I think this would be easier to explain with only quiver A having any arrows inside it and quiver B being empty. Since 10 arrows are being taken from quiver A in round 1, they are replenished in the next round. Since 10 arrows (the ones taken from A and dipped into B) are taken from quiver B in round 1, they are replenished, too.
Yeah, I can't see any fault with that, good job. Although I'm fairly certain that silver, gold or platinum would fall under "special materials", so this wouldn't work for them. In fact, gold is literally listed under "Special Materials" in Ultimate Combat.
Edit:
You can't do Special Materials anymore since the spell was nerfed. So, sure you could have infinite mundane steel arrows, but to what end? Your GM would just chuckle and move on with the story.
I wouldn't be so quick to brush that tactic aside. Similar to how you might actually have to pay attention to how much food you have depending on the adventure, being able to duplicate arrows might actually really come in handy. Sure, generally, you have enough arrows to last you ages, but not in all cases.
|
You can't duplicate Special Materials (such as Adamantine) with the spell, though.
And, again, what GM would allow you to do it in the first place? It doesn't work in PFS, because the value of the extra arrows is 0gp, and in a homegame I doubt any GM would grant a 1st level PC infinite wealth.
And if you could, congratulations? Normally you have to have a 5th level Druid to win Pathfinder, but who needs to win when your character can retire early?
The spell description isn't worded like a legal contract (and it isn't worded particularly elegantly at all), so some ambiguity exists, but the most reasonable reading of the description is that the 'ammunition' mentioned as being part of the target container and the 'ammunition' replaced are the same thing.
In other words, only ammunition that is part of the targeting of the spell, and only ammunition that matches the requirements of the spells will be the ammunition that is replaced.
...
2) Within the space of one round they remove 10 arrows from Quiver A, put those arrows briefly into Quiver B and then remove them again.
...
I don't see how this can be achieved. You are retrieving 10 items from their storage container, storing those 10 items in a different storage container, and then retrieving those 10 items from that second storage container. You aren't using the arrows to make attacks with a bow so you don't get the "free action to draw" exception.
Even if you are allowed to treat the arrows as a single item by tying them into a bundle, you still have to retrieve the bundle, store it, and then retrieve it again. I don't see how you would have the actions to accomplish this in one round.
Even if you are allowed to treat the arrows as a single item by tying them into a bundle, you still have to retrieve the bundle, store it, and then retrieve it again. I don't see how you would have the actions to accomplish this in one round.
Well, as the OP states, we have two casters, so the answer is "very easily".
Even if you are allowed to treat the arrows as a single item by tying them into a bundle, you still have to retrieve the bundle, store it, and then retrieve it again. I don't see how you would have the actions to accomplish this in one round.Well, as the OP states, we have two casters, so the answer is "very easily".
Please explain in detail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain in detail.Even if you are allowed to treat the arrows as a single item by tying them into a bundle, you still have to retrieve the bundle, store it, and then retrieve it again. I don't see how you would have the actions to accomplish this in one round.Well, as the OP states, we have two casters, so the answer is "very easily".
Well, surely, removing the bundle of arrows is a move action and putting them in another quiver is a move action as well.
Initial State: quiver A contains a bundle of arrows, quiver B is empty.
Round 1:
Caster 1: Casts Abundant Ammunition on quiver A.
Caster 2: Casts Abundant Ammunition on quiver B.
Round 2:
Caster 1: Takes bundle of arrows from quiver A and puts them in quiver B (two move actions)
Caster 2: Takes bundle of arrows from quiver B and... I dunno, stabs Caster 1 with it?
Round 3:
Caster 1: Arrows taken from quiver A are replenished
Caster 2: Arrows taken from quiver B are replenished, bundle outside quiver from the previous round vanishes
This would lead to a bundle of arrows in both quiver A and quiver B.
Thanks, that makes sense. I wasn't thinking in terms of two people moving the same bunch of arrows. I was envisioning each caster trying to make three move actions with their own bundle of arrows.
|
|
You can't duplicate Special Materials (such as Adamantine) with the spell, though.Sure, the intent is that it doesn't, but as I specifically pointed out, that is not what it actually says
You must be reading the first printing of Ultimate Combat.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken, (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken, but not special materials, alchemical attributes, or nonmagical treatments on the ammunition)
I am reading your post, but I must be misreading it in the same way that you're misreading the spell.
Nefreet, he's saying that the restriction on the type of arrow only applies to those in the container while the spell is being cast.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken, (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken, but not special materials, alchemical attributes, or nonmagical treatments on the ammunition)
There is no explicit restriction listed for arrows that are added after the casting, so if you "dip" adamantine arrows into the container after the spell has been cast then they can be replaced with duplicates by the spell.
I am reading your post, but I must be misreading it in the same way that you're misreading the spell.
