Spell Storing Weapon

[kjenks]

Nope. I don't see anything in the description of the Spell Storing ability which says that it allows spells to be cast on inappropriate targets. A "True Strike" placed in such a weapon and used on an ally will have no effect, just as putting a "Hold Person" in such a weapon and using it on a non-humanoid will have no effect.

It is an appropriate target. Check out the description of the weapon ability and the description of targeted spells:

AIMING A SPELL
You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

So you can see that Target: You is a subset of targeted spells.

Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) 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. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

So you can see that the weapon ability allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell.

Since Target: You is a subset of targeted spells and the weapon ability allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell, the weapon ability allows a spellcaster to store a single spell with Target: You

 

[shilsen]

So you can see that Target: You is a subset of targeted spells.

No argument there.

So you can see that the weapon ability allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell.

None here either.

Since Target: You is a subset of targeted spells and the weapon ability allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell, the weapon ability allows a spellcaster to store a single spell with Target: You

As before. I never said that you can't store a spell with Target: You in a spell-storing item. You can. But when the spell is being cast on a particular target through the weapon, if the target is not you, then it does not work. The spell-storing weapon does not allow you to break the built-in restrictions on what targets a spell works on. To repeat the example I used before, a Hold Person spell stored in a spell-storing weapon will still only work on humanoids, since that's all a Hold Person works on. Similarly, a spell with Target: You will only work on you.

 

[kjenks]

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.

 

[Daedrova]

You can also use a spell storing weapon to cast beneficial spells on your party members, but they take a little damage when you hit them. You can put a level 0-3 spell …

Why go through all that trouble? Maybe there is another way to deliver up to 3rd level spells to an ally that also takes a standard action but doesn’t require a weapon enchantment or dealing damage to him? I am thinking of some type of odiferous colorful liquid found in transparent cylindrical containers…

 

[shilsen]

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.

I'm not denying that either I agree completely with you that you can store a spell with Target:You in the spell-storing weapon and that when you hit another creature with the weapon, you can then cast the stored spell on that creature as a free action. All I'm saying is that casting the spell will have no effect, because the creature doesn't fulfil the requirements of being an appropriate target.

Here's a simple question: Do you think a Hold Person spell cast through a spell-storing weapon can affect an ogre? In view of your argument, I can only assume your answer is "yes". Mine is "no".

Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

[shilsen]

Why go through all that trouble? Maybe there is another way to deliver up to 3rd level spells to an ally that also takes a standard action but doesn’t require a weapon enchantment or dealing damage to him? I am thinking of some type of odiferous colorful liquid found in transparent cylindrical containers…

Potions? You can't put spells with a range of personal in potions. See DMG pg.286, 2nd paragraph of the "Creating Potions" section.

 

[kjenks]

I'm not denying that either I agree completely with you that you can store a spell with Target:You in the spell-storing weapon and that when you hit another creature with the weapon, you can then cast the stored spell on that creature as a free action. All I'm saying is that casting the spell will have no effect, because the creature doesn't fulfil the requirements of being an appropriate target.

Why would a creature not be an appropriate target for a True Strike spell?

Here's a simple question: Do you think a Hold Person spell cast through a spell-storing weapon can affect an ogre? In view of your argument, I can only assume your answer is "yes". Mine is "no".

A Hold Person spell can't affect an ogre; he's the wrong type.

What does that have to do with spell storing weapons? I'm not following your line of logic.

 

[shilsen]

Why would a creature not be an appropriate target for a True Strike spell?

Because the appropriate target for a True Strike spell is "You", i.e. the caster. Anyone other than the caster is an inappropriate target, just as an ogre is for a Hold Person spell. If a spellcaster casts a True Strike spell in a spell-storing weapon and then whacks himself with it (and casts the spell in the weapon as a free action), the True Strike will take affect, since he fulfils the requirement in the spell description under "Target: You". If he whacks his friend Fighter Bob and casts the spell in the weapon, it'll have no effect, since Bob doesn't fulfil the target requirement.

 

[kjenks]

I think you'll agree that a spell storing weapon changes the way a targeted spell is delivered. This ability to affect creatures with Target: You spells is a side-effect of that change in spell targeting. I don't think it's what the game designers intended, and a DM is certainly free to rule otherwise, but it's a logical interpretation of the spell storing ability.

The spell storing weapon changes the game mechanics for targeting spells. Normally, you must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. This changes with a spell storing weapon because the spell is cast when the weapon hits and inflicts damage -- no sight required, the spellcaster doesn't have to be anywhere nearby and the weapon wielder chooses the target, not the spellcaster.

I would see absolutely no logic in letting the spellcaster whack himself with a True Strike in a spell storing weapon but not letting him whack his buddy with it.

 

[shilsen]

I think you'll agree that a spell storing weapon changes the way a targeted spell is delivered. This ability to affect creatures with Target: You spells is a side-effect of that change in spell targeting. I don't think it's what the game designers intended, and a DM is certainly free to rule otherwise, but it's a logical interpretation of the spell storing ability.

The spell storing weapon changes the game mechanics for targeting spells. Normally, you must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. This changes with a spell storing weapon because the spell is cast when the weapon hits and inflicts damage -- no sight required, the spellcaster doesn't have to be anywhere nearby and the weapon wielder chooses the target, not the spellcaster.

I would see absolutely no logic in letting the spellcaster whack himself with a True Strike in a spell storing weapon but not letting him whack his buddy with it.

Fair enough. It seems that you and I simply disagree about the manner in which the (if I may quote you) "spell storing weapon changes the way a targeted spell is delivered". For you, the "Target: You" part of a spell like True Strike is something which is part of the targeting method, and once that method is taken over by the spell-storing weapon, it can be applied to others too. For me, the "Target: You" is analogous to the "Target: One humanoid creature" of a Hold Person spell, and a spell-storing weapon doesn't change that (I think it changes the range, to be precise, but not what can be an acceptable target).

I think it's obvious that we just have to agree to disagree. I've got to say it's one of the more amicable disagreements I've seen on this forum