Ignoble Death by Ray of Frost!?!

[LokiDR]

So after, this extremely thorough analysis, I hope that I have shown that it would not be unbalancing to allow the twin spell feat to apply S.A. dmg twice. I don't think that the rules specifically preclude this anyway. However, for all of the naysayers, this analysis shows why they ought to allow it anyway. In fact, not allowing the twin spell feat to allow S.A. dmg on each effect is unbalancing!

What are you smoking, and where can I get some? If I could put that much overzelous effort into my work, I would never have to worry again.

Not allowing SA on a twinned spells is not unballancing. It is as basic as not allowing SA on all suriken or manyshot. Others have pointed out the situation you propose is imperfect, the AT seak attacking and not being reliant on anyone elses spells. When it comes to game ballance, just because you show one side has larger numbers, doesn't mean you example is correct. Even if correct, larger numbers do not balance make.

 

[hong]

Disallowed? Since when? I don't remember reading this in the latest FAQ. Furthermore, why?

Hm, I could have sworn reading somewhere that abilities and spells granting extra actions don't stack (ie, the most you can ever get is one extra partial action).

 

[Hypersmurf]

(ie, the most you can ever get is one extra partial action).

Expert Tactitian doesn't grant an extra partial action any more - maybe extra attacks are treated differently?

-Hyp.

 

[jontherev]

Expert Tactitian doesn't grant an extra partial action any more - maybe extra attacks are treated differently?

-Hyp.

Right, it's essentially a free action now, taken before or after your normal action. Now, there's some other spell I've heard of (from some source book I don't have...heard about on these boards) that basically acts just like Haste except without the AC bonus...that one I wouldn't allow to stack with Haste.

 

[LokiDR]

Hm, I could have sworn reading somewhere that abilities and spells granting extra actions don't stack (ie, the most you can ever get is one extra partial action).

Since it is only one attack, in melee, that only works on one opponent in melee reach who is denied dex, it isn't quite like haste. Battletide was errata'd since it grants a partial action so it doesn't stack with haste. This is why I don't like the idea of haste/ET working together, but I am pretty sure it is currently legal.

I like the idea of non-magical means to accomplish semi-magical effects like explosions (explosives) or speed (expert tactian). If this an option, the two forms shouldn't just add up. I am pretty sure there is psionic version of haste, but I don't think it should stack with the spell. Ok, so I am just ranting, don't mind me.

 

[Andion Isurand]

If in fact, sneak attack damage was added to the spell damage inflicted by a critically placed, attack roll spell.......

How would a 'Spell Storing' weapon work when a rogue makes a sneak attack?

Would the extra damage be added to the weapon's damage? the spell's damage? or both?

What would happen if I had more than one 'spell storing' ability on my weapon? Would the extra sneak damage be added to the damage caused by each of the spells in turn?

 

[jontherev]

If in fact, sneak attack damage was added to the spell damage inflicted by a critically placed, attack roll spell.......

How would a 'Spell Storing' weapon work when a rogue makes a sneak attack?

Would the extra damage be added to the weapon's damage? the spell's damage? or both?

What would happen if I had more than one 'spell storing' ability on my weapon? Would the extra sneak damage be added to the damage caused by each of the spells in turn?

From the SRD under the Spell Storing description: "Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires." [emphasis mine]

Unless that weapon has rogue levels, it doesn't get sneak attack damage with it's spells.