Post/Author/DateTime	Post
unundindur 01-14-08, 04:01 PM	I have two questions regarding this ability: 1. When someone casts a spell into a spellstorign weapon, does it use the casters caster level, or the ability's caster level? 2. If a spell shoots multiple rays, do we assume they all hit the target, or do one one actually hit? Take for example the spell Scorching ray, which suddenly seemed like a wonder for an assassin (+12d6 fire damage), even if we use the items caster level. And a bi-question. Isn't the spellstoring very very powerful if used with this type of attack, or just a touch of exhaustion (no save)...
dman11235 01-14-08, 05:02 PM	1: What? Let me answer your question with a question: who cast the spell? 2: Well, try the FAQ for that one or someone else. I think it's only single target, so one ray, but I'm not sure. 3ish: yeah, it is, but it's not all that bad, because it's usually 1/encounter at best, and requires constant expenditure of resources.
JamesMaissen 01-14-08, 05:53 PM	I have two questions regarding this ability: 1. When someone casts a spell into a spellstorign weapon, does it use the casters caster level, or the ability's caster level? 2. If a spell shoots multiple rays, do we assume they all hit the target, or do one one actually hit? Take for example the spell Scorching ray, which suddenly seemed like a wonder for an assassin (+12d6 fire damage), even if we use the items caster level. And a bi-question. Isn't the spellstoring very very powerful if used with this type of attack, or just a touch of exhaustion (no save)... 1. You will get 3 answers: a. Minimum level. People believe that the text from ring of spell storing that is referenced in the ioun section but not the spell storing weapon section, applies. b. Level it is cast into it at. People believe it is simply storing the spell that the caster put into it, like a scroll or a wand would. c. The caster level of the weapon. A minority opinion (ala Ken Jenks) that has the section on special abilities functioning at this level. It strikes many as counter-intuitive that a 1st level magic missile stored would become 5 missiles coming out (at either 12th level or higher if other enhancements are higher caster level in making the weapon). 2. Ray spells are not touch spells nor are they single target spells. Ray spells can be channeled into a weapon via the spellsword ability, but cannot be put into a spell storing weapon. Bi-question: The ability is quite useful and can be put to good effect. But not as good as if rays could apply. -James
kjenks 01-14-08, 09:31 PM	Try answering a slightly easier question first: What's the caster level of the Fear effect from a Mace of Terror?
JamesMaissen 01-15-08, 02:47 AM	Try answering a slightly easier question first: What's the caster level of the Fear effect from a Mace of Terror? The caster level it's made with, -James
kjenks 01-15-08, 07:23 AM	Are the rules different for determining the caster level of a Spell Storing weapon?
unundindur 01-15-08, 11:09 AM	1. You will get 3 answers: a. Minimum level. People believe that the text from ring of spell storing that is referenced in the ioun section but not the spell storing weapon section, applies. b. Level it is cast into it at. People believe it is simply storing the spell that the caster put into it, like a scroll or a wand would. c. The caster level of the weapon. A minority opinion (ala Ken Jenks) that has the section on special abilities functioning at this level. It strikes many as counter-intuitive that a 1st level magic missile stored would become 5 missiles coming out (at either 12th level or higher if other enhancements are higher caster level in making the weapon). I think number two makes most sense, both because it would otherwise be even more powerful at low levels, and that it makes general sense. 2. Ray spells are not touch spells nor are they single target spells. Ray spells can be channeled into a weapon via the spellsword ability, but cannot be put into a spell storing weapon. If you shoot all the rays at a single target that would be a targeted spell, no? And the text say nothing about touch attacks specifically. I just don't see in the text what prevents us from placing a ray spell into the weapon, as long as the entire effect could normally be concentrated on one target (as opposed to fireball for example).
