| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can you put a spell thrower fusion on a grenade and not have it blow up when you use it?
Not only are the grenades cheap for their tier weapons , but fusions on grenades are half price (because they're expected to be one shot). The spell thrower however isn't expended along with the grenade.
Argument no: A grenade is expended when used. You're using it for the spell gem. Also the combo is way too cheap. The idea of waving a grenade at someone to heal them is silly.
Argument yes: You're specifically allowed to put fusions on grenades. Spell thrower specifically doesn't expend the ammo. The idea of healing someone by waving a grenade at them is too funny to pass up.
|
How is healing someone my waving a grenade at them any more or less silly than healing them by waving a rifle at them? Since spellthrower exists and isn't restricted on normal melee and ranged weapons it seems weird to make the claim that its somehow sillier if the weapon in question is a grenade.
Yes, it is likely a loophole in the rules since the idea of making fusions cheaper on grenades and other consumables is to incentive putting them on those weapons even though you'll lose them, so its likely not intended behavior. That being said, there does not seem to be any ambiguity in the rules here that would not allow this combo to work.
Its kind of like the putting a weapon fusion in a lower level weapon and then transferring to a higher level weapon, its likely not intended to work the way that it does to create a loophole allowing for cheaper fusions, its likely meant to cushion the blow of general fusion upgrading but there's no reason RAW it doesn't work, so home game GMs can always tell you know but the rules aren't fuzzy, they're crystal clear that it works that way.
After I use a grenade (page 186), can I recover it and use it again?
No. Grenades are single-use weapons that are destroyed when used.
You have used the grenade.
It is destroyed.
Now, if a vehicle for a spell throwing enchant wasn't quite what the FAQ intended there , then i don't think spell throwing was intended when the grenade got half price either.
|
|
You haven't used the grenade. "This roll represents your expertise with the weapon, and no actual attack or ammunition is used." Used in the context of the faq clearly means attacked with i.e. thrown. To read otherwise would mean you can't use a grenade again after you pull it out and threaten someone with it as part of an attempt to intimidate them since you've used the grenade at least as much as you've used the grenade in the spellthrower context i.e. as a vehicle to perform some other action.
The faq was deemed neccesary because people were arguing that grenades don't specifically say they're consumed when used.
I personally do not believe it was a needed faq, however due the line on page 183 that says, "grenades are thrown weapons that detonate in an explosive radius when they reach the target." Detonate means they are destroyed since they explode and explode means to burst or shatter violently.
You haven't used the grenade. "This roll represents your expertise with the weapon, and no actual attack or ammunition is used." Used in the context of the faq clearly means attacked with i.e. thrown. To read otherwise would mean you can't use a grenade again after you pull it out and threaten someone with it as part of an attempt to intimidate them since you've used the grenade at least as much as you've used the grenade in the spellthrower context i.e. as a vehicle to perform some other action.
The faq was deemed neccesary because people were arguing that grenades don't specifically say they're consumed when used.
I personally do not believe it was a needed faq, however due the line on page 183 that says, "grenades are thrown weapons that detonate in an explosive radius when they reach the target." Detonate means they are destroyed since they explode and explode means to burst or shatter violently.
The FAQ was necessary because people couldn't believe grenades cost that much without something really weird going on, and assuming some magical tech that made them explode and be reusable was the only thing that made their cost reasonable.
|
|
Regardless of whether a legalistic argument is internally consistent, I would not allow it. Its silly and makes no in-setting sense.
I'm confused by this comment, a rule which changes the price of something because it's consumed inherently makes no logical sense so are you throwing out the whole half priced consumable fusion paradigm even though the designers said that's how it works in setting?
Regardless of whether a legalistic argument is internally consistent, I would not allow it. Its silly and makes no in-setting sense.I'm confused by this comment, a rule which changes the price of something because it's consumed inherently makes no logical sense so are you throwing out the whole half priced consumable fusion paradigm even though the designers said that's how it works in setting?
That rule IS wonky and hasa gotten a few "are you sure about this? Permanent enchants make better fusion seals than fusion seals"
I think that saves you a bit of cash but its not half off, especially with the higher level fusions (which can't go cheaply onto a level 1 weapon before being transfered)
So upon reading everything (I thought this would be fairly cut and dry, but nope :/) there's nothing that explicitly states it can't be done. Weapon fusions can be applied to grenades as any other weapon. Spell thrower does not explicitly state it cannot be on a grenade.
However, there is wording in Spellthrower to imply it's intended for a gun.
A weapon with the spellthrower fusion is able to have a single spell gem loaded into it at a time. It takes 1 minute to load a spell gem, and only gems containing a spell with a casting time of one standard action or less and a spell level no greater than one-quarter the weapon’s item level can be loaded into the weapon.If you are proficient with and wielding the weapon, as a full action you can cast the spell contained within the spell gem rather than make a normal attack. This allows you to use the spell gem as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class’s spell list.Unlike the normal rules for using a spell gem, it does not matter if the gem’s item level is higher than your caster level (even if your caster level is 0). However, if the spell gem’s item level is higher than your base attack bonus, once you’ve spent the full action to cast the spell, you must succeed at an attack roll with the weapon against an AC equal to the spell gem’s level + 1 or you fail to cast the spell. This roll represents your expertise with the weapon, and no actual attack or ammunition is used. If you fail to cast a spell from a spell gem, the spell is expended harmlessly and the spell gem is destroyed.
Lots of referencing to loading, and weapon fusions aren't like strapping a bayonet or tactical light onto the barrel. They're just magical sigils written across the weapon. There would in theory need to be somewhere to put the spellgem.
Granted, this is magic we're talking about, so no physics rules really apply. It could open an extradimensional space for all I know. The thought is also supported by the fact "Spellthrower" seems to be a play in "flamethrower".
Either was, to the point. The devs can't be expected to have imagined every possible combination to figure things out like this. They can only put in so many considerations. As a GM, I wouldn't allow a Spellthrower grenade if only because to attack at all with a grenade, you need to destroy it, and your expertise with the weapon can't really be used if you can't use the base function of the weapon.
By that logic would you allow a spellthrower fusion to be placed on a starknife? All it is is four tapered metal blades around a central ring. Wouldn't a gem completely throw off the balance of such a thing?
Again, as you highlight yourself, this isn't an actual attack.
A starknife can be used in melee. And to my knowledge is not destroyed if you throw it.
I'm not saying there isn't a flaw in my reasoning, as I describe is as "likely intended for a gun" yet there's nothing saying it can't be on a sword though the sword would still lack a place to supposedly load a spellgem. Again though, magic.
My point is, as a piece of ammunition itself technically, something which needs to be destroyed to use, and does not to my memory have a direct target (as you aim for the square you want to hit, not the person? I could be mixing up Technology Guide Pathfinder on that one though), I would not consider that a grenade is intended to work with Spellthrower.
A more apt choice for an if it would be allowed would be a shuriken, as it fills most of the same points I'm using to disclude the grenade. However, according to the thrown quality they aren't destroyed, so shuriken I'd have to label with a "maybe"? It aslo depends on if weapon fusions work on multiple pieces of ammunition (so all 10 shuriken, which I could see the arguement the Spellthrower is actually built into their holder so you draw the spell from it like an arrow from a quiver? However as the only weapon of it's type there doesn't appear to be anything about fusions and pieces of ammunition. You enchant the bow, not the arrows and shuriken are the only sold in a pack thrown item that doesn't appear to have melee use).