an application of Primary Source.

(Exit wounds shows that the arrow does not immediately destroy when it hits the initial target, but powers through to other targets. This contradicts the general rule for arrows. When it comes to firing an Exit wound bow, the Exit wound entry is primary source for what happens, even over the arrow section, because the entry explicitly references ammunition. Conflict resolved. Move on. Incidentally, there is a potential possibility for a spell storing arrow fired from an exit wound weapon to work, as the timing is no longer in conflict, and your case concerning the possibility of the legality of enchanting an arrow in such a fashion can come into play.)

You keep obscuring the facts, changing the subject, and each time you are proven wrong, you act like that point never existed. First you say there's no free action. I prove you wrong... no concession. You grasp at timing. You directly contradict the RAW, and I call you on it, you just drop the issue. You try a fanciful interpretation of destroyed, and when I call you to task on your own reliance on a previous dictionary definition to argue your point, suddenly you're quiet on that front. You're grasping at straws, and every argument I batter down just leaves your nest of straws looking more and more flimsy. How long until your eggs start falling out, Biff?

The very grammar and dictionary that served your cause before smites it down now. All you can use is, "by your logic, this ability X over here that specifically states that it works with ammunition doesn't work right"? That's what you're giving me?

Do me a favor. Get on topic, and get me a good argument to refute. I have fun debating, but only when my opponents aren't throwing more smoke than a Joker Monk with an Eversmoking Bottle.

jcsw
2008-12-09, 07:50 AM
WRONG.

Very small does not equal 0. Premise 4 is contradicted by RAW. And since you make the decision (as a free action) WHEN the item is destroyed, and that free action takes a small amount of time, THEN the item cannot activate until AFTER the item is destroyed... At which time, it cannot activate.
Okay, my bad, I didn't realise the SRD contradicts itself on page 144 with

FREE ACTIONS
Free actions don’t take any time at all, though your DM may limit
the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions
rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are
described below.
There is no way to determine which trumps the other.
(Other than the dubious argument "Latest Printed trumps earlier")



Immediate action is a reserved term.

I said "Intermediate" not "Immediate". I mean all actions involved in this are free.

Talic
2008-12-09, 08:19 AM
Okay, my bad, I didn't realise the SRD contradicts itself on page 144 with

There is no way to determine which trumps the other.
(Other than the dubious argument "Latest Printed trumps earlier")
As the SRD does not have a page 144, I don't think the SRD contradicts itself. Perhaps you mean the PHB?

In that case, the SRD is the most recent printing. It holds precedence.

jcsw
2008-12-09, 08:20 AM
As the SRD does not have a page 144, I don't think the SRD contradicts itself. Perhaps you mean the PHB?

In that case, the SRD is the most recent printing. It holds precedence.

If you mean the d20srd site, it's on there too.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-12-09, 08:35 AM
You keep obscuring the facts, changing the subject, and each time you are proven wrong, you act like that point never existed. First you say there's no free action. I prove you wrong... no concession. You grasp at timing. You directly contradict the RAW, and I call you on it, you just drop the issue. You try a fanciful interpretation of destroyed, and when I call you to task on your own reliance on a previous dictionary definition to argue your point, suddenly you're quiet on that front. You're grasping at straws, and every argument I batter down just leaves your nest of straws looking more and more flimsy. How long until your eggs start falling out, Biff?

The very grammar and dictionary that served your cause before smites it down now. All you can use is, "by your logic, this ability X over here that specifically states that it works with ammunition doesn't work right"? That's what you're giving me?

Do me a favor. Get on topic, and get me a good argument to refute. I have fun debating, but only when my opponents aren't throwing more smoke than a Joker Monk with an Eversmoking Bottle.

I actually see this going exactly opposite of that. You based your arguments on a table that has absolutely nothing to do with which abilities could possibly be on what types of items, completely ignoring the written rulings, and when that argument is shot down you just proclaim it louder in an attempt to lend it some validity, as it has absolutely none of its own. The same goes for the table in the MIC, it was not meant as a clarification or a complete list and it specifically says it is just a convenient shopping list of prices and sources, but you still insist that the table is more valid than the clear text.

If I say something from memory and it happens to be incorrect (the free action issue), I drop it. My stance on the difference between "misses... it breaks or otherwise is rendered useless" and "that hits is destroyed" is still there, I've just been emphasizing different aspects of it.

