+1 Spell Storing Bolts? [Archive] - Wizards Community

+1 Spell Storing Bolts? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Hate-O-Tron
12-05-05, 03:07 AM I was toying around with a crossbow wielding character that had a quick-loading (3.0 A&E Guide) light crossbow and I was looking through the special abilities for weapons to find a nice mix of ammo to fill the thing with. And spell storing caught my eye.

It doesn't specifically mention it being for melee weapons, or that it can't be used with ranged weapons. So my question is this:

Can you drop the 8,000 gp to get 50 +1 Spell Storing Bolts, put a different spell on each one, and then unleash a hail of projectile/spell death on people?
IceFractal
12-05-05, 03:13 AM Spell Storing is a somewhat unique example. By the RAW, it would either work fully or not be applyable to ammunition. However, either way is non-ideal.

If it works, then spell-storing arrows become much cheaper than potions - but obviously charging the full price (not 1/50th) for them would be overpriced, given that they only work once.
TheGogmagog
12-05-05, 08:14 AM You would still be limited to the spells that can be placed into a spell storing weapon. It's not an impressive list. Bestow curse (cleric) is about the best, then poision (druid), and there is a third but I can't recall. By the time you can afford to commission a +2 weapon, these spells arn't gamebreakers and then progress to useless.
It doesn't specifically mention it being for melee weapons, or that it can't be used with ranged weapons.Aside from that, you convieniently left out that spell storing is not on the Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities. So your answer is up to your DM if the ranged weapon table inclusive or not. I think if you push for a strict rules as written answer, It's not allowed for ranged weapons since it's not on the table.
Puca
12-05-05, 10:44 AM Youre kidding, right?

Look, first of all, it is on the list for melee weapons and absent from the list for ranged. That means something.

Now, if you want to houserule something, consider the consequences:
Lets take 50 +1 Flaming arrows. They cost 8,350 gp. They do 1d8 damage, plus 1d6 fire damage.

50 +1 arrows of Spell Storing cost the exact same amount. But I can fill each arrow with spells of up to third level.

Vampiric Touch (minimum 2d6 and up to 10d6 damage)

Poison (1d10 Con damage)

Inflict Serious Wounds (3d8 +5 minimum damage)

Does that seem like it might be a lot more powerful that a +1 enhancement?
Thats because it is.
tarkin
12-05-05, 12:22 PM Strict Game: not on ranged table, not allowed for ranged weapons at all

Loose Game: touch call, DM might play it strict (no ranged), or might play it as a Power Game (bow yes, no ammo).

Power Game: Allowable on a Bow, but not on ammunition. Ammunition is WAY WAY too powerfull, far more powerfull than potions. For a cost of 800 gp you can get 5 arrows, and a 16th level archer can fire all 5 arrows at you. Even if he miss 2 of them, that is 3 3rd level spells. Try Bestow Curse.

Anything Goes Game: Allowable. Try it as a with rapid shot and TWF. Fires hand crossbow with off hand, throws lots of of shuriken with main hand. Watch the bad guys fall like flies.
mvincent
12-05-05, 12:45 PM it is on the list for melee weapons and absent from the list for ranged. That means something.Nope (and this has been hashed out at length before). Those tables are intended merely for random generation, and the rules allow players to make combinations that are not listed on those tables. Plus, some of the items on the melee table (example: daggers) are frequently used as ranged weapons, and some of the weapons listed on the ranged tables (example: throwing axes) are suitable for enhancements from the melee table anyhow.

That said: spell storing ammunition is overpowered. However DM's can reasonably conclude rule that a player cannot activate the spell storing ability of something that they are not holding onto. Or (if you do want spell-storing daggers or throwing-axes to be viable at range), you can simply house-rule that spell-storing cannot be used on ammunition.

This second option also prevents players from trying to use spell-storing ammunition as improvised melee weapons.
mvincent
12-05-05, 12:50 PM Strict Game: not on ranged table, not allowed for ranged weapons at allAs mentioned above, that is not a truism even in the strictest game, as many weapons on the melee table are also ranged weapons.

Power Game: Allowable on a Bow, but not on ammunition.Certainly, this seems suitable for a power game. Note though: it would technically be bending RAW a bit since the spell-storing ability doesn't say that bows so crafted bestow the ability upon their ammunition.
tarkin
12-05-05, 02:22 PM Mvincent, there is no way a strict game would allow it at all.

The fact that a weapon is on both tables is irrelevant, no ammunition is on the melee table, and bows are not on the melee table.

Power Games don't care about RAW.

