| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What it says in the title.
One of my players approached me with this idea and I couldn't find anything in the RAW that contradicts it.
If a spellcaster casts a buff with Range personal into a spell storing weapon and then hits an ally with it, wouldn't he in this way be able to cast the self-buff on the ally?
(assuming it's a dagger, wielded by a Wizard with a -1 str mod, this would do 1d4+1 damage, so nothing anybody above level 3 really cares about)
The player and I am aware of the level 3 cap for spells in storing weapons, but there are quite some good ones below that.
(True strike, disguise self, alter self, arcane sight, beast shape 1, blink just to name a few.)
RAW for Spell Storing weapons:
Thanks in advance for your help.
In the spell description of range poersonal spells, it clearly says "target: you".
I understand the "targeted spell" part as a way to keep it from being used with AOE spells.
I'm unsure myself.
It's kinda obvious the intention for this ability is to cast offensive spells at the same time as you attack someone.
Offensive spells don't have Personal range, and I guess noone in the Dev department thought about to mention this explicitely
I assume the "targeted spell" part means "target other than you", but I guess strictly RAW it would actually work.
However if you want to do that, maybe best you put it on a sap or so you do non-lethal damage even. Or a gauntlet and hit for non-lethal.
I FAQed it to see if we get a dev response.
Use a Ring of spell storing. Not cheap, but it'll do what you want.
Ring of Spell Storing, Minor
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
Slot ring; Price 18,000 gp; Weight —
Description
A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is the same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action.
For a randomly generated ring, treat it as a scroll to determine what spells are stored in it. If you roll a spell that would put the ring over the three-level limit, ignore that roll; the ring has no more spells in it.
A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than three. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing .
The ring magically imparts to the wearer the names of all spells currently stored within it.
Construction
Requirements Forge Ring , imbue with spell ability ; Cost 9,000 gp
|
However if you want to do that, maybe best you put it on a sap or so you do non-lethal damage even. Or a gauntlet and hit for non-lethal.I FAQed it to see if we get a dev response.
Actually, the real weapon you want to put it on is a whip. Nonlethal and 15' range! And the nonproficiency penalty doesn't even matter if you're hitting an ally, since the ally presumably wants to be hit.
As for the question at hand, all I can offer is that it's pretty blatantly against the spirit of what Spell Storing is supposed to do, and for that reason you shouldn't be too surprised if your GM says no.
'You' is the caster. This means one of two scenarios:
1. The spell does not effect your ally because he did not cast it.
2. The spell cannot effect anyone, because nobody actually cast it (it is stored), you only imbued the weapon, thus a target of 'you' is worthless in a spell storing weapon.
I see 2 being the most likely choice. The spell can only affect the caster, and this spell has the weapon as the caster (if any).
In either case, no, you cannot cheat the system. You can however put a spell with any target and have it work on yourself by using it against yourself. I suggest using a non-lethal weapon and one with a very low damage dice.
Lol, i do have a spell storing whip! So with those constraints, what are the best spells to store, intinsified shocking grasp?
That or Vampiric Touch seem to be the best, though Inflict Serious Wounds is a good one, too, if you have a high-level cleric.
ISG is the winner, as long as electricity affects your target. VT is nice when you need a few hit points.
I had a question about Spell Storing Weapons that I may as well mention here...
Shocking Grasp gives you a bonus to-hit if the target is wearing metal armor.
I *think* that per RAW, it wouldn't apply to the attack roll of the spell-storing weapon since the spell doesn't activate until after the hit. Is there any RAW way around that? I guess you would need use-activated so you use up the spell before completing the attack roll, and of course in that case the spell is lost if you miss.
Iit just seems like it SHOULD work, but I think it will be a house-rule at some level.
I had a question about Spell Storing Weapons that I may as well mention here...
Shocking Grasp gives you a bonus to-hit if the target is wearing metal armor.
I *think* that per RAW, it wouldn't apply to the attack roll of the spell-storing weapon since the spell doesn't activate until after the hit. Is there any RAW way around that? I guess you would need use-activated so you use up the spell before completing the attack roll, and of course in that case the spell is lost if you miss.
Iit just seems like it SHOULD work, but I think it will be a house-rule at some level.
I think the SSW is a little ambiguous, but how it works is clear:
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.) Anytime 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.
It seems that the spell only activates on a successful hit, so any modifiers for the spell itself are irrelevant. You have to hit, then, if you want it to, the spell goes off.
You're not activating a magic item, either. You just will it to happen, and the weapon casts the spell.
|
Yeah, i looked up VT the other day (after i put ss on my whip) and piazo nerfed it! In 3.5 it was dam. absorbed = 1d6 / CL. Now its dam. Absorbed = 1d6 / 2 CL.
I wanted VT so my fighter could heal himself durring the fight. Now he'll get maybe 20 hp of his 110.
How would scorching ray work with a SSW?
Shocking Grasp gives you a bonus to-hit if the target is wearing metal armor.
