Arrows that deliver specific spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Arrows that deliver specific spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Carrion
08-25-05, 01:36 PM I have a player who wants to know the requirements to craft magical arrows that deliver specific spells when fired. He understands that he wont be able to get them back after he has fired them, he basically wants to duplicate spell storing arrows, but for a lesser cost. I am looking for actual president of rules here, I could come up with my own way of doing it, but if WOTC feels that this is to powerful, I would like to know.
SolenVlos
08-25-05, 01:58 PM well, since spell storing arrows are against RAW, I believe that spell storing with a reduced cost is even more.
Ipsissimus
08-25-05, 02:28 PM He would be essentially making one time use wonderous items, and should look at the rules accordingly. Even checking the XPH and reading up on crawling tattoos might be a good template or guide for pricing and up to what lvl you could imbue these crafted arrows with.

...or you could just bypass it all together and just buy alchemical arrows out of the Arm&Equip guide.
JadeSpider9643
08-25-05, 03:10 PM spell-arrows are a potentially very broken concept, if your gonna make it work you HAVE to approve the spells he can use on an individual basis, and probably no spells above level 4 either.

That said, I think Ipsissimus has the right idea with 1 shot wonderous items.
For general guidelines, I'd say the crafter must have 4 ranks in Craft(Fletching), don't forget to be using Masterwork arrows, no touch spells!, nothing above spell level 4, and all spells subject to DM approval/adjustment.
Pricing for an arrow would be something like 6.1gp + (Spell level x caster level x 50gp) = XXX
Really there shouldn't be very many spells that sould work attached to an arrow. And it's up to you how you want to work it, does the arrow fire and carry the spell with it? or does the arrow turn into the spell once fired?
tarkin
08-25-05, 03:15 PM He is SO doing it backwards and wrong. You price items based on the effect, only using the spell if he can't find a better method.

He has to list out the specific spell, then we can talk.

Here are some guidelines.

+1d6 damage = +1. No ifs, ands/ or buts. If you do more damage, then it uses this formula.

DC 11 to remove you from battle = sleep arrow = 132/arrow (1st level effect)
DC 14 to scare you (+2 arrow) = Screaming = 267/bolt (1st level effect)
DC 20 to kill a race = Slaying = 2282/arrow (7th level effect)
DC 23 to kill a race = Slaying, Greater = 4057/arrow (9th level effect)
Inigo Carmine
08-25-05, 04:21 PM he basically wants to duplicate spell storing arrows, but for a lesser cost

well, since spell storing arrows are against RAW, I believe that spell storing with a reduced cost is even more.

Exactly. Spellstoring arrows would be incredibly overpowered*, and he wants something even cheaper?

(Because you can fire multiple arrows, this would be like letting a wizard get off multiple spells per round).

It has too much damage potential in too short of a time.
Lord Schpungus
08-25-05, 05:35 PM Arcane Archer lets you cast your own spells and fire them as arrows. That's the closest you'll get to your idea without being completely broken.
mvincent
08-25-05, 05:38 PM spell storing arrows are against RAWThat can be debated here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6946733)
Carrion
08-25-05, 09:19 PM Thanks this actually helps a lot. I agree this could easily become a breaking of the system. Will tell him that the closest he will come, is the same as the arcane archer. It has to be an area spell, of course still under DM approval. There definitely needs to be a level cap, I will have to think about that one (four might be the right choice, but not sure yet), and I will have to base the price on one-time-use wondrous items. However, now under standing that spell storing is intended for melee weapons (thanks mvincent) i will probably make them rather spendy to craft or purchase.
mvincent
08-25-05, 10:02 PM However, now under standing that spell storing is intended for melee weapons (thanks mvincent)Heh. I was actually only indicating that it is a debated issue, subject to interpretation (as indicated by the thread). I'm glad the thread helped resolve the matter for you though.
tarkin
08-26-05, 11:57 AM Anything can be debated.

I can sit around and debate whether the Faerun is real and the internet fictional. Not that hard to do, just trust your eyes. Have you ever seen an electron? Have you ever seen a Fantasy movie? Obviously if they filmed it, it must be real.

Saying it is debatable is not stateing anything useful. The question is, does anyone with the ability to do basic math and willing to at least consider balance think it is OK? What kind of DM/game would let you use it, and what kind would not use it.
----------
In a strict game, no way would he let you use it, it is not in the DMG as something you can get and Strict games don't even allow the things DMG allows.
----------
In a Loose Game, no way would he let you use it, it is not WAY more powerfull than a potion while costing about 1/2 as much.
----------
In a Power Game, you got people desperately trying to convince you it is cool and therefore OK to do, but the problem is anyone with the capacity to reason and think quickly sees that this is not even appropriate for a Power Game. The comparison to potions is just too obvious.

Potion: useable by anyone 1 as a standard action, limited to 3rd level, price for a 3rd level, minimum caster level is 750 gp.

Single Spell Storing Arrow: Useable by anyone as a ranged attack (easily get several /round at higher levels), limited to 3rd level, price for a 3rd level, minimum caster level is 316gp (including payment to wizard to load the spell)
----------
In an Anything Goes game, DM will of course say Yes Master, would you like fries with that?
mvincent
08-26-05, 12:53 PM Saying it is debatable is not stateing anything useful. The question is, does anyone with the ability to do basic math and willing to at least consider balance think it is OK? The balance part isn't being debated on that thread. Even though balance is typically a subjective matter, I don't believe anyone disagrees with you on that issue.

What was being debated in that thread was: what is actually restricted by RAW.