Merestil Haye 01-15-08, 12:03 PM	I think number two makes most sense, both because it would otherwise be even more powerful at low levels, and that it makes general sense.When determining what an item does, do not pay any attention to perceived power levels. Read the item text (and the general rules for magic items). Determine what the item says strictly on the basis of what is written. I find myself agreeing with Kjenks; the spell is cast at the CL of the spell storing weapon, because the general rules for items which cast spells are that the spell is cast at the CL of the item, and there is no text anywhere in the description of the spell-storing weapon that says otherwise. Perceived power levels should form absolutely zero part of evaluating the function of a magic item, spell, feat or anything else. Just the general rules applicable to whatever is under assessment, and the specific text of the item. In any case, the power level is not as far out as you might think. The minimum cost for such an item is 8,300gp (a +1 Spellstoring club); that is an item appropriate for 8th-9th level play. I suspect that a lot of spells that can be placed in the item have caps around CL10, so the effect is probably that of a +1CL boost (except for overcoming SR). If you shoot all the rays at a single target that would be a targeted spell, no?No, it would not. A targeted spell is a spell that includes a line in the spell header that says Target: followed by a description of what is targeted. Ray spells do not have such an entry, and are not targeted. This is, I'm afraid, a case where the word used has its own specific definition and is not being used with its common English meaning. You aim a spell that produces a ray, you do not target it on something. Charm Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm) is a targeted spell. Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) is not. And the text say nothing about touch attacks specifically. I just don't see in the text what prevents us from placing a ray spell into the weapon, as long as the entire effect could normally be concentrated on one target (as opposed to fireball for example)."Touch spells" are spells with a range entry of "Touch" and not spells that require a touch attack (melee or ranged). Shocking Grasp (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shockingGrasp.htm) is a targeted, touch-range spell.
ThroteCutter 01-15-08, 01:40 PM	With 7 levels from the enlightened fist, you could change rays to touch spells then put them into spell storing weapons. (I think) It's not close to optimal but could make a good cohort.
mvincent 01-15-08, 05:10 PM	I find myself agreeing with Kjenks; the spell is cast at the CL of the spell storing weapon, because the general rules for items which cast spells are that the spell is cast at the CL of the item, and there is no text anywhere in the description of the spell-storing weapon that says otherwise.By strict (and literal) RAW, you have a point. However, the writer's intent was likely with minimum level, as this is the precedence set by all other spell-storing items (rings of spell-storing, ioun stone, etc.), and many other similar items. Even a spell stored in a scroll (or wand, etc.) is always at the minimum level (regardless of what level the caster actually was when he cast it into it) unless the caster takes special pains (and expenses) otherwise. This is the same for just about everything, and is an underlying precedent for D&D. Also, using caster level 12 (i.e. the default for spell-storing weapons) can be unbalancing. I can think of all sorts of clever things to do with this... like increasing healing. Again, when something is open to interpretation, I often go back to precedent, intuitiveness and balance. The matter has been discussed many times (links to thread provided on request), but I recall that after some research I noted that in (WotC published) adventures, spells stored in spell-storing weapons (where the level was noted) were at minimum CL, rather than the weapon's CL or the owner's CL. Trivia note: Ray of Deanimation (Spell Compendium, pg 166.) is a unique spell in that it is both a ray and a targeted spell.