You insist that as soon as the criteria of hitting is fulfilled, the arrow is completely destroyed, but then you lend it some leeway by saying that the arrow would have a chance to penetrate far enough to deal damage before that happens. I say that 'destroyed' is a game mechanic that when applied to magic items renders them nonmagical, which typically occurs when a single-use item has been spent, along with the assumption that any arrow that successfully hits its target becomes lodged and even once removed could not be re-used.

I say that 'hit' is a game mechanic as opposed to 'miss' in that a 'hit' involves a successful attack roll and the results of that successful attack. Those results would include damage dealt and any special effects which occur in that event, including things like Exit Wound or Ranged Pin or even Spell Storing, all of which occur within the 'hit' event, and after the resolution of its entirety the arrow is then destroyed. You say that because Penetrating Shot and similar effects state that the arrow does something after it strikes, it overrides the rule on it being destroyed. Wouldn't this also apply to Spell Storing, since it does say that the enchanted weapon is still capable of delivering the spell after it deals damage, or are you using a double standard?

You say I keep grasping at straws, but the only thing I've dropped is the part about free actions that I went from memory on instead of re-reading the ability first. Your arguments are best described by Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny:
Vinny Gambini: ...The D.A.'s got to build a case. Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right?
[puts his hand on the wall]
Bill: Right.
Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion,

...because the rules have absolutely no support for your claims. You keep saying the same things, and I keep saying different ways that they're wrong, but then you say that because I keep saying something different I'm grasping at straws. That is hardly the case.

Immutep
2008-12-09, 09:17 AM
Shopping list = List of items available for purchase.
Not on the list? Not available for purchase.
"An arrow that hits its target and deals damage IS destroyed."

Present tense. Not, destroyed after dealing damage. Not "will be destroyed". IS.

"A driver that runs a red light is breaking the law."

When are they breaking it? After they get through the intersection and are done crossing? Or the moment they satisfy the condition by entering the intersection?

The moment the condition is satisfied, the item is destroyed. Since you are so keen on wielding toilets and grammatical correctness, let's go with dictionary definitions on this one, and proper use of grammar to interpret the meanings of sentences, shall we?


Look Here Talic. You Criticise one person for Rules Laywering then go ahead and do it yourself.
Arrow of Death gets to overide the fact that it's destroyed because it says it has another ability in its profile, But if somebody was to make an arrow of spell storing then you don't think it could use it's spell storing ability (that it WOULD state in it's description automatically the moment somebody wrote it) because you think that it would be destroyed by the letter of the law upon the damage it causes???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????? ??

There are alot of words i could use to describe how you're coming across to me but they would all get me a warning and since anybody else who reads your posts will be able to tell what they are then i won't bother.
Furthermore the argument being made that it's exclusion from the list of items readily available for purchase doesn't mean they cannot exist is valid BECAUSE you don't have to just buy or find magic items, you can CREATE them!

Now please don't continue trying to say that you have a valid reason for arguement here, because you don't. The arrows cannot exist without permission/assistance from the DM, but NOT for the reasons you're stating. END OF DISCUSSION

Talic
2008-12-09, 09:20 AM
I actually see this going exactly opposite of that. You based your arguments on a table that has absolutely nothing to do with which abilities could possibly be on what types of items, completely ignoring the written rulings, and when that argument is shot down you just proclaim it louder in an attempt to lend it some validity, as it has absolutely none of its own. Wow. That's a heck of a run on. For someone who loves all things grammatically correct... But I digress. I base one argument on two tables which list enchantments, and availability. It would seem to me that if the intent were to allow spell storing arrows to be in the game, and not "the best kept secret of Biffoniacus_Furiou's genius", then it'd be listed in the ranged weapons table. I mean, there's no problem including it in melee. In several seperate sources and printings. Hmm.

As for the rest of your "absolutely nothing to blah blah blah". Speculation and opinion. As for written rulings... The only ones I've ignored are yours. I don't view you as a source of official rulings. You're welcome to point out where I have. As for proclaiming it louder? This is the internet. The clicking of my fingers on keys carries no more audio than before. If you mean "more frequently"?? Well then, when someone doesn't listen to the truth the first time, I feel obligated to repeat it. Next point.


