Spell Storing Hypodermics

[Bauglir]

Text vs table is irrelevant here. Text is silent, table implies (but does not explicitly state) that you cannot put spell storing on ranged weapons. Not commenting on other arguments, because I don't think I have studied the rules in sufficient depth and I'm away from books at the moment. I definitely don't play the game in a way that allows spell storing shuriken, but that's not what we're fighting over at the moment.

Dude, if you are going to try to restart the argument at least read all the posts. This point has already been addressed several times.

Dude, if you are going to try and say I've not read the thread, at least read all the posts. A text vs table argument was brought up as recently as Sobolev's post. The text is silent as to whether Spell Storing, specifically, is applicable to ranged weapons. The table does not include an option for Spell Storing ranged weapons (implies, but only implies, that Spell Storing cannot be applied to ranged weapons, as an exception to the general rule). Other text states that, as a general rule, weapon properties can be applied to any weapon (so, by default, you can do this).

My argument is that since an exception is not necessarily a contradiction, there's no actual conflict. But an implication isn't enough to overwrite an explicit rule, anyway, so it doesn't matter. I should have carried my argument further, I guess, but I assumed you were capable of drawing the correct conclusion from my post. My bad.

[JaronK]

The main issue is that the table is only the random generation table, not the table of all available options.  So, neither text nor table in the DMG actually says that Spell Storing is for melee only... the text says any weapon can have Spell Storing, and the table says Spell Storing is only randomly generated on melee items.  So, default case is that you could make or buy your own Spell Storing arrows, and the exception from the table is that you can't randomly find them off monsters.

MiC confuses the issue a bit, because it doesn't list Spell Storing on the table of available enchantments for ranged weapons... but DOES list it as a possible random enchantment for ranged weapons in a second table.  That's all kinds of contradictory.

Note that Defending is in the same boat... nothing says you can't have a Defending Bow in the DMG, but you can't randomly generate one either for the same reason as spell storing (and it too has that bizarre thing going on in MiC).

JaronK

[The_Mad_Linguist]

The dmg doesn't say you can put any enhancement on any weapon, but it doesn't explicitly restrict it either.

"The rules don't say I cannot do something" is an horrible, horrible argument.

The rules don't say humans cannot grow three extra arms and become gargantuan as a free action.

The rules don't say laser beams don't shoot from the player eyes when they say Shazam.

It is impossible for the rules to restrict everything you could remember.

The rules don't say a fighter can swing his sword on sunday.

The rules don't say a human can breathe in Canada.

The rules don't say you're allowed to use the letter "e" while speaking.


The rules *do* say that a fighter can swing his sword, humans can breathe, and characters can speak. Similarly, the rules *do* say that you can apply enchantments to weapons. 

Without a specific exception, the general rule holds.

[SorO_Lost]

Without a specific exception, the general rule holds.

Actually, even with a specific exception the general rule STILL holds.
...Outside of the specific case of course.

[Bauglir]

Without a specific exception, the general rule holds.

Actually, even with a specific exception the general rule STILL holds.
...Outside of the specific case of course.

I feel like I need to quote this, because it's why an exception is not a contradiction.

[Bastian]

Text vs table is irrelevant here. Text is silent, table implies (but does not explicitly state) that you cannot put spell storing on ranged weapons. Not commenting on other arguments, because I don't think I have studied the rules in sufficient depth and I'm away from books at the moment. I definitely don't play the game in a way that allows spell storing shuriken, but that's not what we're fighting over at the moment.

Dude, if you are going to try to restart the argument at least read all the posts. This point has already been addressed several times.

Dude, if you are going to try and say I've not read the thread, at least read all the posts. A text vs table argument was brought up as recently as Sobolev's post. The text is silent as to whether Spell Storing, specifically, is applicable to ranged weapons. The table does not include an option for Spell Storing ranged weapons (implies, but only implies, that Spell Storing cannot be applied to ranged weapons, as an exception to the general rule). Other text states that, as a general rule, weapon properties can be applied to any weapon (so, by default, you can do this).