Merestil Haye 01-15-08, 06:27 PM	By strict (and literal) RAW, you have a point. However, the writer's intent was likely with minimum level, as this is the precedence set by all other spell-storing items (rings of spell-storing, ioun stone, etc.), and many other similar items.I'm actually going to disagree with this. The Ring of Spell Storing has text that requires the spell to be stored at minimum level. However it is specific to the Ring, because it appears in the text of the Ring. Similarly the Ioun Stone works as the Ring. The specific rule overrides the general only for the items with the specific rule mentioned. The Ring of Spell Storing is an exception to the general rule, and does not constitute a precedent. Even a spell stored in a scroll (or wand, etc.) is always at the minimum level (regardless of what level the caster actually was when he cast it into it) unless the caster takes special pains (and expenses) otherwise. This is the same for just about everything, and is an underlying precedent for D&D.But the item storing a spell has a CL that is consciously set by the creator. The fact that the game suggests a default is a bookkeeping issue. Otherwise the DM would have to come up with rules about how to generate CLs. This way he doesn't have to. Also, using caster level 12 (i.e. the default for spell-storing weapons) can be unbalancing. I can think of all sorts of clever things to do with this... like increasing healing. Again, when something is open to interpretation, I often go back to precedent, intuitiveness and balance.This really is not frightening. Quite apart from the fact that being able to use the spell means that damage must be done to the target first, remember that you are limited to a 3rd level spell. What third level spells are going to give significant increase in healing by increasing the CL from 9 to 12? Also remember that this works both ways; a more powerful caster can put a spell into the weapon and it will come out at CL12. In any case, as I said, power level is irrelevant. What you can do with it does not matter. All that counts is the wording of the item. There is no statement on the Spell Storing weapon that suggests it casts the spell at minimum CL, therefore it casts the spell at CL12. The matter has been discussed many times (links to thread provided on request), but I recall that after some research I noted that in (WotC published) adventures, spells stored in spell-storing weapons (where the level was noted) were at minimum CL, rather than the weapon's CL or the owner's CL.I would be interested in reading some of these threads, thanks. I'm not sure I accept published adventures as overriding the text of the item though. Trivia note: Ray of Deanimation (Spell Compendium, pg 166.) is a unique spell in that it is both a ray and a targeted spell.(Resized for ease of reading). Interesting example. The spell mechanics support the ray but not the target entry; targeted spells don't involve attack rolls. I think I'd houserule the target entry away for the sake of consistency.
mvincent 01-15-08, 06:40 PM	I'm actually going to disagree with this.This goes against our bet Edit: Oops. Wrong person The Ring of Spell Storing is an exception to the general rule, and does not constitute a precedent.In regard to writer's intent? It should. Such things are important in the rules (where RAI must be determined in order to play correctly... examples given on request). If we had examples of items that store spells at a higher CL than minimum, it would be worthwhile to note them here. What third level spells are going to give significant increase in healing by increasing the CL from 9 to 12?A party can acquire a spell-storing weapon fairly easily at about 5th level, then cast their cure moderate wounds spells (2d8+5) into the weapon in order to turn them into 2d8+10. They could similarly optimize their wands of cure light wounds by channeling charges into the weapon first. All that counts is the wordingI believe that writer's intent actually counts more (again, examples given on request). At a minimum, this is subject to interpretation. In such cases we often rely on probable intent, which is typically indicated by precedence, intuitiveness and balance. I would be interested in reading some of these threads, thanks.Here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-734011) here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3123710#post3123710) here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-678451) and here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-685690) I'm not sure I accept published adventures as overriding the text of the item though.It's a good indication of how other WotC writer's interpret the text. Presumably they are sane and reasonable (even if one does not assume such of other posters)... again, indicating that (at a minimum) it is a reasonable interpretation. They also serve as that the only 'official' (i.e. published by WotC) interpretation given thus far (i.e. they are at least more official than our own opinions).
JamesMaissen 01-15-08, 10:33 PM	Even a spell stored in a scroll (or wand, etc.) is always at the minimum level (regardless of what level the caster actually was when he cast it into it) unless the caster takes special pains (and expenses) otherwise. This is the same for just about everything, and is an underlying precedent for D&D. This is incorrect. A caster may cast a spell at his minimum level to cast it, and likewise can scribe a scroll. He does not need to do either. In the case of scrolls he often does as the cost for a higher caster level is not worth the difference in effect that it produces. The interesting question to the 12th level (or higher with a +5 spell storing weapon, or a vorpal spell storing weapon, etc) position would be what if the minimum caster level for the spell stored was higher than 12th? I don't believe there currently is such a class, but were it to be made.. would that mean that the spell would go off at a lower than possible caster level? Personally I see the 12th caster level as the caster level of the spell storing ability, not the spell stored therein. I don't see the 'weapon casts' as meaning what it's taken to be. Rather the following line referencing scrolls and the like leads me to believe that the spell is cast from the weapon, rather than the weapon producing it. But as I said, there are 3 schools of thought on it. -James
dman11235 01-15-08, 11:00 PM	When you pour your magical energies into a spellstoring weapon, does the weapon just make some of that energy go away? What about randomly adding some, and if so where does this energy come from? If not, how is it possible that a spell discharged from a spellstoring weapon is a different CL that the spell cast into it? Also: When determining what an item does, do not pay any attention to perceived power levels. Read the item text (and the general rules for magic items). Determine what the item says strictly on the basis of what is written. This is just plain wrong. Game balance is what was intended, and as such, percieved power level is key. It's what stops people from making continuous true strike for a mere 2,000.
