Spellfire is a Realms thing, not a version thing. It's been around since 2ed. When they went 3.5 it just dissappeared??? Come on now. You and I both know that there are things from 3.0 that are still useable in 3.5. I'm looking for a logical answer to this question regardless of what edition or version material comes from. Can a spellfire weilder absorb an eldritch blast by using a ready action to absorb a spell?
Listen, I understand that it existed prior to D&D 3.0, but it was not updated. Elderitch blast was not imagined when it was written in the current form. As it didn't exist, there was no framework for it. If you want to implement it, go ahead, but there are no rules for it now, as I already stated.
I'm sure you can do it, as it's not very different from a spellfire blast to begin with. Strictly speaking, spellfire wielders can only absorb spells, because that's what the ability states.
Listen, I understand that it existed prior to D&D 3.0, but it was not updated. Elderitch blast was not imagined when it was written in the current form. As it didn't exist, there was no framework for it. If you want to implement it, go ahead, but there are no rules for it now, as I already stated.
I'm sure you can do it, as it's not very different from a spellfire blast to begin with. Strictly speaking, spellfire wielders can only absorb spells, because that's what the ability states.
Wrong again!! Magic of faerun has a 3.5 edition and so spellfire has a 3.5 rule set.
3.5 Edition book list
Arms and Equipment Guide (AE)
Book of Exalted Deeds (BE)
Book of Vile Darkness (BV)
Champions of Ruin (CR)
Champions of Valor (CV)
City of Splendors: Waterdeep (CSW)
Cityscape (Ci)
Complete Adventurer (CAd)
Complete Arcane (CAr)
Complete Champion (CC)
Complete Divine (CD)
Complete Mage (CM)
Complete Psionic (CP)
Complete Scoundrel (CS)
Complete Warrior (CW)
Defenders of the Faith: A Guidebook to Clerics and Paladins (DF)
Deities and Demigods (DD)
Draconomicon (Dr)
Dragon Magic (DM)
Dragonlance Campaign Setting (DCS)
Dragonmarked (Dra)
Dragons of Eberron (DE)
Dragons of Faerûn (DrF)
Drow of the Underdark (DrU)
Dungeon Master's Guide II (DMG2)
Dungeon Master's Guide v.3.5 (DMG)
Dungeonscape (Du)
Eberron Campaign Setting (ECS)
Enemies and Allies (EA)
Epic Level Handbook (EL)
Expanded Psionics Handbook (XPH)
Explorer's Handbook (EH)
Faiths & Pantheons (FP)
Faiths of Eberron (FE)
Fiend Folio (FF)
Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss (FCI)
Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells (FCI)
Five Nations (FN)
Forge of War, The (FW)
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (FRCS)
Frostburn (Fr)
Ghostwalk (Gh)
Hero Builder's Guidebook (HBG)
Heroes of Battle (HB)
Heroes of Horror (HH)
Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead (LM)
Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (LG)
Lords of Darkness (LD)
Lords of Madness (LoM)
Lost Empires of Faerûn (LE)
Magic Item Compendium (MIC)
Magic of Eberron (MoE)
Magic of Faerûn (Mag)
Magic of Incarnum (MoI)
Manual of the Planes (MP)
Masters of the Wild: A Guidebook to Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers (MW)
Miniatures Handbook (MH)
Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn (Mon)
Monster Manual II (MM2)
Monster Manual III (MM3)
Monster Manual IV (MM4)
Monster Manual V (MM5)
Monster Manual v.3.5 (MM)
Oriental Adventures (OA)
Planar Handbook (PlH)
Player's Guide to Eberron (PE)
Player's Guide to Faerûn (PG)
Player's Handbook II (PH2)
Player's Handbook v.3.5 (PHB)
Planar Handbook (PH)
Power of Faerûn (PF)
Races of Destiny (RD)
Races of Eberron (RE)
Races of Faerûn (Rac)
Races of Stone (RS)
Races of the Dragon (RDr)
Races of the Wild (RW)
Rules Compendium (RC)
Sandstorm (Sa)
Savage Species (SS)
Secrets of Sarlona (SoS)
Secrets of Xen'drik (SX)
Serpent Kingdoms (SK)
Sharn: City of Towers (Sh)
Shining South (ShS)
Silver Marches (SM)
Song and Silence: A Guidebook to Bards and Rogues (SaS)
Stormwrack (Sto)
Stronghold Builder's Guidebook (SB)
Sword and Fist: A Guidebook to Monks and Fighters (SF)
Tome and Blood: A Guidebook to Wizards and Sorcerers ((TB)
Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords (ToB)
Tome of Magic (TM)
Unapproachable East (Una)
Underdark (Und)
Unearthed Arcana (UA)
Wrong again!! Magic of faerun has a 3.5 edition and so spellfire has a 3.5 rule set.