The same goes for the table in the MIC, it was not meant as a clarification or a complete list and it specifically says it is just a convenient shopping list of prices and sources, but you still insist that the table is more valid than the clear text."just" is nowhere in there. You're trivializing it. Which makes sense, since lending it weight damages your argument. Doesn't make it correct though. As for clear text? I'm sorry, I missed the portion of the spell-storing ability that clearly states "ranged weapon". Can you point that out for me, or retract 'clearly'? After all, a perfectly valid interpretation is nonspecific information ("weapon") is clarified in the table. Being that there are multiple valid interpretations of this ability and its function, please stop insulting my intelligence by suggesting I am incapable of seeing the obvious truths that you (and you alone, evidently) are privy to. Every time you do it, it sounds less like a sage, and more like the hobo on the street corner shouting, 'the end is near'.


If I say something from memory and it happens to be incorrect (the free action issue), I drop it. My stance on the difference between "misses... it breaks or otherwise is rendered useless" and "that hits is destroyed" is still there, I've just been emphasizing different aspects of it.
Yes, the ones that obfuscate their incorrectness.
You insist that as soon as the criteria of hitting is fulfilled, the arrow is completely destroyed, but then you lend it some leeway by saying that the arrow would have a chance to penetrate far enough to deal damage before that happens. I don't say that. The Rules As Written do.

"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."

Note the phrasing. Hitting and dealing damage are concurrent. They happen at the same time. Same time that free action is activated. Same time the item is destroyed.

The free action is "CASTING" a spell. Thus, it follows rules for casting. As the free action takes a small expenditure of time, it CANNOT be completed prior to the nonaction effects (those actually do take 0 time) that happen as a result of hitting (dealing damage and destroying). As that is the case, the same thing happens to the spell within the item as anything else that is prevented from completing a spell. It fails. Now, please refute this.


I say that 'destroyed' is a game mechanic that when applied to magic items renders them nonmagical, which typically occurs when a single-use item has been spent, along with the assumption that any arrow that successfully hits its target becomes lodged and even once removed could not be re-used. Hmm. You say, huh? Odd that the rules don't say that. If 'destroyed' is a GAME MECHANIC, then it should be outlined in the SRD, just like other mechanics (such as an attack roll, a skill check, the dazed condition, or the like) are. If 'destroyed' is a game mechanic, then you should have some RAW support for this term. Please cite that support.

Because otherwise, all it is... is 'you say'. and 'you say' has absolutely nothing to do with 'RAW'.


I say that 'hit' is a game mechanic as opposed to 'miss' in that a 'hit' involves a successful attack roll and the results of that successful attack. Those results would include damage dealt and any special effects which occur in that event, including things like Exit Wound or Ranged Pin or even Spell Storing, all of which occur within the 'hit' event, and after the resolution of its entirety the arrow is then destroyed.You say, again? Luckily, attack rolls ARE a game mechanic. I included text above stating what the attack roll entails. Hit, deal damage. That's it. So, this 'you say' argument seems to be getting ripped to shreds by 'rules say'.



You say that because Penetrating Shot and similar effects state that the arrow does something after it strikes, it overrides the rule on it being destroyed. Wouldn't this also apply to Spell Storing, since it does say that the enchanted weapon is still capable of delivering the spell after it deals damage, or are you using a double standard?No. Effects like penetrating shot specifically reference ammunition. This is enough to show an exception. "Weapon" is not a specific enough term to justify an exception to ammunition rules. Ammunition rules hold sway unless a special ability which references ammunition explicitly contradicts them.

You say I keep grasping at straws, but the only thing I've dropped is the part about free actions that I went from memory on instead of re-reading the ability first.And every other point I've pointed out above.
Your arguments are best described by Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny:
*insert cheap theatrics*

...because the rules have absolutely no support for your claims. You keep saying the same things, and I keep saying different ways that they're wrong, but then you say that because I keep saying something different I'm grasping at straws. That is hardly the case.
LOL. You haven't addressed the timing, instead citing mechanics that don't exist, interpretations of 'destroy' that are neither in keeping with any text in the D&D lexicon of information NOR www.dictionary.com. You try to shift focus to other abilities that DO specifically reference their ability to bestow and function on ammunition, and use them to support your claim to something that doesn't have that text, that gold standard. You state that you are still employing a thrown weapon after it's left your hand, and you have no control over its path, using the most tenuous, non-intuitive definitions of wield that is used with abstract concepts ("wield power", for example), rather than physical items...

And you say my argument is paper thin? Glass houses, my 'friend'. Glass houses.

Immutep
2008-12-09, 09:29 AM
Truely Talic, if there was a Patron Saint of Patience, HE would even have given up on you by now.