Merestil Haye 01-16-08, 07:41 AM	This is just plain wrong. Game balance is what was intended, and as such, percieved power level is key. It's what stops people from making continuous true strike for a mere 2,000.No, it is 100% correct. First you determine what a thing does. Once you know what it does, you are free to houserule it to an appropriate power level (if you really think it necessary). But what you are doing is making a houserule, and not adjudicating what the rules actually say. In this case, the weapon casts the spell, and the parameters of the spell are set by the weapon quality. As far as the True Strike item goes, if you actually read what is written on custom items (and I'm sure you have) you will see that such an item does not cost 2,000gp. So please do not introduce irrelevancies. @ JamesMaissen : Remember the limit on spells that can be stored in this weapon is 3rd level maximum. I don't think there is a single class in which the minimum CL to cast a 3rd level spell is above 12.
mvincent 01-16-08, 01:06 PM	First you determine what a thing does. Once you know what it does, you are free to houserule it to an appropriate power level (if you really think it necessary). Since this is open to interpretation, we are still on the "determine what a thing does" phase. Again, in such cases we want to narrow down what the writer's intent was. Power level and balance can (and do) help with that.
JamesMaissen 01-16-08, 01:18 PM	@ JamesMaissen : Remember the limit on spells that can be stored in this weapon is 3rd level maximum. I don't think there is a single class in which the minimum CL to cast a 3rd level spell is above 12. I understand, as I said.. 'I don't believe there currently is such a class, but were it to be made'. So accepting this premise what would happen? Also what's the thinking behind the caster level of the spell stored being changed? Not just the mechanics, but the in-game sense. -James
mvincent 01-16-08, 01:31 PM	what's the thinking behind the caster level of the spell stored being changed? Not just the mechanics, but the in-game sense. Discussed here (http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-177609.html). For the majority of the spell storing items, I'm fairly sure minimum caster level was done for play balance reasons but it makes sense (i.e. "conservation of energy", and/or viewing the device as a battery that can only be charged up so much). btw: does anyone know how the "Spell Storing Item" spell (from Eberron Campaign Setting, pg. 115) works in regard to caster level?
JamesMaissen 01-16-08, 03:48 PM	Discussed here (http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-177609.html). For the majority of the spell storing items, I'm fairly sure minimum caster level was done for play balance reasons but it makes sense (i.e. "conservation of energy", and/or viewing the device as a battery that can only be charged up so much). I think you are miss-understanding me. What is the in-game rationale for a 1st caster level spell put into a spell storing weapon coming out as a 12th (or higher) level spell? I'm not talking about the always come out as minimum caster level position here. But towards it since you bring it up, the argument for minimum caster level being because scrolls work that way (as mentioned in the linked discussion) is patently incorrect. Scrolls are cast at the level they are scribed at.. period. The person scribing the scroll can elect to make the caster level lower than their own (and frequently do for cost concerns) but they can elect to cast at a lower caster level as well should they desire (and frequently don't because there are no cost concerns). I can understand that the minimum caster level could have some rationale (such as what you are saying above) and even that such should exist to support the rings (and by extension the ioun stone) where such is expressly stated. But that wasn't my question. It was dealing with the stored spell going off at the level of the spell storing power (kind of like if the ring were to cast all spells at 5th, 9th or 17th) or higher if the weapon happened to have non-related enchantments on it that was my question. -James
mvincent 01-16-08, 04:19 PM	What is the in-game rationale for a 1st caster level spell put into a spell storing weapon coming out as a 12th (or higher) level spell?Yeah... that part I can't help with. I agree that it doesn't make sense. since you bring it up, the argument for minimum caster level being because scrolls work that way (as mentioned in the linked discussion) is patently incorrect. You said that earlier (and I didn't counter it, or bring it up again)... I merely used scrolls and potions as an example earlier because the rules say things like "Prices assume that the potion was made at the minimum" and "Prices assume that the scroll was made at the minimum caster level." However, if the connection feels unintuitive to you (which it evidently does), compare it instead to how all other (specifically) spell storing items operate (there have been others besides the rings and the ioun stone, published in later supplements).
