Not sure what you mean. For what purpose?
|
I'm guessing that Coidzor is asking for purposes of bypassing DR/Magic?
then again
At caster level 5th, the discuses count as magic and silver. At caster level 10th, they also count as cold iron. At caster level 15th, they also count as adamantine.
That pretty much tells you when they baypass magic DR.... So is the question whether or not the created discus is a weapon or ammunition? At my table based on what I read there, I would treat them as Chakram which is a weapon that was thrown with a similar size and arm movement. This is treated as a weapon and not ammunition.
Treat them as chakram for what purpose, though? They aren't being used as weapons; they're being conjured and magically propelled. They aren't weapons or ammunition; they're just rocks with spell-defined properties.
The rules don't specify, so the GM has to interpret.
It's a 2nd level conjuration spell. There are no conjuration spells at this level (or below) that permanently create something of value. Stone Call is a pretty close relative whose rocks and dirt are explicitly called out as disappearing at the end of the spell duration, though the spell effect is instantaneous, and Fiery Shuriken is a distant relative whose shurikens disappear if you don't use them. There are a couple of spells (e.g. Dust of Twilight) that have a true instantaneous duration, but Stone Discus is specifically creating weapons which have a material value in the game.
It's reasonable to assume that the rules don't intend for casters to create (potentially) adamantine and cold iron weapons with a permanent duration using a second level spell with no material cost. Ergo, the discs disappear after the attack whether or not they hit their target. Or they lose their special properties, or are otherwise rendered useless as a weapon.
|
|
Not sure what you mean. For what purpose?Mostly for the purpose of whether they are completely destroyed upon impact and cease to exist despite being the product of a Conjuration(Creation) spell with Instantaneous duration, but also for the purpose of whether the stone loses any and all properties it may have had as a material upon impact due to having been "magical ammunition."
So you're asking if the bad guy can stoop down and pick it up and start hitting you with it, counting as a magic weapons if it doesn't kill him? interesting.... "
Treat them as chakram for what purpose, though? They aren't being used as weapons; they're being conjured and magically propelled. They aren't weapons or ammunition; they're just rocks with spell-defined properties.
My initial reading of the spell had a picture in my head of a frizbee or track and field discus. But, the more I read it and think about the reason for the question, the more I'm picturing clay pigeons... even if you miss they usually shatter or are otherwise damaged on impact with the ground.
From the magic rules for the Creation subschool:
"If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence." So I see where your question is coming from now, as this spell has an instantaneous duration.
I would say if we picture them as frizbees, they are weapons and would stick around, bbut if we picture them as clay pigeons, they are probably ammunition and broken. The ammunition theory seems backed up by the use of "launch" in the spells text.
Note that they aren't actually made of the materials that they "count as", nor is there any guarantee that using them afterward guarantees continued use of said property. For that matter, it doesn't even say what kind of stone is created--it could be densely-packed gypsum, which would crumble upon impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the other stuff aside, I'm confident they aren't ammunition.
***INCOMING FAQ: STONE DISCUSES ARE AMMUNITION*** (j/k)
How any of us feel about it is not relevant in the slightest, I'm purely interested in this from a rules standpoint.
So far I only see two interpretations of the spell which are not just someone making up a houserule and then pretending that they are not making up a houserule.
Well, you could try going over to the Paizo forums to ask for some free assistance from people who are volunteering their time trying to help others answer questions about a complex rule system when a specific rule doesn't exist.
Be sure to cop an attitude when responses fall short of your expectations, though. That added touch is always appreciated by the community there.
There is such a thing as too much lawyerball, Coidzor. It's a bad game to play.
The stone discus is neither weapon nor ammunition, because the spell does not declare it to be either. The weapon lists in the rulebooks lack any entry labeled "Discus." The dictionary definition of a discus, "A round plate-like object that is thrown for sport," makes it sporting equipment.
The Advanced Player's Guide describes a chakram as "a flat, open-centered metal discus with a sharpened edge," but it also describes a cestus as a glove and a lasso as a rope. That does not make all gloves, ropes, or discuses into weapons. An ordinary discus is not a chakram because it lacks the open center. Also, chakrams are metal not stone.
If a stone discus were a weapon, the only number we have for weapon damage is the 4d6 bludgeoning or slashing damage from the spell. Do you want a permanent weapon created by a 2nd-level spell that does 4d6 damage? We also don't know its range nor weight. If a stone discus were ammunition, what weapon would shoot it? Would a character draw discus ammunition as fast as arrows and shuriken?
I would allow a character to throw a stone discus as an improvised weapon, damage 1d8 bludgeoning. Alas, improvised thrown weapons have a range of 10 feet, regardless of their aerodynamic properties.
If that's what you think happened, then you should know that I was responding with annoyance to someone else getting salty about the fact that I asked the question that I did because they were personally offended by it.
If I misinterpreted what they said, then I apologize.
I just thought someone was making a spurious argument when a perfectly functional one existed and wanted to check.
I see nothing but polite, helpful responses up above, much less anyone getting salty or acting personally offended. It's rarely, if ever, a good idea to assign motives to people.
There are multiple approaches to answering questions that aren't explicitly covered by rules. One is to look for existing rules and try to see if they can cover the situation at hand, which is the most common. Another approach which works for spells and abilities is to look and see if the power or effect is consistent with other spells and abilities at the same level.
The reason you see multiple arguments being made is because these things are always open to interpretation, and even if one of them looks perfectly functional to you someone else reading this thread (or your players, or GM, or whoever is involved here) may think otherwise. A multi-layered argument can be more thorough and more convincing.