Talic
2008-12-09, 09:44 AM
Look Here Talic. You Criticise one person for Rules Laywering then go ahead and do it yourself.Please refrain from derogatory comments. I don't personally appreciate them. Oh, and I don't believe I've called someone a rules-lawyer here. Please show me where I did, or retract the accusation.


Arrow of Death gets to overide the fact that it's destroyed because it says it has another ability in its profile, But if somebody was to make an arrow of spell storing then you don't think it could use it's spell storing ability (that it WOULD state in it's description automatically the moment somebody wrote it) because you think that it would be destroyed by the letter of the law upon the damage it causes???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????? ??Thank you for the exclamations. Your answer to the Arrow of Death is yes. It is explicitly referenced AMMUNITION that carries a special effect when it hits. An arrow of death can never be a "javelin of death" or a "longsword of death". It is a specific item, with specific rules.

Sleep arrows state that they deal nonlethal damage. Normal arrows deal lethal damage. Sleep arrows trump... but only when you're shooting a sleep arrow.

Arrows of death say they carry a special effect that activates. Normal arrow rules preclude the activation. Arrows of death trump... but only when you're shooting an Arrow of Death.

Spell storing weapons say they carry a special effect that activates. Normal weapon rules preclude the activa... Oh wait. Normal weapon rules DON'T preclude the activation. So this weapon can work perfectly fine for many many weapons, and it's only one NONREFERENCED weapon type that the rules for handling preclude activation. THAT'S the difference, Immu.


There are alot of words i could use to describe how you're coming across to me but they would all get me a warning and since anybody else who reads your posts will be able to tell what they are then i won't bother.
I would like to point you to the Forum Posting Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1).


Furthermore the argument being made that it's exclusion from the list of items readily available for purchase doesn't mean they cannot exist is valid BECAUSE you don't have to just buy or find magic items, you can CREATE them!Just like you wield arrows after you launch them, and spells that are interrupted when the caster is destroyed continue to cast are valid? Oh wait.

Now please don't continue trying to say that you have a valid reason for arguement here, because you don't. The arrows cannot exist without permission/assistance from the DM, but NOT for the reasons you're stating. END OF DISCUSSION
You're right. The permission required is Rule 0. I.E. When a DM disagrees with something that is against the rules, he can handwave it away.

jcsw
2008-12-09, 10:02 AM
Before any of you continue,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Talic
2008-12-09, 10:14 AM
Before any of you continue,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Actually, every argument I made in my previous post was pretty much direct post of RAW that is violated if their post is taken as true, or assertations that they themselves have made.

Granted, my "wielding a toilet" may have qualified, but I believe the initial argument on that one was no more absurd, considering that the definition referenced was wielding as it applies to abstract concepts, such as power or authority.

Signmaker
2008-12-09, 01:35 PM
Frankly, this argument should have ended with the word wield.

Wielding connotates being able to control the object one is, well, wielding. When a fantasy character 'wields' an object, it is usually a sword, or axe, or even a bow.

Not an arrow. Y'see, arrows in midflight tend to follow the rules of the world, and not the whims of the one who fired it. Unless, of course, you're telekinetic, but that's a different story for a different time. The fact that you require the loosest possible definition of 'wield' to apply your theory should probably hint that it might not actually work.

Sure, you can argue the definitions of 'destroy', 'hit', and the timing of free actions, but none of those actually apply until you address the primary concern.


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


You notice that I have bolded an additional part of the quote. This is a personal question that I would like to propose: "When can you cast a spell from an item not in your current possession?" I eagerly wait a response.

Immutep
2008-12-09, 01:47 PM
You keep obscuring the facts, changing the subject, and each time you are proven wrong, you act like that point never existed. First you say there's no free action. I prove you wrong... no concession. You grasp at timing. You directly contradict the RAW, and I call you on it, you just drop the issue. You try a fanciful interpretation of destroyed, and when I call you to task on your own reliance on a previous dictionary definition to argue your point, suddenly you're quiet on that front.

Although the term Rules Laywering isn't used you describe here some of the qualities of rules laywering. So i stand by my comment.

Immutep
2008-12-09, 01:58 PM
Thank you for the exclamations. Your answer to the Arrow of Death is yes. It is explicitly referenced AMMUNITION that carries a special effect when it hits. An arrow of death can never be a "javelin of death" or a "longsword of death". It is a specific item, with specific rules.

I believe that has been my point all along, the fact arrows are ammunition and not a weapon is the only real reason that these might not be possible. P.s. your welcome for the exclamation marks.