kjenks 01-16-08, 09:33 PM	What is the in-game rationale for a 1st caster level spell put into a spell storing weapon coming out as a 12th (or higher) level spell? I'm not talking about the always come out as minimum caster level position here. I don't know for sure why the rules are written that way, but consider this : If a level 1 wizard loans his spellbook to a level 12 wizard who prepares and casts a level 1 spell, the spell "comes out" at CL 12. If a level 1 wizard casts a level 1 spell into a Spell Storing weapon with CL 12, the spell "comes out" at CL 12. Perhaps that's the rationale they were using. You'd have to ask the author. I suspect that what actually happened is that the author forgot to include the "minimum caster level" language that appears in the Ring of Spell Storing so the default rule for CL for weapons applies. But if this actually is a mistake, they have had ample opportunities to issue errata.
dman11235 01-16-08, 11:54 PM	That rational doesn't work at all. Who is casting the spell? Where are the magical energies coming from? The caster, not his spellbook. That's how I see this. You put that much energy in to it, that's how much is coming out. Magic is a science, now, is it not?
kjenks 01-17-08, 12:27 AM	It ain't science. It's magic. Who's casting the spell? The weapon is. I don't know how, but that's what the ability description says.
Hawk1816 01-17-08, 03:19 PM	From the SRD: The caster level of a weapon with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Emphasis mine. CRAFT MAGIC ARMS AND ARMOR [ITEM CREATION] Prerequisite: Caster level 5th. Benefit: You can create any magic weapon, armor, or shield whose prerequisites you meet. The caster level of a weapon is the minimum caster level to make the enhancement. It does not state that the weapon has that caster level, instead it is stating the level of the crafter. If you want to go by the mechanics of the game, to cast a spell into the sword above the minimum caster level requires the use of more material and xp then to cast the lowest level possilbe. This is on par with scrolls and wands. Since casting into the sword requires no materials, it shouldn't cost anymore to cast at your caster level.
Merestil Haye 01-17-08, 05:53 PM	The caster level of a weapon is the minimum caster level to make the enhancement. It does not state that the weapon has that caster level, instead it is stating the level of the crafter.This turns out not to be the case. The property in question is the Spell Storing weapon property. Unlike most caster levels foor weapon properties, which are merely advisory and in many cases flat-out wrong, the Spell Storing property has a prerequisite of "Crafter must be at least 12th level." Therefore this particular property has a caster level of 12. When an item casts a spell, the standard rule is that the caster level is the item's caster level. The SRD on caster level :The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable).When it refers to the range, it is referring to a parameter of the spell that varies with caster level. It includes (by extension) all level-dependent variables of the spell. These parameters are set by the caster level of the item. That is the general rule, which applies to all items that cast spells except where the item description states otherwise. For this particular item, there is no text anywhere which states otherwise. The problem is that many people extend the specific exception presented for the ring of spell storing to the weapon property. This has no warrant in the rules. The hierarchy of rules applicability (General rule superseded by specific rule superseded by exception) makes it clear that the Ring's exception to the standard rule regarding items casting spells cannot be construed as a precedent for any other item. If you want to go by the mechanics of the game, to cast a spell into the sword above the minimum caster level requires the use of more material and xp then to cast the lowest level possilbe. This is on par with scrolls and wands. Since casting into the sword requires no materials, it shouldn't cost anymore to cast at your caster level.This is also in error. In order to charge the weapon's spell store, the spell is cast into it as normal. This means paying all costs, including valuable material components and xp if applicable. When casting the spell out of the store, there are no components to pay, true. But casting into the store does require paying the components.
