Arrow/bow that makes a line attack?

[Gadren]

There is no doubt about the RAW here. This is a melee weapon only WSA. Furthermore, you cannot put them into arrows because arrows are not melee weapons, they are improvised melee weapons at best, ammunition at worst. You cannot put melee WSAs in a improvised weapon or ammunition.

An improvised weapon is something made up by a DM. It doesn't exist in RAW in any way shape or form. Even the suggested improvised weapon is just that, a suggestion. I cannot make a +1 acidic chair. I cannot make a +1 flaming cake, even if both could be improvised weapons, it must be an actual weapon to be enchanted.

<eyeroll>
Sure, whatever. Your interpretation is the only interpretation of the RAW. This is SO not relevant to my question -which was already answered - which leads me to believe it is just that important to you to be "right" about spell storing weapons.

 

[Greenfield]

<eyeroll>
Sure, whatever. Your interpretation is the only interpretation of the RAW. This is SO not relevant to my question -which was already answered - which leads me to believe it is just that important to you to be "right" about spell storing weapons.

Actually, it's not an interpretation at all, other than in the most technical sense: He's looking at black marks on paper and interpreting them to mean certain words. (In other words, he's reading what's written.)

The Spell Storing ability is listed as a melee weapon ability. It's not listed as an ammunition ability. That's straight out of RAW, no interpretation necessary.

The spell being released based on a decision by the *WIELDER* isn't an interpretation, it's exactly what's written in the DMG.

You saying that it's there, even if it isn't written? That's not an interpretation either. That's you making stuff up.

Now, if you're the DM, you're free to make up any house rules you like. Just understand that they are house rules, and not the actual, standard rules of the game.

 

[Gadren]

Actually, it's not an interpretation at all, other than in the most technical sense: He's looking at black marks on paper and interpreting them to mean certain words. (In other words, he's reading what's written.)

The Spell Storing ability is listed as a melee weapon ability. It's not listed as an ammunition ability. That's straight out of RAW, no interpretation necessary.

The spell being released based on a decision by the *WIELDER* isn't an interpretation, it's exactly what's written in the DMG.

You saying that it's there, even if it isn't written? That's not an interpretation either. That's you making stuff up.

Now, if you're the DM, you're free to make up any house rules you like. Just understand that they are house rules, and not the actual, standard rules of the game.

I already addressed those arguments the first time I replied about this, and this has no relation to the thread topic. If you are really interested in discussing it, start a thread about it, and I'd be happy to further explain why I think you are wrong.

Meanwhile, on the topic of how to hit multiple enemies in a line with one attack roll = Exit Wound enchant from Complete Warrior. End of thread.

 

[Greenfield]

I already addressed those arguments the first time I replied about this, and this has no relation to the thread topic. If you are really interested in discussing it, start a thread about it, and I'd be happy to further explain why I think you are wrong.

Meanwhile, on the topic of how to hit multiple enemies in a line with one attack roll = Exit Wound enchant from Complete Warrior. End of thread.

Your "address" is what prompted my "You're making stuff up" response.

As for it being off topic: You're the one who's been pushing it. You expect to do an "<eyeroll>" at someone's post, and not get a response?

Still, feel free to start a topic thread about weapon abilities. There are more than enough source books out there, a collection of all of the abilities and their cost v power would make a good discussion.

 

[captnq]

<eyeroll>
Sure, whatever. Your interpretation is the only interpretation of the RAW. This is SO not relevant to my question -which was already answered - which leads me to believe it is just that important to you to be "right" about spell storing weapons.

Why... yes. It is. I have written over 71 different and distinct "handbooks" that compromise my Magnum Opus: The Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis. I have to be "right". And if there is alternative, I include the alternative because that is what in required to be the complete guide to every possible detail. However, in this case the RAW is quite clear.

There are 272 individual weapon special abilities. Each and every one was updated to be in compliance with magic item compendium format and updated rules. A number of abilities were eliminated and replaced in MIC. I only include the latest version of each one. I also have broken down WAs into different synergies in order to be compliant with synergy rules. The powers and cost are the same but how the math works has been updated to reflect the changes in MIC.

The rules YOU are using are not compliant with the latest printing of RAW. They mayhave been correct circa 2004, but they no longer are up to date. For example:

MANIFESTER
- EXPANDED PSIONICS HANDBOOK (3.5)
- MAGIC ITEM COMPENDIUM (3.5)
- PSIONICS HANDBOOK (3.0)
Price: +12,000 gp
Property: Any Weapon
Caster Level: 8th
Aura: Moderate; (DC 19) divination
Activation: Free (mental)

The Property "Any Weapon" is defined as such:

"This can be applied to any weapon, but not ammunition. Weapon abilities that have a limited use per day typically cannot be applied to ammunition."

Then we have:
SPELL STORING
- DUNGEON MASTER’S GUIDE (3.0)
- DUNGEON MASTER’S GUIDE (3.5)
Price: +1 bonus
Property: Melee
Caster Level: 12th
Aura: Strong; (DC 21) evocation [and aura of the stored spell]
Activation: Free (mental)

The property Melee is defined as:
"This means you can apply it to any melee weapon. Any weapon ability that is melee only becomes dormant if, for any reason, the weapon is used as a ranged attack."

As for the argument that Ammunition is Melee, and therefore can be used as the subject of WSA is negated by the fact that Ammunition can be used as improvised weapons, but no where does it possess the quality "melee". Only weapons with the quality "melee" can be the target of a melee WSA. It may ACT like a melee weapon, but for the purposes of enchantment, it is not.

I am sorry. I understand your desire to continue on using your out of date rules because they benefit your builds. But by RAW, it is not allowed.

If you wish to prove me wrong, I welcome it. I simply require that you provide books and page quotes so I may verify. Note, I will check the publishing dates to make sure that the books have not been superseded by a later printing of the same ruling. I am also looking for more contributors to the EVD, but I do have high and exacting standards.

If you are proven correct, your position will be added to the EVD.

Good luck in proving your position, I look forward to your counter argument.

 

[captnq]

Forgive my delay in replying. I have been working on the psionomicon and it takes up a great deal of my time.

 

[Gadren]

I am sorry. I understand your desire to continue on using your out of date rules because they benefit your builds.

This is bad form and uncalled for, and if you read my very first post on that topic...

Technically, not existing in the ranged table does not mean that ranged weapons can or can't be spell-storing by RAW. Those are random loot tables. NOWHERE does it say that only abilities on that table can be put in ranged weapons. Melee-only abilities should say "Only melee weapons can be [weapon property]", like Vicious.

That being said, despite it not being against RAW, spell-storing ammo is the most broken thing ever, and every DM that comes across it is forced to house rule. While a spell-storing bow isn't a problem, spell-storing arrows allow you to cast a bunch of attack spells ahead of time, each into a separate arrow, and then fire off a bunch in a round (5+ enervation spells, etc)

You would see that while I think the RAW allows it, I think it is horribly broken and any DM who wants any semblance of balance in his game cannot allow it. I wouldn't use it even if I was playing in a game with a DM who allowed it, because it destroys the fun of any long-term game when someone is THAT much more powerful.

Where did you get the "property: melee" bit? Where is that written?