As a reminder:

Strict game = stricter than what WoTC wrote

Loose Game = attempts to follow the spirit of what WoTC wrote

Power Game = goes with what is cool, as long as it is not ridiculously over-balanced

Anything Goes Game = whatever you want forget about balance.
Incognito2me
12-05-05, 02:30 PM I'm sorry if this is a newbie question. I've lurked for ages on this board, but I never worked out what RAW stands for. Can anyone tell me? :(
JadeSpider9643
12-05-05, 02:39 PM I'm sorry if this is a newbie question. I've lurked for ages on this board, but I never worked out what RAW stands for. Can anyone tell me? :(
that would be "Rules As Written"
mvincent
12-05-05, 02:59 PM Mvincent, there is no way a strict game would allow it at all.Point of clarification: my reply was in regard to your statement saying "not allowed for ranged weapons at all", which again, is not a truism in even the strictest games. A dagger can be used as a ranged weapon, and it can be a spell-storing weapon (even in a strict game).

If your are actually referring to only ammunition (rather than ranged weapons), then you can ignore my statement.
Puca
12-05-05, 03:02 PM Nope (and this has been hashed out at length before). Those tables are intended merely for random generation, and the rules allow players to make combinations that are not listed on those tables. Plus, some of the items on the melee table (example: daggers) are frequently used as ranged weapons, and some of the weapons listed on the ranged tables (example: throwing axes) are suitable for enhancements from the melee table anyhow.Of course a DM can decide on any special qualities for weapons that he likes, but when he chooses to deviate from the lists, then he is making a judgment call. Im not saying that missiles should never have this quality, but it should cost a probably cost a hell of a lot more than +1 bonus prices.

Things like daggers and throwing axes, by the way, and even something like a crossbow, are not going to suffer from the exact same problems that I discussed because you can still only have one spell stored at a time. One use and it is gone until you can get another spell put in.

In the case of ammunition, 50 +1 Spell Storing arrows would allow you to have 50 arrows, each with a spell stored in them, meaning that in the heat of battle you could get the benefits of up to 50 stored spells, as opposed to just one. Thats bad.

The only concern that I would have about ranged weapons (as opposed to ammo) is that you could use them to deliver a touch attack at range. This is a bit more powerful than the melee-weapon version of this enhancement.

Normally, if you want to use something like Touch of Idiocy, youve either got to get up close and personal or modify the spell with a feat (Reach Spell, Ocular Spell) or use something like Spectral Hand. Even then, your range is usually pretty close. Putting the Spell-Storing enhancement on a crossbow would let you inflict it from 80’ or more away, and since you dont decide to deliver the spell until after you successfully hit, theres no risk of wasting it on a miss, which makes up for the more difficult to hit roll.

Thats more powerful. Thats something DMs need to consider before they decide to do something not on the tables in the DMG.
mvincent
12-05-05, 03:57 PM Of course a DM can decide on any special qualities for weapons that he likes, but when he chooses to deviate from the lists, then he is making a judgment call.I'm not talking about a judgement call, I'm talking only about RAW. By the rules, many wands, staffs, potions and weapons that cannot be rolled up on those tables can still be made by characters.

The rules detail how (i.e. give permission) to make items, and the random generation tables do not actually rescind this permission for combinations that are not listed (otherwise, we'd be very limited on staff selections). You must look to the item descriptions and item creation rules (not the tables) to find specific limitations on combinations.

Thats more powerful.I believe everyone here can agree that spell-storing arrows would be unbalanced. I also agree that a DM can (and should) decide whether to allow spell-storing to work at a range.
tiercel
12-05-05, 09:11 PM Given that abilities like flaming and merciful specify "Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the <effect> upon their ammunition," and spell storing does not, then it could be argued that a bow of spell storing wouldn't really work (unless you were using it as an improvised club or staff or something).

It is true that spell storing is not on the Ranged table. Then again, neither are keen or defending, and one could certainly imagine a +1 keen arrow or a +2 defending bow. Perhaps more significantly, there are some qualities (e.g. vicious, ki focus) which state that "Only melee weapons can have the <ability>." This phrase is notably absent from the spell storing (as well as keen and defending) quality.

You could make the argument, RAW, that spell storing ammunition is technically admissable... but on the other hand, I think it is fairly clear that this is a real problem. (Telekinesis plus fifteen +1 spell storing shuriken, anyone? And if you allow spell storing shuriken, then by the same argument you could have wounding shuriken... )

This would leave you with melee and thrown weapons. While a thrown spell storing weapon is a bit better because of its ability to deliver touch spells at range, it also involves taking a 8300+gp item, throwing it at someone you don't like, and hoping you can go get it again later (unless you have also invested in making it returning, which is starting to get expensive).

The other thing I've never been exactly sure about with spell storing weapons is the caster level used for the spell stored in them. Spell storing weapons don't have the "minimum caster level" clause that a ring of spell storing does... technically, you could read this to mean that it uses the item's caster level (12, if no higher-level effect) to cast the spell, which boosts a number of spells considerably (not least of which is poison). I always figured it had to be minimum caster level, but it doesn't actually say that....