Spell storing weapons say they carry a special effect that activates. Normal weapon rules preclude the activa... Oh wait. Normal weapon rules DON'T preclude the activation. So this weapon can work perfectly fine for many many weapons, and it's only one NONREFERENCED weapon type that the rules for handling preclude activation. THAT'S the difference, Immu.

Have you tried to listen to yourself? If you took the way the rules state that an arrow breaks upon damage to the letter of the law, then those very laws defy Every arrow that the Rules exist for magical ammunition with a special effect, but that's ok because each and every single one of those special ammunitions has it stated in their description. But it still doesn't mean that were somebody who created another special ammunition could use any of the benefits of the special ability?


The permission required is Rule 0. I.E. When a DM disagrees with something that is against the rules, he can handwave it away.

the flip-side of what your saying is that the DM could allow these arrows should he so wish, My point all along.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-12-09, 02:01 PM
Frankly, this argument should have ended with the word wield.


Indeed three posts into the thread and we are done....

With that cleared (yeah right) we can proceed to amuse ourselves with the wording of Spell Storing.


Spell Storing: ... Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.

First of all the weapon is the caster here, the wielder is not.
The desire of the wielder is forcing the weapon to cast the spell, using the weapons free action to do so (even if the weapon is not normally allowed to take actions being an inanimate non-sentient object and all that).

Signmaker
2008-12-09, 05:45 PM
First of all the weapon is the caster here, the wielder is not.
The desire of the wielder is forcing the weapon to cast the spell, using the weapons free action to do so (even if the weapon is not normally allowed to take actions being an inanimate non-sentient object and all that).

I see. Well, there goes my question. :smallsmile:

Talic
2008-12-10, 12:49 AM
Have you tried to listen to yourself? If you took the way the rules state that an arrow breaks upon damage to the letter of the law, then those very laws defy Every arrow that the Rules exist for magical ammunition with a special effect, but that's ok because each and every single one of those special ammunitions has it stated in their description. But it still doesn't mean that were somebody who created another special ammunition could use any of the benefits of the special ability?It's one thing to insinuate that I don't read your posts. It's quite another to query if I even comprehend what I'm saying. I find it offensive, frankly. And yes.

Since destruction timing normally precludes special effects activating, it makes sense that every single instance of specific ammunition that works contrary would be an exception. And yes, people could create a totally new special ammunition that does what you describe.

It would be called "homebrew". But trying to make Spell-storing (a general enhancement that goes on general weaponry) have the same level of influence as a specific item that can only be ammunition, on the topic of ammunition?

Here's an analogy. This rule occasionally applies, but is more often than not, unused (after all, not everyone uses ammunition).

So picture it like a door. It's a door in building 1, leading to a generator. This door is affectionately known as "the Ammoruledoor" (yes not creative, sue me)

Now, we have 2 people.
Person A: Spelly McStoring, he's the head honcho over at building 2. He runs the whole place.
Person B: Arnie Arrow McDeatherton, he's the electricitian for the compound. Every building.

Now, Spelly MecStoring, strictly speaking, has more power. His authority extends to a lot of rooms, a lot of places.

But Arnie? He's got one area. The electrical spaces. But he's the man when it comes to that.

Who can get by the ammoruledoor, and get to the generator?

This is an example of why specific overrides general. Thank you. If you don't understand it here, I'm at a loss, for I can't think of any clearer way to explain it.


the flip-side of what your saying is that the DM could allow these arrows should he so wish, My point all along.
That's not the "flip side". That's the point. It is not there by default. The DM must bend the rules to allow spell storing.

1) if an item is not in your possession, it is an unattended item.

2) can you activate a wand on the floor? No? Why not? Because it's unattended.

3) can you activate a spell storing item on the floor? No. Why not? Because it's unattended.

4) When an arrow is launched, is the arrow attended? Or unattended?
(Unattended)

5) If you can't activate any other item in the game while unattended, why on earth do you think you can activate spell storing? Even IF you were technically wielding it (you're not). Even IF the timing didn't preclude its use (it does).

There are so many reasons this won't work. And only one reason it would.

That reason is Rule 0. I'm not going to argue Rule 0. By rule 0, I can say that AC obviously gets lower as it improves, and Base attack is calculated by Thac0. And I'd be right. Because by rule 0, anything goes. And if everything's true, there's nothing objective.

jcsw
2008-12-10, 12:58 AM
Technically, the argument should have ended with "This is one of those things that the DM should and is likely to abdicate."