This discussion should probably be moved to that thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6946733)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Carrion 08-25-05, 01:36 PM	I have a player who wants to know the requirements to craft magical arrows that deliver specific spells when fired. He understands that he wont be able to get them back after he has fired them, he basically wants to duplicate spell storing arrows, but for a lesser cost. I am looking for actual president of rules here, I could come up with my own way of doing it, but if WOTC feels that this is to powerful, I would like to know.
SolenVlos 08-25-05, 01:58 PM	well, since spell storing arrows are against RAW, I believe that spell storing with a reduced cost is even more.
Ipsissimus 08-25-05, 02:28 PM	He would be essentially making one time use wonderous items, and should look at the rules accordingly. Even checking the XPH and reading up on crawling tattoos might be a good template or guide for pricing and up to what lvl you could imbue these crafted arrows with. ...or you could just bypass it all together and just buy alchemical arrows out of the Arm&Equip guide.
JadeSpider9643 08-25-05, 03:10 PM	spell-arrows are a potentially very broken concept, if your gonna make it work you HAVE to approve the spells he can use on an individual basis, and probably no spells above level 4 either. That said, I think Ipsissimus has the right idea with 1 shot wonderous items. For general guidelines, I'd say the crafter must have 4 ranks in Craft(Fletching), don't forget to be using Masterwork arrows, no touch spells!, nothing above spell level 4, and all spells subject to DM approval/adjustment. Pricing for an arrow would be something like 6.1gp + (Spell level x caster level x 50gp) = XXX Really there shouldn't be very many spells that sould work attached to an arrow. And it's up to you how you want to work it, does the arrow fire and carry the spell with it? or does the arrow turn into the spell once fired?
tarkin 08-25-05, 03:15 PM	He is SO doing it backwards and wrong. You price items based on the effect, only using the spell if he can't find a better method. He has to list out the specific spell, then we can talk. Here are some guidelines. +1d6 damage = +1. No ifs, ands/ or buts. If you do more damage, then it uses this formula. DC 11 to remove you from battle = sleep arrow = 132/arrow (1st level effect) DC 14 to scare you (+2 arrow) = Screaming = 267/bolt (1st level effect) DC 20 to kill a race = Slaying = 2282/arrow (7th level effect) DC 23 to kill a race = Slaying, Greater = 4057/arrow (9th level effect)
Inigo Carmine 08-25-05, 04:21 PM	he basically wants to duplicate spell storing arrows, but for a lesser cost well, since spell storing arrows are against RAW, I believe that spell storing with a reduced cost is even more. Exactly. Spellstoring arrows would be incredibly overpowered*, and he wants something even cheaper? (Because you can fire multiple arrows, this would be like letting a wizard get off multiple spells per round). It has too much damage potential in too short of a time.
Lord Schpungus 08-25-05, 05:35 PM	Arcane Archer lets you cast your own spells and fire them as arrows. That's the closest you'll get to your idea without being completely broken.
mvincent 08-25-05, 05:38 PM	spell storing arrows are against RAWThat can be debated here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6946733)
Carrion 08-25-05, 09:19 PM	Thanks this actually helps a lot. I agree this could easily become a breaking of the system. Will tell him that the closest he will come, is the same as the arcane archer. It has to be an area spell, of course still under DM approval. There definitely needs to be a level cap, I will have to think about that one (four might be the right choice, but not sure yet), and I will have to base the price on one-time-use wondrous items. However, now under standing that spell storing is intended for melee weapons (thanks mvincent) i will probably make them rather spendy to craft or purchase.
mvincent 08-25-05, 10:02 PM	However, now under standing that spell storing is intended for melee weapons (thanks mvincent)Heh. I was actually only indicating that it is a debated issue, subject to interpretation (as indicated by the thread). I'm glad the thread helped resolve the matter for you though.
tarkin 08-26-05, 11:57 AM	Anything can be debated. I can sit around and debate whether the Faerun is real and the internet fictional. Not that hard to do, just trust your eyes. Have you ever seen an electron? Have you ever seen a Fantasy movie? Obviously if they filmed it, it must be real. Saying it is debatable is not stateing anything useful. The question is, does anyone with the ability to do basic math and willing to at least consider balance think it is OK? What kind of DM/game would let you use it, and what kind would not use it. ---------- In a strict game, no way would he let you use it, it is not in the DMG as something you can get and Strict games don't even allow the things DMG allows. ---------- In a Loose Game, no way would he let you use it, it is not WAY more powerfull than a potion while costing about 1/2 as much. ---------- In a Power Game, you got people desperately trying to convince you it is cool and therefore OK to do, but the problem is anyone with the capacity to reason and think quickly sees that this is not even appropriate for a Power Game. The comparison to potions is just too obvious. Potion: useable by anyone 1 as a standard action, limited to 3rd level, price for a 3rd level, minimum caster level is 750 gp. Single Spell Storing Arrow: Useable by anyone as a ranged attack (easily get several /round at higher levels), limited to 3rd level, price for a 3rd level, minimum caster level is 316gp (including payment to wizard to load the spell) ---------- In an Anything Goes game, DM will of course say Yes Master, would you like fries with that?
mvincent 08-26-05, 12:53 PM	Saying it is debatable is not stateing anything useful. The question is, does anyone with the ability to do basic math and willing to at least consider balance think it is OK? The balance part isn't being debated on that thread. Even though balance is typically a subjective matter, I don't believe anyone disagrees with you on that issue. What was being debated in that thread was: what is actually restricted by RAW. This discussion should probably be moved to that thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6946733)