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hate-O-Tron 12-05-05, 03:07 AM	I was toying around with a crossbow wielding character that had a quick-loading (3.0 A&E Guide) light crossbow and I was looking through the special abilities for weapons to find a nice mix of ammo to fill the thing with. And spell storing caught my eye. It doesn't specifically mention it being for melee weapons, or that it can't be used with ranged weapons. So my question is this: Can you drop the 8,000 gp to get 50 +1 Spell Storing Bolts, put a different spell on each one, and then unleash a hail of projectile/spell death on people?
IceFractal 12-05-05, 03:13 AM	Spell Storing is a somewhat unique example. By the RAW, it would either work fully or not be applyable to ammunition. However, either way is non-ideal. If it works, then spell-storing arrows become much cheaper than potions - but obviously charging the full price (not 1/50th) for them would be overpriced, given that they only work once.
TheGogmagog 12-05-05, 08:14 AM	You would still be limited to the spells that can be placed into a spell storing weapon. It's not an impressive list. Bestow curse (cleric) is about the best, then poision (druid), and there is a third but I can't recall. By the time you can afford to commission a +2 weapon, these spells arn't gamebreakers and then progress to useless. It doesn't specifically mention it being for melee weapons, or that it can't be used with ranged weapons.Aside from that, you convieniently left out that spell storing is not on the Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities. So your answer is up to your DM if the ranged weapon table inclusive or not. I think if you push for a strict rules as written answer, It's not allowed for ranged weapons since it's not on the table.
Puca 12-05-05, 10:44 AM	Youre kidding, right? Look, first of all, it is on the list for melee weapons and absent from the list for ranged. That means something. Now, if you want to houserule something, consider the consequences: Lets take 50 +1 Flaming arrows. They cost 8,350 gp. They do 1d8 damage, plus 1d6 fire damage. 50 +1 arrows of Spell Storing cost the exact same amount. But I can fill each arrow with spells of up to third level. Vampiric Touch (minimum 2d6 and up to 10d6 damage) Poison (1d10 Con damage) Inflict Serious Wounds (3d8 +5 minimum damage) Does that seem like it might be a lot more powerful that a +1 enhancement? Thats because it is.
tarkin 12-05-05, 12:22 PM	Strict Game: not on ranged table, not allowed for ranged weapons at all Loose Game: touch call, DM might play it strict (no ranged), or might play it as a Power Game (bow yes, no ammo). Power Game: Allowable on a Bow, but not on ammunition. Ammunition is WAY WAY too powerfull, far more powerfull than potions. For a cost of 800 gp you can get 5 arrows, and a 16th level archer can fire all 5 arrows at you. Even if he miss 2 of them, that is 3 3rd level spells. Try Bestow Curse. Anything Goes Game: Allowable. Try it as a with rapid shot and TWF. Fires hand crossbow with off hand, throws lots of of shuriken with main hand. Watch the bad guys fall like flies.
mvincent 12-05-05, 12:45 PM	it is on the list for melee weapons and absent from the list for ranged. That means something.Nope (and this has been hashed out at length before). Those tables are intended merely for random generation, and the rules allow players to make combinations that are not listed on those tables. Plus, some of the items on the melee table (example: daggers) are frequently used as ranged weapons, and some of the weapons listed on the ranged tables (example: throwing axes) are suitable for enhancements from the melee table anyhow. That said: spell storing ammunition is overpowered. However DM's can reasonably conclude rule that a player cannot activate the spell storing ability of something that they are not holding onto. Or (if you do want spell-storing daggers or throwing-axes to be viable at range), you can simply house-rule that spell-storing cannot be used on ammunition. This second option also prevents players from trying to use spell-storing ammunition as improvised melee weapons.
mvincent 12-05-05, 12:50 PM	Strict Game: not on ranged table, not allowed for ranged weapons at allAs mentioned above, that is not a truism even in the strictest game, as many weapons on the melee table are also ranged weapons. Power Game: Allowable on a Bow, but not on ammunition.Certainly, this seems suitable for a power game. Note though: it would technically be bending RAW a bit since the spell-storing ability doesn't say that bows so crafted bestow the ability upon their ammunition.
tarkin 12-05-05, 02:22 PM	Mvincent, there is no way a strict game would allow it at all. The fact that a weapon is on both tables is irrelevant, no ammunition is on the melee table, and bows are not on the melee table. Power Games don't care about RAW. As a reminder: Strict game = stricter than what WoTC wrote Loose Game = attempts to follow the spirit of what WoTC wrote Power Game = goes with what is cool, as long as it is not ridiculously over-balanced Anything Goes Game = whatever you want forget about balance.
Incognito2me 12-05-05, 02:30 PM	I'm sorry if this is a newbie question. I've lurked for ages on this board, but I never worked out what RAW stands for. Can anyone tell me? :(
JadeSpider9643 12-05-05, 02:39 PM	I'm sorry if this is a newbie question. I've lurked for ages on this board, but I never worked out what RAW stands for. Can anyone tell me? :( that would be "Rules As Written"