mvincent 01-17-08, 06:07 PM	When an item casts a spell, the standard rule is that the caster level is the item's caster level.While I've acknowledged that this is a literal interpretation of RAW, I'm curious if you've ever encountered anyone (other than yourself) that actually handled spell-storing weapons that way?
JamesMaissen 01-18-08, 04:35 AM	It ain't science. It's magic. Who's casting the spell? The weapon is. I don't know how, but that's what the ability description says. Yeah it's the line following that makes me question this. Again I think that 12th level is the level of the spell storing ability rather than the spell stored via it. -James
Merestil Haye 01-18-08, 01:57 PM	While I've acknowledged that this is a literal interpretation of RAW, I'm curious if you've ever encountered anyone (other than yourself) that actually handled spell-storing weapons that way?I'm not sure. To be quite honest, I can't remember how I handled it in the past. All I can be sure of was that it was my participation in this thread, and the reading I did when thinking about the question, that led me to the conclusion that this was what the RAW said. Any spell storing weapon I have dealt with in the past may have been interpreted wrongly. I haven't yet decided if I will houserule the property, and if so how I will houserule it, because I've only just realised it says what it actually says. My houserule options boil down to : None. The weapon casts the spell at CL12. Houserule the Minimum Caster Level term into the weapon. So (for example) the Shocking Grasp now deals 1d6 electricity damage. Houserule that it works at the caster's CL or the weapons, whichever is lower.I suspect that option three is closest to the actual intent of the property. I certainly don't believe that casting a 1st level spell at CL1 is the intent, but that is what applying the text from the Ring to the weapon would do. I'm going to reject the Minimum CL for spell option; it's neither what the text says nor what I now suspect the original intent to have been.
mvincent 01-18-08, 02:13 PM	I suspect that option three is closest to the actual intent of the property.That's not a bad method actually. I Personally believe that the writer didn't really think about it too much, but likely thought that the standard for spell storing was that they were stored at the level of the caster that put it into the spell-storing item. Indeed, this is likely how most players play it... however I can find ways to abuse that method. If that same original author was presented with the information of how other spell-storing items work, he would probably agree that this is how the weapon should function... and this is likely how many players that have researched it a bit play it. I don't actually know anyone (including you evidently) that has ever played it as (always) CL 12... but if I did, I would find lots of ways to abuse that. We probably shouldn't be giving it out as a recommendation.
kjenks 01-18-08, 05:06 PM	I don't actually know anyone (including you evidently) that has ever played it as (always) CL 12... but if I did, I would find lots of ways to abuse that. We probably shouldn't be giving it out as a recommendation. That's how I read it and that's how I would judge it, if the situation were ever to arise at one of my tables. As far as I can recall, I've never been the table judge when a PC had a Spell Storing weapon, so the situation has never come up.
mvincent 01-18-08, 05:27 PM	That's how I read it and that's how I would judge it, if the situation were ever to arise at one of my tables. Would you continue to do so if your players started using that ruling to make all their wand charges, their scrolls, and their own spell slots considerably more powerfull?
kjenks 01-18-08, 07:37 PM	Would you continue to do so if your players started using that ruling to make all their wand charges, their scrolls, and their own spell slots considerably more powerfull? You bet. Why not? That's what the rules say. You don't really think this affects game balance, do you? A Spell Storing weapon lets the party (as a group) get off one more low-level spell per combat. The power level of this is on par with someone drinking an extra potion. And the cost is (at a minimum) an extra 6,000 gp. No matter what the caster level is, that's not much of a game balance issue.
