D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5e) Stacking Special Abilities on Weapons

[HoboGod]

Simple question, maybe the FAQ has answered it and I never noticed. Can one obtain the same special ability multiple times on a weapon? SRD allows a Flaming Shock Frost Greatsword for a +3 price, but can a Flaming Flaming Flaming Greatsword come at the same +3 price or is it impossible to make?

That's not so bad, I'd allow it. But if this is possible, how should Spell Storing be treated? I don't like the idea of Wizards having 5 lightning bolts stored in their dagger just so that a Quickened True Strike can 50d6 face melt a 120 ft line of bad guys.
Billy: "Did you roll any reflex saves? Cause I just did 177 damage to this monster, this monster, and this monster."
DM: "NO! Your character gets hit by a train."
Billy: "But there weren't-"
DM: "I SAID THERE WAS A TRAIN!"

 

[Dandu]

Let me get this straight: you want a flaming sword of fire?

 

[agrelic]

Spell Storing requires a 'targeted spell'. Lightning Bolt doesn't have a target (it has an area), so it can't be used in a spell storing weapon. Even if a spell is used that has multiple targets, a spell storing weapon can only cause the spell to effect the creature hit with the weapon.

To answer the real question, I don't think the rules intended to let you have a Spell Storing Spell Storing Dagger. However, if you want to house rule it, you could consider only allowing one spell to trigger with any given hit. Of course that doesn't prevent a warlock from using a Hideous Blow and a spell stored Eldritch Blast with the same hit, or a Duskblade from doing similar.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

can a Flaming Flaming Flaming Greatsword come at the same +3 price or is it impossible to make?

So, a +3 Greatsword with an extra +3d6 fire damage on each attack?
Don't see why not.

 

[kitcik]

Sounds reasonable at first.

Would you allow a +1 Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning [Danger, Will Robinson!] Greatsword?

With +45 to initiative?

(OK, it wouldn't work due to stacking rules, but you get the idea.)

Better think about things like this before making a general ruling.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Sounds reasonable at first.

Would you allow a +1 Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning [Danger, Will Robinson!] Greatsword?

With +45 to initiative?

(OK, it wouldn't work due to stacking rules, but you get the idea.)

Better think about things like this before making a general ruling.

I think the stacking rules that exist as is allow for damage to stack, while bonuses such as initiative are selective, and so those checks and balances are basically in place.

I'd love your hypothetical weapon in a Katana. that would be sweet.

 

[HoboGod]

Spell Storing requires a 'targeted spell'. Lightning Bolt doesn't have a target (it has an area), so it can't be used in a spell storing weapon. Even if a spell is used that has multiple targets, a spell storing weapon can only cause the spell to effect the creature hit with the weapon.

My apologies, I tend to house rule that an area effect whose starting point or center is a target creature is the same as a targeted spell. I have been house ruling that so long I forgot the actual rule. Alternatively then, someone could have 5 Empowered Arcane Thesis Scorching Rays. Only hits one target, but that one target takes 90d6 fire damage, no reflex save. Still makes my DM senses tingle.

To answer the real question, I don't think the rules intended to let you have a Spell Storing Spell Storing Dagger. However, if you want to house rule it, you could consider only allowing one spell to trigger with any given hit.

So, you're thinking a Triple Spell Storing Dagger could hold three charges, but only one can be activated each round? Yeah, I could see that as balanced. Ideally, it might be better than telling my players that Spell Storing doesn't stack.

As for other Special Abilities, I rigidly follow stacking rules. If it is immediately obvious that it doesn't stack, I don't allow it. Also, I tend to allow things on a case-by-case basis, even with SRD content.

 

[billd91]

I don't think the game would break if you did stack the same energy damage on one weapon, but consider what happens when you're up against creatures immune to that energy or with a lot of resistance to it. You would have invested multiple pluses, a pretty high premium cost, for no effect whatsoever. My recommendation would be to not put so many eggs in one basket.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Let me get this straight: you want a flaming sword of fire?

Wouldn't it be a flaming sword of fiery flame?

And yes, I got the Krod Mandoon reference...

 

[Greenfield]

My apologies, I tend to house rule that an area effect whose starting point or center is a target creature is the same as a targeted spell. I have been house ruling that so long I forgot the actual rule. Alternatively then, someone could have 5 Empowered Arcane Thesis Scorching Rays. Only hits one target, but that one target takes 90d6 fire damage, no reflex save. Still makes my DM senses tingle.

Pardon me for asking, but the last time I looked you could only store three levels of spell in a Spell Storing weapon, and it/they always went off at minimum caster level.

Empower adds 2 to spell level, so you get exactly zero Empower Scorching rays per spell storing weapon (Each totals 4 levels of the three you're allowed). Now I admit my ignorance of Arcane Thesis, so if it somehow drops the bump from Empowered perhaps you could fit one in.

<edit>My mistake. Spell storing rings are always at minimum caster level. The spell storing property on a weapon doen't have that limit.</edit>

Even so, presuming you could prepare a weapon with 5 Spell Storing properties, each one would still fire at minimum level, which means 4 dice per slot, empowered so call it 6.

Allow that 5 times means 30. How are you getting 90 dice from that?

Oh, and Lightning Bolt doesn't have a targeted creature of any kind as a "center". It's a line-effect spell.