Spell Storing Hypodermics

[darrow]

I've often seen people on this board and other refer to getting the spell storing enhancement on ammunition. In the SRD, there are separate tables for the enhancements available for melee vs ranged weapons.  http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicItemsAW.html . I've always understood that to mean no spell storing on ammunition. I've looked around, but never seen this discussed anywhere else. Am I the only one who plays that way? Does the official DMG say something different?

[Suzerain]

It's basically because tables are (mostly) meaningless to us. One rule of official errata is "text trumps table". And spell-storing doesn't mention that it's melee only, does it? So there you have it.

[nijineko]

there are rules for using certain ranged weapons (arrows and bolts, notably) as improvised melee weapons. so even if you call melee only, it still works.

[spacemonkey555]

I've often seen people on this board and other refer to getting the spell storing enhancement on ammunition. In the SRD, there are separate tables for the enhancements available for melee vs ranged weapons.  http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicItemsAW.html . I've always understood that to mean no spell storing on ammunition. I've looked around, but never seen this discussed anywhere else. Am I the only one who plays that way? Does the official DMG say something different?

No, you aren't the only one that doesn't play that way. They're making a tenuous connection from rule to rule assuming they can do this, that, and the other, which is fine if they're having fun, but it isn't actually how the game is meant to work.

I was actually thinking about the assumptions in the "that overpowered exotic weapon" thread, and the fun I could have with it as a DM. It would kinda be a nightmare scenario for the players really, no npc would have any magic items other than intelligent shuriken, and the resale value of them would be almost nil since they're rarely expended, undestroyable, and 2% normal cost. After a few generations even level 1 npcs would have a bagful each, all worthless to the pcs as loot. The pc's magic shuriken would mark them as strictly mundane rather than special heroes.

Each encounter with npcs would be a nightmare, since they can afford every magic item effect in the game too even with their reduced wealth, and society would optimize around the possession and use of them. Kinda laughable as anything other that theoretical optimization.

[JaronK]

A)  Spell Storing says it can work on any weapon, unlike melee or ranged only enchantments (such as Distance) which do in fact state they only work on the other.  In fact, many enchantments can only go on certain weapon types (Disruption on bludgeoning, Keen on Piercing or Slashing, Returning on Thrown, Seeking on Ranged, etc) and all of these have a note of this in their text.  Spell Storing has no such note.

B)  Power Storing, the Magic Item Compnedium equivalent, also works on melee or ranged and has no hint about not working with ranged weapons... and even on the MiC table, has no note about being melee only.  Spell Storing in MiC also lacks this note, despite the fact that there is a superscript ( 8 ) which would indicate that available for use (see page 285). 

C)  The table is not a list of all ranged weapon enchantments possible, but rather a table on how weapons can be randomly found.  This means you can't randomly find a Spell Storing Arrow via the DMG, but that doesn't stop you from buying or making one of your own.  But of course you CAN find a Spell Storing Arrow via the tables in MiC.

D)  Even if the table was a list of all ranged weapon enchantments possible, text trumps table, and the text for Spell Storing allows it to work for a "weapon."

And remember, just because something's broken doesn't mean it isn't RAW.  Genesis is broken by RAW.  Planar Binding can get you infinite wishes by RAW.  Alter Self can give a humanoid +8 natural AC at level 3 by RAW.  The designers screwed up a lot making this game, and it's your job as a DM (if you're running things) to deal with that appropriately, usually via Rule 0 house rules.  As a player, remember that the DM does have the right to make sure rules... don't complain, and if you think the rules given ability you want to use might disrupt the game, it's considered more mature as a player to run it by the DM first.

JaronK

[Bastian]

No, you aren't the only one that doesn't play that way. They're making a tenuous connection from rule to rule assuming they can do this, that, and the other, which is fine if they're having fun, but it isn't actually how the game is meant to work.

Of course it isn't how the game is meant to work. It is how the rules say the game works though. That is why it is RAW (rules as written) instead of RAI (rules as intended). You'd think that after having 87 posts on a Min/Max board you'd know how Min/Maxing works.

[spacemonkey555]

No, you aren't the only one that doesn't play that way. They're making a tenuous connection from rule to rule assuming they can do this, that, and the other, which is fine if they're having fun, but it isn't actually how the game is meant to work.