mvincent 01-18-08, 09:10 PM	You don't really think this affects game balance, do you?Yes. At about 5th level, the party could use it to say, get the following benefits: 1) The charges from their wand of cure light wounds heal 1d8+5 instead of 1d8+1 (a worthwhile cost savings for the party). Cure moderate and cure critical are enhanced much more than this. 2) All the party's mission buff spells (i.e. done beforehand) not only last last longer, but many are significantly more powerful: - a) greater magic weapon, magic vestments and greater magic fang are now +3, and last for 12 hours - b) resist energy and protection from energy now absorb twice as much or more (i.e. the maximum) and last for 2 hours. - c) Heroism, Daylight, etc. last for 2 hours now (and are harder to dispel) - d) barkskin is now +5 - e) shield of faith moves to +4 deflection 3) Rope trick last for 12 hours now (a big deal, not having to wake up and recast it) 4) Outside of combat, Dispel magic is now maxed 5) Shrink lasts for 12 days now 6) Spells that last for 1 hr/level can now be cast the night before an adventure. etc.
kjenks 01-18-08, 10:54 PM	And those things are not actually a big deal, either. The Spell Storing ability only works on spells with a Target: entry, so some of those are not valid. Each time the party uses the "Spell Storing Amplifier" like this, the target creature takes damage. That damage can be minimized by using a +1 small Spell Storing gauntlet or some other such minimal-damage weapon, but there's still some damage. True, it could be used to make some pre-combat buff spells a little better, but I don't think that's going to ruin the game balance or spoil the fun for anybody.
JamesMaissen 01-19-08, 12:16 AM	That damage can be minimized by using a +1 small Spell Storing gauntlet or some other such minimal-damage weapon, but there's still some damage. In the case of healing you'd just do non-lethal and have the 1-2hps cured with the next hit alongside the real damage. -James
mvincent 01-19-08, 01:38 AM	some of those are not valid.Which ones? Each time the party uses the "Spell Storing Amplifier" like this, the target creature takes damage.1 point (minimum strength) of non-lethal damage (-4 to hit), isn't gonna kill you (and it gets recovered fairly quickly, especially with healing available).
kjenks 01-19-08, 09:39 AM	Which ones? Spell Storing only works with spells with a Target: entry. No Magic Circle against Evil Flame Arrow only works on one projectile No Shield Rope Trick is problematic (because a rope only has 1 HP and if you damage the rope, it's destroyed) Animated Dead are under the control of the caster, and that's the weapon It's all there in the rules.
mvincent 01-19-08, 11:29 PM	No Magic Circle against Evil Flame Arrow only works on one projectileFair enough. Removed. No ShieldI said shield of faith rather than shield Rope Trick is problematic (because a rope only has 1 HP and if you damage the rope, it's destroyed)Non-lethal damage shouldn't harm it. Animated Dead are under the control of the caster, and that's the weaponThat's an entirely different discussion (i.e. subject to debate), but since you use that interpretation (and we're basing the theoretical abuses on what you would allow), I'll remove it. But my point remains unchanged. Have I illustrated it to you? The unintended benefits of the interpretation far outshadow what was intended. Indeed, this seems like the only effect of using this intepretation as opposed to the others.
kjenks 01-20-08, 12:04 AM	But my point remains unchanged. Have I illustrated it to you? The unintended benefits of the interpretation far outshadow what was intended. Indeed, this seems like the only effect of using this intepretation as opposed to the others. I understand your point, yet I disagree with it. I also disagree with what you claim is intended and what is unintended. We can't really tell what the [i]intent[/i[ of the game designers was unless we read their words or ask them. Are the benefits (intended or unintended) of a Spell Storing weapon worth the cost? That depends on a lot of things, including the way that your DM interprets how the weapon ability works.