My argument is that since an exception is not necessarily a contradiction, there's no actual conflict. But an implication isn't enough to overwrite an explicit rule, anyway, so it doesn't matter. I should have carried my argument further, I guess, but I assumed you were capable of drawing the correct conclusion from my post. My bad.

See JaronK's post after yours. All of his points in it had already been brought up and fully gone over which is why I said you hadn't bothered to read all the posts. I thought you might bother to go back and reread the posts after I said you should. My bad.

Also, it doesn't matter whether an exception is a contradiction (which it is not), what matters is that there is no exception in this case since that table is only for finding weapons randomly (RAI it might be intended as an exception but RAW all it is saying is you can't find them randomly).

[Bauglir]

See JaronK's post after yours. All of his points in it had already been brought up and fully gone over which is why I said you hadn't bothered to read all the posts. I thought you might bother to go back and reread the posts after I said you should. My bad.

Also, it doesn't matter whether an exception is a contradiction (which it is not), what matters is that there is no exception in this case since that table is only for finding weapons randomly (RAI it might be intended as an exception but RAW all it is saying is you can't find them randomly).

I'm not sure you understand what "implies" means. Look it up. In this context, it means that the rules don't say thing one way or the other regarding an exception, but there is a detail that suggests something was intended. But because that's all it is, it has no mechanical weight. It's dependent entirely interpretation and extrapolating beyond the actual written rules.

EDIT: Unless you're saying I'm not allowed to nitpick rules interpretations in a thread dedicated to nitpicking the rules. If you could quote a post before mine that makes essentially the following arguments, then I'll admit I should read more closely:
A. The lack of an entry in the random generation table implies that a designer thought that Spell Storing shouldn't be applicable to ranged weapons.
B. There is a general rule that the properties presented can be applied to weapons.
C. An implication is insufficient to overcome an explicit rule. Therefore Spell Storing can legally be applied to ammunition, and further points are hypothetical. They are not relevant to the argument at hand, and are purely academic.
D. If it were (or if the table explicitly noted that Spell Storing could not be applied), it would be an exception, not a contradiction, and thus there would not be a reason for the text to trump the table.
E. If the Spell Storing entry also had an explicit note that Spell Storing could be applied to ranged weapons, then there would be a conflict between the text and table, and the text would take precedence.

It's possible that I incorrectly parsed a statement or did not completely think through its implications, but I'd appreciate it if you could be less of an ass about it.

[Bastian]

See JaronK's post after yours. All of his points in it had already been brought up and fully gone over which is why I said you hadn't bothered to read all the posts. I thought you might bother to go back and reread the posts after I said you should. My bad.

Also, it doesn't matter whether an exception is a contradiction (which it is not), what matters is that there is no exception in this case since that table is only for finding weapons randomly (RAI it might be intended as an exception but RAW all it is saying is you can't find them randomly).

I'm not sure you understand what "implies" means. Look it up. In this context, it means that the rules don't say thing one way or the other regarding an exception, but there is a detail that suggests something was intended. But because that's all it is, it has no mechanical weight. It's dependent entirely interpretation and extrapolating beyond the actual written rules.

EDIT: Unless you're saying I'm not allowed to nitpick rules interpretations in a thread dedicated to nitpicking the rules. If you could quote a post before mine that makes essentially the following arguments, then I'll admit I should read more closely:
A. The lack of an entry in the random generation table implies that a designer thought that Spell Storing shouldn't be applicable to ranged weapons.
B. There is a general rule that the properties presented can be applied to weapons.
C. An implication is insufficient to overcome an explicit rule. Therefore Spell Storing can legally be applied to ammunition, and further points are hypothetical. They are not relevant to the argument at hand, and are purely academic.
D. If it were (or if the table explicitly noted that Spell Storing could not be applied), it would be an exception, not a contradiction, and thus there would not be a reason for the text to trump the table.
E. If the Spell Storing entry also had an explicit note that Spell Storing could be applied to ranged weapons, then there would be a conflict between the text and table, and the text would take precedence.