3.5 Edition book list
... (UA)
What was the point of that? It contributed nothing to the discussion at all. Do you have some sort of history with the OP that made you want to do this? He never stated that the feat was 3.5, he just stated that many 3.0 bits can still be used. In fact, this particular one can be used, it's just not well written.
Dude just killed the whole thread with that list of 3.5 books. I would have been great if there was something there that we could compare absorbing spell energies and eldritch blast, but all we got was a list of books that half of them have the same material in them anyway.
Maybe we should ignore him and continue with this discussion? If we post enough, nobody will even notice that little list. Maybe we can get a third person involved in the conversation too... then it wouldn't be me saying no, and you saying maybe. Tie breaker if you would.
Maybe we should ignore him and continue with this discussion? If we post enough, nobody will even notice that little list. Maybe we can get a third person involved in the conversation too... then it wouldn't be me saying no, and you saying maybe. Tie breaker if you would.
Very well, 3rd party here.
Personally, I like the idea of Spellfire, even if it isn't well written. That said, 3.5 is a modification of 3.0, and if the erratas & updates don't cover it, that doesn't mean it no longer exists. On to the actual point...
As is stated before:
A spellfire wielder can ready an action to absorb spells targeted at her as if she were a rod of absorbtion.
There are no erratas or updates that address this aspect of Spellfire that I am able to find. Operating under the assumption that I have not missed an update or errata, this means that by RAW the Spellfire Wielder can only absorb Spells in this manner, not Spell-like Abilities, so not Eldrich Blasts. Just because it doesn't say you can't do it doesn't mean you can.
Maybe we should ignore him and continue with this discussion? If we post enough, nobody will even notice that little list. Maybe we can get a third person involved in the conversation too... then it wouldn't be me saying no, and you saying maybe. Tie breaker if you would.
My bad I'll edit it and remove the list if you want, so it won't be there. :surrender
You can argue that Spellfire should work another way, because of author-ignorance or by predating the advent of at-will SLAs for typical PCs. But that is just that. How you prefer it to be, because it works as written.
Spell-like abilities are considered spells for interaction with other effects, except as noted. If something works against spells, it works against SLAs unless specifically denied in the ability (like Share Spells for familiars) or the definition of SLAs (like counterspelling during activation).
You can argue that Spellfire should work another way, because of author-ignorance or by predating the advent of at-will SLAs for typical PCs. But that is just that. How you prefer it to be, because it works as written.
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here, since it's kind of muddled, but I am assuming you're arguing for. SP and Spells are fairly closely related, true, but there is a distinction made in D&D. They are not "the same thing", just similar. When something states "spells" it usually means "spells, not spell like abilities, unless otherwise noted".
If you can show this to be false, please do. I'd be happy to admit defeat on this one.
If you can show this to be false, please do. I'd be happy to admit defeat on this one.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
So besides the restrictions listed in that section, SLAs function as spells for all other purposes. An ability which functions for spells but not SLAs must therefore specifically call out the exception (e.g. Share Spells) or otherwise be incompatible (e.g. metamagic feats since they require expending spell slots).
So besides the restrictions listed in that section, SLAs function as spells for all other purposes. An ability which functions for spells but not SLAs must therefore specifically call out the exception (e.g. Share Spells) or otherwise be incompatible (e.g. metamagic feats since they require expending spell slots).
Yes, I saw that line. That proves only that SLAs otherwise behave as spells. That does not mean that everything reacts to THEM as though they were spells. Pink is like red, but it is not red.
...
...
...
Nothing, huh?
A characteristic of spells is that effects treat them as spells (obviously). The SLA definition grants that characteristic to SLAs, because it does not explicitly deny it. This is not a category fallacy like you are trying to characterize it.
Find text that states effects do not treat SLAs as spells. You won't, but I'll wait...
...
...
...
Nothing, huh?
A characteristic of spells is that effects treat them as spells (obviously). The SLA definition grants that characteristic to SLAs, because it does not explicitly deny it. This is not a category fallacy like you are trying to characterize it.
Now find me text that states you do not treat rocks as spells. The reason you won't find any is because rock, just like SLAs do not require such text. They are a different category altogether.
There are 3 distinct categories of magic: Spells, SLAs, and Supernatural Abilities. Each with their own set of governing rules, though some of those rules do overlap. When something says that it is affected by spells, then spells, and not the other types of magic, affect it.
In this case, if it said "you may absorb incoming magic", then you'd have a good argument for it.
There were many threads on updating Spellfire for 3.5. I don't know if they ever addressed this, but they had some great ideas.
Can you give me a link to these threads? I'd love to check them out.
Now find me text that states you do not treat rocks as spells. The reason you won't find any is because rock, just like SLAs do not require such text.
Irrelevant. There is no text granting rocks all the properties of spells. There is such text for SLAs, so you must still provide a counter beyond, "They should be different because they have different names, despite being equated in the definition."