Of course it isn't how the game is meant to work. It is how the rules say the game works though. That is why it is RAW (rules as written) instead of RAI (rules as intended). You'd think that after having 87 posts on a Min/Max board you'd know how Min/Maxing works.

You're being retarded, I acknowledged that people can play it however they want. RAW, RAI, drug induced insane houserules, all good. Are you saying I'm wrong and every single player other than OP plays "my arrow is a syringe, I can get spell storing for 1/50th of the intended price?" If so you're demonstrably wrong.

[veekie]

Been playing that way since before I knew there was Min-Max though.

EDIT: Heck, wasn't Mystra's weapon a bunch of artifact Spell Storing Shurikens?

[Bastian]

No, you aren't the only one that doesn't play that way. They're making a tenuous connection from rule to rule assuming they can do this, that, and the other, which is fine if they're having fun, but it isn't actually how the game is meant to work.

Of course it isn't how the game is meant to work. It is how the rules say the game works though. That is why it is RAW (rules as written) instead of RAI (rules as intended). You'd think that after having 87 posts on a Min/Max board you'd know how Min/Maxing works.

You're being retarded, I acknowledged that people can play it however they want. RAW, RAI, drug induced insane houserules, all good. Are you saying I'm wrong and every single player other than OP plays "my arrow is a syringe, I can get spell storing for 1/50th of the intended price?" If so you're demonstrably wrong.

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays, what is being argued is whether it's correct via RAW. Arguing based on what everyone plays is impossible since you don't have any proof at all for what everyone uses.

[Havok4]

No, you aren't the only one that doesn't play that way. They're making a tenuous connection from rule to rule assuming they can do this, that, and the other, which is fine if they're having fun, but it isn't actually how the game is meant to work.

Of course it isn't how the game is meant to work. It is how the rules say the game works though. That is why it is RAW (rules as written) instead of RAI (rules as intended). You'd think that after having 87 posts on a Min/Max board you'd know how Min/Maxing works.

You're being retarded, I acknowledged that people can play it however they want. RAW, RAI, drug induced insane houserules, all good. Are you saying I'm wrong and every single player other than OP plays "my arrow is a syringe, I can get spell storing for 1/50th of the intended price?" If so you're demonstrably wrong.

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays, what is being argued is whether it's correct via RAW. Arguing based on what everyone plays is impossible since you don't have any proof at all for what everyone uses.

Basically the point is that if a rule or trick is arguable, for the purposes of internet debate it is assumed to default to the RAW interpretation. This helps give everyone involved a solid basis to debate over.

[SorO_Lost]

No, you aren't the only one that doesn't play that way. They're making a tenuous connection from rule to rule assuming they can do this, that, and the other, which is fine if they're having fun, but it isn't actually how the game is meant to work.

Of course it isn't how the game is meant to work. It is how the rules say the game works though. That is why it is RAW (rules as written) instead of RAI (rules as intended). You'd think that after having 87 posts on a Min/Max board you'd know how Min/Maxing works.

You're being retarded, I acknowledged that people can play it however they want. RAW, RAI, drug induced insane houserules, all good. Are you saying I'm wrong and every single player other than OP plays "my arrow is a syringe, I can get spell storing for 1/50th of the intended price?" If so you're demonstrably wrong.

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays, what is being argued is whether it's correct via RAW. Arguing based on what everyone plays is impossible since you don't have any proof at all for what everyone uses.

Basically the point is that if a rule or trick is arguable, for the purposes of internet debate it is assumed to default to the RAW interpretation. This helps give everyone involved a solid basis to debate over.

And if at any point RAW debates break down into "but I say it means this" then RAI is used.

[spacemonkey555]

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays, what is being argued is whether it's correct via RAW. Arguing based on what everyone plays is impossible since you don't have any proof at all for what everyone uses.

You're in the wrong thread, op asked if anyone else played it the way he does.

I've often seen people on this board and other refer to getting the spell storing enhancement on ammunition. In the SRD, there are separate tables for the enhancements available for melee vs ranged weapons.  http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicItemsAW.html . I've always understood that to mean no spell storing on ammunition. I've looked around, but never seen this discussed anywhere else. Am I the only one who plays that way? Does the official DMG say something different?