Two things happen, your attack, then the spell:
1. You attack with the melee weapon, using the enhancement bonus of the weapon and your normal abilities. You strike them (beat their AC) and must deal damage (bypass DR, etc...).
Once this is done, you now:
2. Cast the spell from the weapon pretending that you actually just cast it, yourself, independently.
A spell storing weapon doesn't actually say that you pretend as if you touched the opponent for the purposes spell being cast after the attack. What it says is, you have a condition (striking the creature and dealing damage) then it is followed by a response (you can immediately cast the spell on the creature as a free action). It allows you to piggy-back a spell on a weapon attack, it doesn't allow you to also apply the successful attack roll to your spell as well. They are independent of each other.
In the case of a shocking grasp spell, you would need to make another melee attack roll (this time a touch attack) as it is part of casting the spell. By RAW this is what would take place. Also by RAW many would say that you cannot effectively cast shocking grasp through a spell storing weapon, as it would require another independent attack, which unless your BAB or feats/abilities allowed you to, you could never successfully cast it.
If the two happened simultaneously then you could never use Charm Person effectively through the weapon, as they would be charmed the instant you dealt them damage, which would immediately break the Charm Person's spell effect.
I think, by RAW, you must meet the condition, once met and resolved, as a free action you may cast the spell from the weapon at the target. In the case of shocking grasp you must complete the spells casting requirements (expensive material components, attack rolls, etc..). If you are unable to complete the spells requirements then it either can't be cast out of the weapon, or it is wasted.
Yeah, i looked up VT the other day (after i put ss on my whip) and piazo nerfed it! In 3.5 it was dam. absorbed = 1d6 / CL. Now its dam. Absorbed = 1d6 / 2 CL.
I think you're thinking of "greater" VT.
linkI wanted VT so my fighter could heal himself durring the fight. Now he'll get maybe 20 hp of his 110.
How would scorching ray work with a SSW?
It doesn't have "target" in the spell description, so no go.
Shocking Grasp gives you a bonus to-hit if the target is wearing metal armor.Two things happen, your attack, then the spell:
1. You attack with the melee weapon, using the enhancement bonus of the weapon and your normal abilities. You strike them (beat their AC) and must deal damage (bypass DR, etc...).
Once this is done, you now:
2. Cast the spell from the weapon pretending that you actually just cast it, yourself, independently.
A spell storing weapon doesn't actually say that you pretend as if you touched the opponent for the purposes spell being cast after the attack. What it says is, you have a condition (striking the creature and dealing damage) then it is followed by a response (you can immediately cast the spell on the creature as a free action). It allows you to piggy-back a spell on a weapon attack, it doesn't allow you to also apply the successful attack roll to your spell as well. They are independent of each other.
In the case of a shocking grasp spell, you would need to make another melee attack roll (this time a touch attack) as it is part of casting the spell. By RAW this is what would take place. Also by RAW many would say that you cannot effectively cast shocking grasp through a spell storing weapon, as it would require another independent attack, which unless your BAB or feats/abilities allowed you to, you could never successfully cast it.
If the two happened simultaneously then you could never use Charm Person effectively through the weapon, as they would be charmed the instant you dealt them damage, which would immediately break the Charm Person's spell effect.
I think, by RAW, you must meet the condition, once met and resolved, as a free action you may cast the spell from the weapon at the target. In the case of shocking grasp you must complete the spells casting requirements (expensive material components, attack rolls, etc..). If you are unable to complete the spells requirements then it either can't be cast out of the weapon, or it is...
The thing is, the spell was already cast into the weapon. The user is not casting the spell. He simply wills it to happen as a free action, and the weapon casts the spell on the target. He doesn't need material components, etc., because the casting is already done.
Sticking with the RAW, I think it's reasonable to say the attack bonus vs. metal armor would apply to any Crit Confirmation roll you might make, since the spell would have been triggered at that point...? Although the Crit Roll is really simultaneous time-wise (in-game), it isnt' about chronology as much as 'we do know for a fact that the spell discharged' when we are making the Crit Confirm. Maybe that's arguable, but I would learn towards that side of the ambiguity given the flavor.
First, he doesn't "simply will it". He must hit, he must deal damage. Afterwards, he expends a free action to activate it. It requires time to be able to activate. It may take very negligible time, but that is irrelevant as it is not automatic. Otherwise activation wouldn't be necessary.
Secondly, the spell is not "cast into the weapon". It is imbued onto the weapon. You are 'storing' the spell in the weapon, not 'casting' it.
"The weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature", but only after "the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage", and then only after the wielder uses "a free action". Once this free action is used, the spell is cast in its entirety at that time (requiring an attack roll if the spell calls for one). It's RAW, there is chronology. See Spell Storing here.
The real question you should be asking yourself is if your CL and ability scores are used at all... it specifically says it is "cast from the weapon". However I think we can agree that it's the intent of the imbued spell to use your attributes (RAI).