I'm thinking toasted is right. For ease of explanation, I'll stick with magical rather than special ammunition.
Logically, there is a vast difference between "quiver that contains nonmagical ammunition" and "quiver that doesn't contain magical ammunition".
The former translates to "there is ammunition in the quiver that is nonmagical". This is clearly true for a quiver that contains, say, two steel arrows and a dozen magical ones.
The latter, however, translates to "no ammunition in the quiver is magical" which would rule out the exploit that toasted mentioned.
The intention of the rules is clearly the latter, but the letter of the rules allows the former.
But let's make it even easier and even more blatantly broken. The spell only says that it has to be cast on a quiver containing non-magical arrows. It makes no statement about the qualities of the arrows in the quiver during the duration of the spell.
So, really, you could just cast it on a quiver containing, say, one steel arrow. This would fulfill the limitation that it has to be cast on a quiver containing non-magical ammunition.
Then, you add in your adamantine +1 dragon-bane arrows to the quiver. Again, no conflict with the rules.
However, you can then draw those magical arrows from the quiver and they will be replaced! You can then either do the duplication trick or just use them as you please.
The limitation on "no magical, special material etc." arrows only matters at the time of casting.
Edit: To make the first distinction a bit easier to understand, let me illustrate it a bit further.
If somebody asked me whether my room had plates in it, I would truthfully say Yes. From where I'm sitting, I see three plates. So, my room contains plates.
However, that doesn't mean that my room is filled with nothing but plates! That's not how language works and that's not how logic works.
So, a quiver that "contains nonmagical ammunition" would logically also be allowed to contain other things, including magical ammunition, as long as there is some nonmagical ammunition in the quiver.
I am reading your post, but I must be misreading it in the same way that you're misreading the spell.I'm thinking toasted is right. For ease of explanation, I'll stick with magical rather than special ammunition.
Logically, there is a vast difference between "quiver that contains nonmagical ammunition" and "quiver that doesn't contain magical ammunition".
The former translates to "there is ammunition in the quiver that is nonmagical". This is clearly true for a quiver that contains, say, two steel arrows and a dozen magical ones.
The latter, however, translates to "no ammunition in the quiver is magical" which would rule out the exploit that toasted mentioned.
The intention of the rules is clearly the latter, but the letter of the rules allows the former.But let's make it even easier and even more blatantly broken. The spell only says that it has to be cast on a quiver containing non-magical arrows. It makes no statement about the qualities of the arrows in the quiver during the duration of the spell.
So, really, you could just cast it on a quiver containing, say, one steel arrow. This would fulfill the limitation that it has to be cast on a quiver containing non-magical ammunition.
Then, you add in your adamantine +1 dragon-bane arrows to the quiver. Again, no conflict with the rules.
However, you can then draw those magical arrows from the quiver and they will be replaced! You can then either do the duplication trick or just use them as you please.The limitation on "no magical, special types etc." arrows only matters at the time of casting.
This is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that they reworded the spell to prevent. Sometimes people legitimately don't understand the intent of rules, but in this case we do. Trying to find ways to subvert clear intent seems pointless to me. If too many people start doing this, they are likely to just rewrite the spell again. That sort of escalating, legalistic war over words doesn't seem fun to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that they reworded the spell to prevent. Sometimes people legitimately don't understand the intent of rules, but in this case we do. Trying to find ways to subvert clear intent seems pointless to me. If too many people start doing this, they are likely to just rewrite the rule. That sort of escalating, legalistic war over words doesn't seem fun to me.
Well, I suppose we disagree on that, then. To me, this is very fun, but different strokes for different folks. It's clear as day that no GM would allow this and I doubt any player would seriously try this either.
It's trickier with spells where the rules are extremely clear, but the intent is completely unknown like my good friend Full Pouch, a spell that I refuse to touch because of how broken it is. But that's a topic for a different thread.
How about infinite bullets in a gun? Then you turn into The Heavy from Team Fortress 2
Repeating Crossbow ammo comes in things called "Cases" which you load in as a full round action. It is a container with ammunition in it. Cast abundant ammunition on your Repeating Crossbow Case, and fire that heavy repeater like its a bow for 1 minute per level.
Is this cheesy rules abuse, or just a way for a spell to make crossbows viable?
Hmm, nope, I'd say this is fair. You're taking an Exotic Weapon Proficiency and a spell to make a decently powerful weapon that you still can't apply things like Manyshot to. It's good, but definitely not overpowered or blatantly going against the intention of the spell.
Initial State: quiver A contains a bundle of arrows, quiver B is empty.
Round 1:
Caster 1: Casts Abundant Ammunition on quiver A.
Caster 2: Casts Abundant Ammunition on quiver B.
Round 2:
Caster 1: Takes bundle of arrows from quiver A and puts them in quiver B (two move actions)
Caster 2: Takes bundle of arrows from quiver B and... I dunno, stabs Caster 1 with it?