Talic
2008-12-10, 01:01 AM
abdicate? Why would he give up his position over it?

Assuming you mean adjudicate, then that is true for everything. It doesn't change what is correct by RAW.

After all, I could say, "can a level 1 orc fighter with power attack and cleave make 9 attacks with his greataxe when he charges?"

"This is one of those things that the DM should and is likely to adjudicate."

Because the DM adjudicates everything. That's half his job at the table. (other half is telling a story).

jcsw
2008-12-10, 02:10 AM
I'm saying this is irrelevant on anything but a theoretical standpoint.

In any real game the matter would be enough of a gray area to make the DM adjudicate the issue.

Once the DM does that it doesn't matter which is right by RAW, the DM has already made a ruling.

(And yes. Vocabularical error there. So sue me... also sue me for just making up "Vocabularical" there.)

Talic
2008-12-10, 03:32 AM
I'm saying this is irrelevant on anything but a theoretical standpoint.

In any real game the matter would be enough of a gray area to make the DM adjudicate the issue.

Once the DM does that it doesn't matter which is right by RAW, the DM has already made a ruling.

(And yes. Vocabularical error there. So sue me... also sue me for just making up "Vocabularical" there.)

Expect to see the subpoena shortly. :smallbiggrin:

However, it doesn't change what is right by RAW, and the extent that it doesn't matter ends at the same place that D&D game does.

Thus, what happens at the gaming table in Piedmont, South Dakota has no bearing on its importance here.

Someone asked if it could be done.

The answer is, "By RAW, no."

If that is changed to suit an individual group's tastes, that's fine. But it has no bearing on RAW, or on any other group. And that is what is being discussed here.

Which is why Rule 0 has absolutely no bearing in a RAW discussion.

jcsw
2008-12-10, 04:58 AM
...and in the same way, a RAW discussion has little to no bearing on this issue.

Talic
2008-12-10, 06:29 AM
If the OP had intended a handwave and a Rule 0, he wouldn't have asked if it was possible. Therefore, when someone asks if something is legal, or if something can be done, it's fairly safe to assume he/she wants to know if it's legal by the rules.

If the intent was to just say "let your DM handle it", there wouldn't have been any need for anything in this thread. Especially that answer.

Which is why Rule 0 is worthless as an answer to anyone who asks "can this be done". They're not asking, "Can I make a houserule to do this", after all.

But that's what you're telling them.

It's like someone goes into the lawyer and asks, "can I sublet my leased house to multiple families?"

And the lawyer answers, "Who cares? Lobby to change rental regulations."

It doesn't answer the question.

Kami2awa
2008-12-10, 06:54 AM
Arcane Archers are able to make spell-storing arrows, so they CAN exist.

Jack_Simth
2008-12-10, 07:26 AM
In that case, the SRD is the most recent printing. It holds precedence.
I've seen variations on this statement on the forums quite a bit; do you know where it comes from?

Talic
2008-12-10, 07:41 AM
Arcane Archers are able to make spell-storing arrows, so they CAN exist.

Incorrect. The ability bears several key differences.

First, it's imbue arrow.

Second, in the arcane archer ability, the archer casts the spell. In spell storing, the weapon does.

Third, in the spell storing ability, the choice is made on hitting, and is a free action. With the arcane archer ability, the ability is chosen when the archer casts the spell and fires (at launch), and thereafter the arrow just targets the spell.

Fourth, Spell storing can only target the creature hit. Imbue arrow does not have such a restriction.

Fifth, spell storing can only trigger when it hits a creature. The arcane archer ability can be fired anywhere, even at a square.

Sixth, spell storing can have a spell imparted in advance. It then stores it. The arcane archer ability must have the spell cast when it is fired. It cannot actually store a spell, merely deliver it.

I trust this shows the numerous differences that seperate the arcane archer ability, and make it most decidedly NOT spell storing.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 08:51 AM
{Scrubbed}

Talic
2008-12-10, 09:04 AM
{Scrubbed}

I find it interesting that you argue hardcore RAW when it suits your cause, even going so far as to cite dictionary definitions in your pursuit of the semantics. When it's wield, it's "definition 13 of www.dictionary.com agrees with me so I'm right! Hah-HA!".