The casting of the spell does follow a chronology. You can rule that a spell being cast after a hit, and after an action is used to activate it, that the weapon hitting allows you to cast a spell that also requires you to make physical/ranged contact with the opponent post-hoc prompter-hoc. It should be noted that such a ruling is RAI rather than RAW.
Imbued spells should use the caster's attributes. I am basing this off of magic items, and the cleric "Imbue with Spell Ability" spell.
The transferred spell's variable characteristics (range, duration, area, and the like) function according to your level, not the level of the recipient.
This also seem to be the case because if you use the weapon wielder's attributes then by RAW the spell could not be cast since spells require a minimum attribute to be cast.
Back to the lack of a second attack roll:
Anytime 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...
It says the spell is cast on the creature. It does not say the spell is merely cast.
The real question you should be asking yourself is if your CL and ability scores are used at all... it specifically says it is "cast from the weapon". However I think we can agree that it's the intent of the imbued spell to use your attributes (RAI).The casting of the spell does follow a chronology. You can rule that a spell being cast after a hit, and after an action is used to activate it, that the weapon hitting allows you to cast a spell that also requires you to make physical/ranged contact with the opponent post-hoc prompter-hoc. It should be noted that such a ruling is RAI rather than RAW.
Please scroll up to the part I already bolded in the description of the weapon. Again, the wielder is not casting a spell.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
We know... I already pointed that out.
However wraith and I believe that imbuing an item with a spell does use the casters attributes. It makes sense in comparison to similar working abilities. We don't believe it's a stretch by RAI to use the corresponding attributes.
Secondly, though the wielder is not casting the spell, it does not remove the fact that the spell "is cast" regardless. You don't skip pieces of the spell, or select requirements. The spell is cast 'on the creature' because the creature must be the target. This is identified by the spell storing ability in requiring that the spell be a target spell. The ability is just identifying that because you've imbued a targeting spell, the target is indeed the one in which you attacked and dealt damage to.
All you're really saying Ahre is that after YOU have hit with the weapon, dealt damage and then use a free action, the WEAPON is now considered to be casting the spell and the WEAPON must now make a melee/ranged attack as per the requirement of the spell.
I would agree that is also a RAW scenario upon which it is impossible for you to effectively imbue and use a spell that requires a melee/ranged attack roll. Thank you for your input.
It should be noted that I don't disagree that it is possible that the intent of spell storing on a weapon may allow for a melee/ranged attack spell. However, I think clarification would be required to distinctly decide this. Anything else would be speculation and RAI. I just see it as impossible to fulfill by RAW, given chronology and melee/range spells post-hoc casting to require attack rolls to be made after the wielder has attacked (and no sooner).
All you're really saying Ahre is that after YOU have hit with the weapon, dealt damage and then use a free action, the WEAPON is now considered to be casting the spell and the WEAPON must now make a melee/ranged attack as per the requirement of the spell.
My way:
The weapon casts the spell on a successful hit. Would you roll a separate touch attack for a shocking grasp spell cast by the wizard who imbued the spell, or a touch attack from the fighter using the weapon?
Seems a bit fussy to me. The weapon hits, it casts the spell if the wielder wills it. The DC and caster level are dependent on whoever put the spell in the weapon, so there still may be some rolls involved.
Yeah, it could be clearer, then we wouldn't get this question every few months! ;)
|
Use a Ring of spell storing. Not cheap, but it'll do what you want.
Ring of Spell Storing, Minor
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
Slot ring; Price 18,000 gp; Weight —
Description
A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is the same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action.
For a randomly generated ring, treat it as a scroll to determine what spells are stored in it. If you roll a spell that would put the ring over the three-level limit, ignore that roll; the ring has no more spells in it.
A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than three. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing .
The ring magically imparts to the wearer the names of all spells currently stored within it.
Construction
Requirements Forge Ring , imbue with spell ability ; Cost 9,000 gp
Close but not quite, what you want to use is:
Aura strong varied; CL 12th
Slot —; Price 36,000 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTIONThis stone stores three levels of spells, as a ring of spell storing. Stored spells in the stone must be placed by a spellcaster but can be used by anyone (see ring of minor spell storing).
Cracked: This stone stores one spell level, as a ring of spell storing (minor). Price: 2,000 gp.
2K gold and you don't have to give up your action to to buff the party member with any 1st level spell you want.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Since the weapon is casting the spell, why aren't we using the weapon's caster level? Items that produce spells/spell-like effects normally do that. Spell Storing is CL12 but affordable at level 5, so obviously that would lead to outrageous shocking grasp cheese, but can anyone give me a RAW reason that doesn't work?
|
This kind of subject irks me for some reason. Circumventing rules by exploiting wordings is not something I would like a playing coming to me about. They should just ask for a houserule exception and you either approve it or deny it. For the intent, self only are for spells themselves or spell completion items. It cannot happen RAI, but if you want the wording twisted on another items to circumvent it in your game, then let them do it. It is all up to you.