mvincent 12-05-05, 02:59 PM	Mvincent, there is no way a strict game would allow it at all.Point of clarification: my reply was in regard to your statement saying "not allowed for ranged weapons at all", which again, is not a truism in even the strictest games. A dagger can be used as a ranged weapon, and it can be a spell-storing weapon (even in a strict game). If your are actually referring to only ammunition (rather than ranged weapons), then you can ignore my statement.
Puca 12-05-05, 03:02 PM	Nope (and this has been hashed out at length before). Those tables are intended merely for random generation, and the rules allow players to make combinations that are not listed on those tables. Plus, some of the items on the melee table (example: daggers) are frequently used as ranged weapons, and some of the weapons listed on the ranged tables (example: throwing axes) are suitable for enhancements from the melee table anyhow.Of course a DM can decide on any special qualities for weapons that he likes, but when he chooses to deviate from the lists, then he is making a judgment call. Im not saying that missiles should never have this quality, but it should cost a probably cost a hell of a lot more than +1 bonus prices. Things like daggers and throwing axes, by the way, and even something like a crossbow, are not going to suffer from the exact same problems that I discussed because you can still only have one spell stored at a time. One use and it is gone until you can get another spell put in. In the case of ammunition, 50 +1 Spell Storing arrows would allow you to have 50 arrows, each with a spell stored in them, meaning that in the heat of battle you could get the benefits of up to 50 stored spells, as opposed to just one. Thats bad. The only concern that I would have about ranged weapons (as opposed to ammo) is that you could use them to deliver a touch attack at range. This is a bit more powerful than the melee-weapon version of this enhancement. Normally, if you want to use something like Touch of Idiocy, youve either got to get up close and personal or modify the spell with a feat (Reach Spell, Ocular Spell) or use something like Spectral Hand. Even then, your range is usually pretty close. Putting the Spell-Storing enhancement on a crossbow would let you inflict it from 80’ or more away, and since you dont decide to deliver the spell until after you successfully hit, theres no risk of wasting it on a miss, which makes up for the more difficult to hit roll. Thats more powerful. Thats something DMs need to consider before they decide to do something not on the tables in the DMG.
mvincent 12-05-05, 03:57 PM	Of course a DM can decide on any special qualities for weapons that he likes, but when he chooses to deviate from the lists, then he is making a judgment call.I'm not talking about a judgement call, I'm talking only about RAW. By the rules, many wands, staffs, potions and weapons that cannot be rolled up on those tables can still be made by characters. The rules detail how (i.e. give permission) to make items, and the random generation tables do not actually rescind this permission for combinations that are not listed (otherwise, we'd be very limited on staff selections). You must look to the item descriptions and item creation rules (not the tables) to find specific limitations on combinations. Thats more powerful.I believe everyone here can agree that spell-storing arrows would be unbalanced. I also agree that a DM can (and should) decide whether to allow spell-storing to work at a range.
tiercel 12-05-05, 09:11 PM	Given that abilities like flaming and merciful specify "Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the <effect> upon their ammunition," and spell storing does not, then it could be argued that a bow of spell storing wouldn't really work (unless you were using it as an improvised club or staff or something). It is true that spell storing is not on the Ranged table. Then again, neither are keen or defending, and one could certainly imagine a +1 keen arrow or a +2 defending bow. Perhaps more significantly, there are some qualities (e.g. vicious, ki focus) which state that "Only melee weapons can have the <ability>." This phrase is notably absent from the spell storing (as well as keen and defending) quality. You could make the argument, RAW, that spell storing ammunition is technically admissable... but on the other hand, I think it is fairly clear that this is a real problem. (Telekinesis plus fifteen +1 spell storing shuriken, anyone? And if you allow spell storing shuriken, then by the same argument you could have wounding shuriken... ) This would leave you with melee and thrown weapons. While a thrown spell storing weapon is a bit better because of its ability to deliver touch spells at range, it also involves taking a 8300+gp item, throwing it at someone you don't like, and hoping you can go get it again later (unless you have also invested in making it returning, which is starting to get expensive). The other thing I've never been exactly sure about with spell storing weapons is the caster level used for the spell stored in them. Spell storing weapons don't have the "minimum caster level" clause that a ring of spell storing does... technically, you could read this to mean that it uses the item's caster level (12, if no higher-level effect) to cast the spell, which boosts a number of spells considerably (not least of which is poison). I always figured it had to be minimum caster level, but it doesn't actually say that....