But when "destroyed" disagrees with you, it's a nonexistent mechanic. When the rule that ammunition is destroyed disagrees with you, suddenly you appeal to common sense. When things disagree with you, it's, "the rules have feelings people. Let's get in touch with their essence." When people refute your imagined mechanic, or point out that you're directly contradicting rules, you completely ignore it for two pages, and then continue to pretend that the disproven point is still valid.

It's a game. Them's the rules. They say "no".

Change it in your games if you like. But that doesn't change what IS. Just what you homebrew at home.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 09:32 AM
You're quite right. IRL, the arrow won't shatter on impact, or disintigrate into nothingness. But you don't need to do that to render it useless. All you must do is enough damage to make it unable to do what it was designed to do. In this case? Unable to fire from a bow or cast a spell (arrows are designed to do the first, spell storing weapons are designed to do the second). Heck, you put a decent dent in a Tomahawk missile, and it's useless. Won't fly correctly, will never arm, and never blow up. Does that mean that it's in 53,000 pieces? No. But it is useless for the purpose that it is intended for.

Useless for future use? More than likely, useless for the first (and only) shot it fired? Remember Talic the essential fact is the arrow is being used in two main ways, first as a means of delivering what is basically a ranged touch attack to deliver a spell to it's intended target, and second as a means of storing uses of a specific spell to enable you to cast more of the same spell than you could normally do.


I find it interesting that you argue hardcore RAW when it suits your cause, even going so far as to cite dictionary definitions in your pursuit of the semantics. When it's wield, it's "definition 13 of www.dictionary.com agrees with me so I'm right! Hah-HA!".

When did i cite dictionary definitions? I think you're confusing me with somebody else here. I've only ever stated the english language in a functional manner.


But when "destroyed" disagrees with you, it's a nonexistent mechanic. When the rule that ammunition is destroyed disagrees with you, suddenly you appeal to common sense. When things disagree with you, it's, "the rules have feelings people. Let's get in touch with their essence." When people refute your imagined mechanic, or point out that you're directly contradicting rules, you completely ignore it for two pages, and then continue to pretend that the disproven point is still valid.

It's not the term "Destroyed" that i was questioning, merely the fact that since the people who wrote the rulebook never anticipated a 6 page long argument to crop up about the exact way they phrased "when" the arrow actually breaks it's fair to assume that you have a level of interpretation on this matter, especially since they themselves break this "Rule" on many many occassions in the same book.


It's a game. Them's the rules. They say "no".

Change it in your games if you like. But that doesn't change what IS. Just what you homebrew at home.

I have said all along that you would need DM's consent for these, do you still not get why i feel you're just arguing for arguing's sake? And that appears to be be why dispite surmountable logic you continue on and on.

Talic
2008-12-10, 10:56 AM
Useless for future use? More than likely, useless for the first (and only) shot it fired? Remember Talic the essential fact is the arrow is being used in two main ways, first as a means of delivering what is basically a ranged touch attack to deliver a spell to it's intended target, and second as a means of storing uses of a specific spell to enable you to cast more of the same spell than you could normally do.No. The arrow is highly useful for 1 shot. You fire it, it hits, it deals damage. Wonderful. Everything by the rules.
Second, arrows are generally not ranged touch attacks. Second, the ability to deliver the spell to a target is contingent on the ability to finish the delivery before it is destroyed. It cannot.

Imagine if the milkman comes to your door, rings the bell, and has a heart attack, dropping the milk, where it shatters on the ground. Did he successfully deliver your milk to you? Will your kids have their cold cereal? No. When you try to put something inside of something else fundamentally unable to carry it, you get the D&D equivalent of a 404 error.

When did i cite dictionary definitions? I think you're confusing me with somebody else here. I've only ever stated the english language in a functional manner.Oh right, there are two of you arguing this. Apologies.

It's not the term "Destroyed" that i was questioning, merely the fact that since the people who wrote the rulebook never anticipated a 6 page long argument to crop up about the exact way they phrased "when" the arrow actually breaks it's fair to assume that you have a level of interpretation on this matter, especially since they themselves break this "Rule" on many many occassions in the same book.When specific items contradict rules, it's not 'breaking the rules'. It's creating exceptions. In all cases, such items are specifically arrows, or explicitly refer to arrows.

"Arrows do this."
"This specific arrow does this instead."

The second line trumps the first. It's not a rule break. It's an item which is specifically designed to alter how the game functions.