WOW this topic got hot during my absence. Glad to see that it did. At this point I'm content to say that there is really no end to this arguement, and it would, along with a whole slew of other things be up to the DM. I just think that it should have been written better. I am a power gamer. Respect that or don't, but I play with Power DM so I am forced into that position. The reason why I started this thread is I would like to play a spellfire wielder who happens to be a warlock. Should I play a spellfire weilder I know that my DM would seldom cast spell directed at me, so in order to make use of the feat, I would have to be able to power up my own spellfire. With eldritch blast, there is an endless suply of power to absorb. Either way, I dont think that I would be able to absorb my own eldritch blast because you need to ready an action to absorb, and there is no way to ready and used and eldritch blast in the same round. Perhaps someone can think of a way to do this??? Add a little flavor to the thread. At this point lets assum that our DM will allow the absorbtion of eldritch blast. Can a character then absorb his own blast into stored spellfire??
As you said before reading an action is a standard action and using eldritch blast is a standard action but now we have Quicken Spell-like ability which may allow you to absorb an eldritch blast. The problem with Quicken Spell-like ability is that it can only be used 3/day, so you may be able to store a maximum 18 spell levels from the warlock, I'm with the group that think that you can't absorb a spell-like ability anyway, so to me my answer is no you can't.
A sidebar to the main discussion: Are their any feats for enhancing Spellfire?
I don't think so but there is a PrC in the MoF named Spellfire Channeler on p38 that enhances spellfire.
I don't think so but there is a PrC in the MoF named Spellfire Channeler on p38 that enhances spellfire.
I think I saw that one, but I couldn't immagine taking more than a few levels of it at the most.
Hmm... I wonder how a Spellfire Fighter would work out.
I was wondering if a spellfire weilder could absorb a worlocks Eldritch blast, they way they absorb spells.
-I would say yes. Ultimatley, at the end of the day, the Eldrich Blast is concentrated magical energy used as an offensive weapon.
I think I saw that one, but I couldn't immagine taking more than a few levels of it at the most.
Hmm... I wonder how a Spellfire Fighter would work out.
Well, the feat Spellfire Wielder requires DM approval. Upon gaining that, I think it's a pretty interesting though how it works in-game is another matter. If your a fighter, your object is to engage the enemy with your superior skill at arms. Spellfire Wielder requires you to activate a readied action. So your not really doing your job.
However, your a great secondary healer if you have a warmage or sorcerer in your party, pumping you full of spells to heal your allies.
As for the Spellfire Channeler, I'd say it needs improved to 3.5.
First, I'd do away with the d4 HD and increase it to d8. It's deisgned to help spellfire wielders so I don't see a problem with this.
Second, I would increase the BAB to average (like a clerics) and keep the Fort/Ref/Will save progression.
Doing that, I think, greatly improves the PrC and makes it actually playable.
I think I saw that one, but I couldn't immagine taking more than a few levels of it at the most.
Hmm... I wonder how a Spellfire Fighter would work out.
I don't know it has some very interesting class features. the best one I think is increased storage level for spellfire. If you take the spellfire wielder feat you are able to store up to your Con score, with the channeler you can store up you Con score x 5, wth a con score of 18 that gives you 90 spell levels you can absorb instead of 18 levels.
The absorption ability is said to function basically as an "un-defeatable spell resistance", so we allow it to absorb anything that goes against spell resistance, which eldritch blast, and most Sp's does.
-I would say yes. Ultimatley, at the end of the day, the Eldrich Blast is concentrated magical energy used as an offensive weapon.
The fact that you would allow it is good enough for me. What about the whole ready action problem. Would you allow a warlock spellfire weilder to absorb their own eldritch blast???
The fact that you would allow it is good enough for me. What about the whole ready action problem. Would you allow a warlock spellfire weilder to absorb their own eldritch blast???
I wouldn't allow casters to absorb their own spells or Sp, but that's just me.
The changes we made for spellfire in our games are......
No "ready action" to absorb targeted spells, it just happens automatically if they are targeted (same as a 3.5 rod of absorption).
Spellfire points gained are based on the caster level of the effect absorbed, not the spell level.
Other than that, we run it pretty much as is, although we bumped the spellfire wielders PrC BA up (as was suggested above).
The fact that you would allow it is good enough for me. What about the whole ready action problem. Would you allow a warlock spellfire weilder to absorb their own eldritch blast???
-In theory, but not with any of the abilities that might be bestowed upon a Spellfire wielder when absorbing spells. Seems way too abusable. So, in other words, in a situation where it might seem thematic or something, sure, why not, but there's no way that they are healing themselves, or empowering themselves by absorbing their own magical energies. I'd allow them to "cancel" an Eldrich Blast, but with no augmentation or anything.