It's possible that I incorrectly parsed a statement or did not completely think through its implications, but I'd appreciate it if you could be less of an ass about it.

If you noticed I was using the exact level of jackassery you were using. Well anyways I really don't feel like arguing, especially since this has already been covered and recovered. At this point if we were to cover it again it would just end with further jackassery from both of us.

[Bauglir]

Honestly, I'm not sure how starting off with "Dude, read the thread" is the same level of jackassery as my first post was. Perhaps I was harsher than I thought I was being. Nevertheless, the impression I got was responding to your abrupt hostility, not vice versa. At any rate, I'm still not seeing anywhere where anything I've said has been refuted, and only seeing (more recent) posts where a couple of those points have been made. So I'm skeptical of the extent to which it's been covered.

Look, I'm not just trying to pick a fight at random. It's not actually a problem to take time to explain why I'm wrong, instead of wasting space telling me I'm just rehashing the argument, if you think I am. Because clearly, the posts that already exist have failed to do so. If you don't think I'm wrong, I don't see why you're making such a big deal about my posting here.

[SorO_Lost]

Most debates people come off being jackasses to the other. Just like in most debates the idiot arguing against you is ignoring your points and spamming his opinion as if it's validation.

Some times you get lucky though. Now kiss and make up, I got videos to sell *begins recording*

[veekie]

The main issue is that the table is only the random generation table, not the table of all available options.  So, neither text nor table in the DMG actually says that Spell Storing is for melee only... the text says any weapon can have Spell Storing, and the table says Spell Storing is only randomly generated on melee items.  So, default case is that you could make or buy your own Spell Storing arrows, and the exception from the table is that you can't randomly find them off monsters.

MiC confuses the issue a bit, because it doesn't list Spell Storing on the table of available enchantments for ranged weapons... but DOES list it as a possible random enchantment for ranged weapons in a second table.  That's all kinds of contradictory.

Note that Defending is in the same boat... nothing says you can't have a Defending Bow in the DMG, but you can't randomly generate one either for the same reason as spell storing (and it too has that bizarre thing going on in MiC).

JaronK

Well abandoning the rules side debate for a moment(since the rules are pretty clear that they're unclear about the whole table business).
Balance wise - Spell Storing is seriously insane on ammunition. Spell Storing is however, not an issue if on a projectile launcher or non-ammunition thrown weapon(since it'd be basically a ranged version of the melee one).

Fluff wise - Totally makes internal sense to have spell storing arrows, more so than spell storing bows or even melee weapons. However, costing such missiles should be more correctly made as single use, use activated enhancements on the individual arrows, possibly using the 'bulk' discount for wands.

[JaronK]

Do factor in though that you have to pump spells into the things to use them.  It's great if you have a Sorcerer or Favored Soul or Dread Necromancer in the party who can just dump his left over spells in there at the end of the day... otherwise, you don't always actually have spells to throw in there.  And at higher levels nobody cares all that much if you actually have decent casters in the party, as they're unlikely to run out of spells anyway so it's not like you gained much.

So while it's handy, it's situational... amazing when you have a week of downtime (perhaps a sea voyage to the next adventure?) but often not nearly as good in practice as you might think.

JaronK

[veekie]

Yeah, but it's the charge accumulation over time that breaks it. Remember each stored spell is a stored action, with a full salvo of ranged attacks, how many standard actions did you just unleash?

[JaronK]

Well yes, if you have time to store those actions you're good to go.  But you need time to store them, which isn't always available.  Campaign dependent, really.

JaronK

[veekie]

Not too difficult usually to store some. Few players actually blow through ALL their slots for the day.

[something random]

What do people think would be a fair price for spell storing arrows?

[veekie]

You'd need to include the cost of a use activated spell of that level /50 I think.
Coz thats what it basically is.