By the logic you're presenting, the Fly spell is breaking the rules. After all, humans can't fly, by the rules. They don't have a listed fly speed. No, the Exit wounds ability allows an arrow to shoot through something because it explicitly says that. The arrow of death delivers a death effect even though it destroys because it specifically says that the arrow does this.

A weapon of spell storing?

"Arrows do this."
"Weapons do that."

The second line does not trump the first. The scope isn't narrow enough on the second line, unless it mentions, even in passing, ammunition.

But that's irrelevant. Name me one general rule where it explicitly states that you can activate an item that you are not attending. Because when that arrow is 100 feet away? You can't make decisions on its behalf. It's an unattended item.

It's like throwing a grenade, and trying to pull the pin when it lands. You can't do it.


I have said all along that you would need DM's consent for these, do you still not get why i feel you're just arguing for arguing's sake? And that appears to be be why dispite surmountable logic you continue on and on.
Because you still seem to be under the incredibly misguided notion that what you are saying is rules supported, when in fact, it directly opposes several rules, and has about as many holes as a nice block of swiss.

And yes, despite my insurmountable logic, you still seem to carry these notions. So I continue, in hopes that you will see your position for what it is. Flawed.

Roland St. Jude
2008-12-10, 11:02 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Simmer down people. It's just arrows - hardly something to get hostile over.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 11:28 AM
When specific items contradict rules, it's not 'breaking the rules'. It's creating exceptions. In all cases, such items are specifically arrows, or explicitly refer to arrows.

"Arrows do this."
"This specific arrow does this instead."

The second line trumps the first. It's not a rule break. It's an item which is specifically designed to alter how the game functions.

By the logic you're presenting, the Fly spell is breaking the rules. After all, humans can't fly, by the rules. They don't have a listed fly speed. No, the Exit wounds ability allows an arrow to shoot through something because it explicitly says that. The arrow of death delivers a death effect even though it destroys because it specifically says that the arrow does this.

A weapon of spell storing?

"Arrows do this."
"Weapons do that."

The second line does not trump the first. The scope isn't narrow enough on the second line, unless it mentions, even in passing, ammunition.

Talic, you're even trying to argue with me here on points we agree on, as i've said, suppose somebody's DM allows arrows of spell storing to be created. The DM or PC write the description for the ammunition, it then has specific rules which overide the base rules, particularly the rule regarding Ammunition instead of weapon.


But that's irrelevant. Name me one general rule where it explicitly states that you can activate an item that you are not attending. Because when that arrow is 100 feet away? You can't make decisions on its behalf. It's an unattended item.

Again, not the point i was trying to argue here, it could easily be assumed that since the spell was put into the arrow and then fired at the target meant the decision to activate the spell upon a successful set of circumstances (i.e. hitting and wounding your target) could even be taken as a "yes do it" simply by the arrow being fired (a sort of ready action if you like).

Talic
2008-12-10, 11:50 AM
Again, not the point i was trying to argue here, it could easily be assumed that since the spell was put into the arrow and then fired at the target meant the decision to activate the spell upon a successful set of circumstances (i.e. hitting and wounding your target) could even be taken as a "yes do it" simply by the arrow being fired (a sort of ready action if you like).

If you're going to homebrew it, that's a very messy way to do it. A more elegant method:

Spellsurge [+1 enhancement]

Description: This enhancement may be placed on a melee or ranged weapon. A spellsurge weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) As a free action, no more than once per round, the wielder may activate a spellsurge weapon. Thereafter, the next time this round the weapon successfully hits a creature, the spell will automatically discharge on that creature, as if the original caster had cast the spell.

This puts the activation while it's attended, the effect automatic on hit, and outlines what weapons it may be placed on. It clears up any nagging discrepancies that Spell-storing has.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 01:13 PM
If you're going to homebrew it, that's a very messy way to do it. A more elegant method:

Spellsurge [+1 enhancement]

Description: This enhancement may be placed on a melee or ranged weapon. A spellsurge weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) As a free action, no more than once per round, the wielder may activate a spellsurge weapon. Thereafter, the next time this round the weapon successfully hits a creature, the spell will automatically discharge on that creature, as if the original caster had cast the spell.

This puts the activation while it's attended, the effect automatic on hit, and outlines what weapons it may be placed on. It clears up any nagging discrepancies that Spell-storing has.

Yes but unfortunately still doesn't get around the chief problem for me, of still needing to be a weapon. Whereas the OP wanted arrows (presumably to get 50+ uses of one spell concentrated into a needed time frame) so it would still need DM approval.