The dmg doesn't say you can put any enhancement on any weapon, but it doesn't explicitly restrict it either. The dmg has 2 tables titled Ranged Weapon Special Abilities and Melee Weapon Special Abilities. The spellstoring enhancement only shows up on the melee table. That's the extent of the RAW argument against. The best argument for it is that many of the specific abilities have a restriction listed in the text entry, and spellstoring does not.

[oslecamo]

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.

[veekie]

However, going by precedent:
1) Weapon enhancements which are limited by weapon type are listed in the enhancement entry itself.
2) Text trumps table when in conflict. Spell Storing does not restrict by weapon type in text, and the table is a random generation table.
3) The psionic equivalent does not have a restriction by type.

So what you can derive from that is:
Spell storing ammo isn't generated randomly, you have to purchase or build them.
Thus, they start out blank, you have to find the spell to put into the item yourself, it's level limited, and so that means you need access to that spell already.

Thats pretty much it. Can you massively overkill something by hitting it with level 3 spells 3-4 times a round? Sure. So can buying a crapton of expendables, until you run out.

[spacemonkey555]

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.

I agree, I was explaining the basis of both sides of the discussion, since it seems OP doesn't have the dmg.

[spacemonkey555]

However, going by precedent:
1) Weapon enhancements which are limited by weapon type are listed in the enhancement entry itself.
2) Text trumps table when in conflict. Spell Storing does not restrict by weapon type in text, and the table is a random generation table.
3) The psionic equivalent does not have a restriction by type.

So what you can derive from that is:
Spell storing ammo isn't generated randomly, you have to purchase or build them.
Thus, they start out blank, you have to find the spell to put into the item yourself, it's level limited, and so that means you need access to that spell already.

Thats pretty much it. Can you massively overkill something by hitting it with level 3 spells 3-4 times a round? Sure. So can buying a crapton of expendables, until you run out.

Ammunition is enchanted (and priced) in batches of 50, spellstoring refers to a single weapon repeatedly. Spellstoring weapons are required to strike the enemy to activate, ranged weapons don't strike the enemy with the exception of ammo (typically). Spellstoring has rules for reloading the spell and reusing the weapon, but the dmg rule is that ammo is single use, if it hits and the magic activates it is destroyed. Spellstoring rules are in direct conflict with magic ammunition rules. What can you derive from that?

[Bastian]

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays, what is being argued is whether it's correct via RAW. Arguing based on what everyone plays is impossible since you don't have any proof at all for what everyone uses.

You're in the wrong thread, op asked if anyone else played it the way he does.

Yes, the OP asked if people play the way he does and then he asked if the rules actually instruct differently. If you wish me to quote that for you I can.

[spacemonkey555]

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays <snip>
Yes, the OP asked if people play the way he does <snip>

You must be on medication, or maybe you missed a dose. Or maybe you're illiterate, I find myself not caring. Seems you can't follow a conversation, so I boiled your mistake down for you. I've given my answer to both of OP's questions, seems you haven't answered either, and have been objecting to other people answering and claiming his question is invalid because you can't verify the answer or some such nonsense. Maybe you should take it from the top one more time before you reply.

[Bastian]

It doesn't matter what everyone else plays <snip>
Yes, the OP asked if people play the way he does <snip>

You must be on medication, or maybe you missed a dose. Or maybe you're illiterate, I find myself not caring. Seems you can't follow a conversation, so I boiled your mistake down for you. I've given my answer to both of OP's questions, seems you haven't answered either, and have been objecting to other people answering and claiming his question is invalid because you can't verify the answer or some such nonsense. Maybe you should take it from the top one more time before you reply.

I was referring to whether or not you should take into account how other people play when considering what the rules mean. The fact that you have degenerated to purposely taking my statements out of context is kind of sad.

[spacemonkey555]

I was referring to whether or not you should take into account how other people play when considering what the rules mean.

Well, it's nice that you think the op shouldn't take that into account, but he obviously doesn't agree since he asked.

The fact that you have degenerated to purposely taking my statements out of context is kind of sad.

You've done nothing but nitpick answers, the only context for your outburst is that you didn't like my answer.