Round 3:
Caster 1: Arrows taken from quiver A are replenished
Caster 2:Arrows taken from quiver B are replenished,bundle outside quiver from the previous round vanishesThis would lead to a bundle of arrows in both quiver A and
quiver B.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken, (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken, but not special materials, alchemical attributes, or nonmagical treatments on the ammunition), at the start of each round this spell replaces any ammunition taken from the container the round before.
Caster 2's spell would fail because when cast no Ammunition is in quiver B.
Caster 2's spell would fail because when cast no Ammunition is in quiver B.
Fine, slam a single arrow into quiver B, then it would still work.
I think this is what you where going for.
Initial State: quiver A contains a bundle of arrows, quiver B is empty.
Round 1:
Quiver A: Caster casts Abundant Ammunition on quiver A.
Quiver B: is empty
Round 2:
Quiver A: Helper Takes bundle of arrows from quiver A and puts them in quiver B.
Quiver B: Caster casts Abundant Ammunition on quiver B. (Arrows from quiver A)
Round 3:
Quiver A: Arrows taken from quiver A in round 2 are replenished.
Quiver B: Arrows in quiver B vanish. (Arrows from quiver A)
Round 4:
Quiver A: Spell ends, quiver is full.
Quiver B: Arrows that vanished from quiver B in round 3 are replenished.
Round 5:
Quiver A: Still full.
Quiver B: Spell ends, quiver is full.
This would lead to a bundle of arrows in both quiver A and quiver B.
Only one Caster is needed, and one Helper.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken, (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken, but not special materials, alchemical attributes, or nonmagical treatments on the ammunition), at the start of each round this spell replaces any ammunition taken from the container the round before. The ammunition taken from the container the round before vanishes.
The trick is to convince the GM that vanishing ammunition is taken.
Why would the spell end when the quiver is full again? Nowhere does it say that. It's minute per level, no exception. So, the original idea would work just fine if there was any amount of ammunition in both quivers.
And no, it does not at all depend on vanishing ammunition counting as "taken". Putting arrows into a quiver and taking them out again in the same round would work. You're making it way too complicated.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken, (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken, but not special materials, alchemical attributes, or nonmagical treatments on the ammunition), at the start of each round this spell replaces any ammunition taken from the container the round before. The ammunition taken from the container the round before vanishes.
Any ammo you take out will vanish 6 seconds later.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken, (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken, but not special materials, alchemical attributes, or nonmagical treatments on the ammunition), at the start of each round this spell replaces any ammunition taken from the container the round before. The ammunition taken from the container the round before vanishes.
Any ammo you take out will vanish 6 seconds later.
So? We've taken that into account. You take out a bundle of arrows from quiver A, put it into quiver B and take it out again in the same round. That way, both quiver A and quiver B had arrows taken out. These are not illusory or non-existent arrows or anything like that. All that matters is that arrows were taken out of the quiver. Nowhere does it state that the arrows that are taken out of the quiver had to have been in the quiver at the beginning of the round.
Sure, in the next round, the bundle of arrows that you're holding will vanish, but since both quivers had ammo taken out of them in the previous round, they will be replenished.
So? We've taken that into account. You take out a bundle of arrows from quiver A, put it into quiver B and take it out again in the same round.
So you are thinking that you can:
1)remove a bundle of arrows from a quiver
2)place that bundle of arrows into a different quiver
3)cast a spell on the quiver with arrows
4)remove the bundle of arrows a second time
All in 6 seconds.
Action economy of each action separately (by different characters) is do able, but on the same bundle of arrows seems a bit much.
It's like saying 10 characters can in a row can pass a Staff down the line in one round because each one goes on a different Initiative. By the rules each takes there turn separately. But the one Staff should only be able to be moved the one time, maybe twice in one round.
So you are thinking that you can:
1)remove a bundle of arrows from a quiver
2)place that bundle of arrows into a different quiver
3)cast a spell on the quiver with arrows
4)remove the bundle of arrows a second timeAll in 6 seconds.
Action economy of each action separately (by different characters) is do able, but on the same bundle of arrows seems a bit much.
Really, it does? To me, it's no different from me taking an item out of my bag, handing it to you and you putting it in your bag in one round. Three move actions, two of which are on one character's turn and the third one on the second character's. It takes less time than me taking a potion out of my bag, handing it to you and you drinking it, a fairly reasonable case.
And as I've stated, as long as there is at least one arrow in each quiver at the beginning, you can take your time casting the spell on both quivers. So, two casters can cast Abundant Ammunition on two quivers containing at least one arrow before the whole arrow-switcheroo even starts. The first caster can then take arrows out of the first quiver, put it in the second quiver and the second caster takes out the arrows from the second quiver and job's done.