Vampiric Touch, Spellstoring, and thrown weapon...

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

You've got an explicit rules cite on that, right Frank?

...

So why don't you tone down the attitude and try to have a reasonable, friendly discussion instead of being deliberately antagonistic?

J

Frank - why not try less nitpicking, less attitude and more rules citing?

I'd like to see the explicit rule on that quote as well...

Until the end of the action.

That's two or three times you've been asked for a rules cite that you've ignored.


You've made some -extremely- good points, and I'm only still in this discussion because you have made good points. I'm still interested in what the rules have to say however - not in just taking your word for it.

As you say - this is a rules forum. So let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum - it's a silly form of debate anyway.

But there is no magic item creation table. There's a random magical item generation table - but it is not actually used to create magic items*.

* Unless you force your players to roll dice when using their craft magic arms and armor feat.

I do agree with this - the tables are no more than a guideline for randomly generated items. I think it sucks that the more interesting items cannot be generated from the list - but there it is.



Now, from your postings:


Tilla: And where is this alleged list? I've checked the SRD repeatedly. If you are referring to the tables of potential enchantments for ranged vs melee weapons - Vampiric Touch is on the list for melee, but not on the list for ranged. Or is there a different list you are referring to?

Frank: It's the list in each special ability. For example:
SRD:This enchantment can only be placed on a melee weapon.
Frank (continued): [this reference] Is listed under the throwing enhancement - indicating that it has the restriction that it can only be placed on a melee weapon. But if you go up a couple of entries to the spell storing enhancement it doesn't say that. Which means the place where the restriction would be if it had it is empty.


(Tilla: I strongly disagree - those individual listings for each special ability LACK the restricting phrase in far too many of the abilities - they do not clearly indicate which is for melee only and which is for ranged only. To state that a lack of restriction is a rule is to generate a non-explicit rule. That is the domain of the House rule - not the Rules. Can you cite a specific rule to deal with the situation? If not, your generating a house rule)




Frank:
So either:

1> It was misprinted to not have that restriction in two editions, and they never published errata for that misprint in what is now nearly four years.

or

2> Spell Storing never had that restriction in the first place.

As to the list: Keen is also not on the ranged weapon list - and appears frequently in source books as an enchantment on bows and/or arrows. The list doesn't mean jack-all.

(Tilla: Hmm... Does source book mean CORE RULEBOOK? If so, PLEASE, kindly, enlighten me as to book and page - I'll gladly look it up)

...

Until the end of the action. D&D uses "use" and "wield" interchangably - often within the same sentences. So if you you have Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization with a dagger - the bonus applies even after you've thrown it.

(Tilla: INCORRECT. The bonuses apply to the ATTACK and DAMAGE of the weapon when the attack is made. This is due to the abstraction of DND rules - you make an attack, if successful you deal damage with your full bonuses... Now define how bonus=spell with touch attack range?)


Frank: Or to put it another way, let's look at the PHB on page 113 under the rules for thrown weapons:

Quote:Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his or her Strength modifier to damage dealt by her thrown weapons


So what exactly is your rules claim that you are not wielding a thrown weapon, given the fact that you are explicitly the wielder of a thrown weapon when calculating damage?

(Tilla: Because you roll the attack, if successful, you roll damage. Spell Storing being activated is NOT part of the damage - it's a secondary effect. Next, you'll argue that you can apply your sneak attack damage to the spell effect, because you are still the 'wielder'!)

... (personal attacks removed)


Others Quote:Of course, since you're still weilding a weapon even after you throw it, that means that if you want to throw a weapon, you'd better have two-weapon fighting, because otherwise you'll be taking penalties until you retrieve it and either sheathe it or drop it (because then you're not weilding it anymore).


Frank: Only if you want to get more attacks than your BAB would allow from using a weapon in each hand. If you throw a dagger, quick-draw another dagger and throw it, and then quickdraw another dagger and throw it - you suffer no TWF penalties. If, OTOH, you throw a dagger with each hand, then quickdraw a dagger and throw it, and then quickdraw another dagger and throw it to - you'd better have TWF.

TWF only gives you penalties if you attempt to use the same BAB for attacks with two different weapons. If you simply use another weapon with your normal iterative attacks - you get no penalties.

(Tilla: This I agree with. Though you didn't 'cite the rules', I've read those rules and they do indeed illustrate this. With quickdraw, you can draw and throw with one hand until you run out of your normal iterative attacks. You could choose, at the beginning, to use two hands, suffereing 2wpn fighting penalties, and quickdraw daggers into both hands, throwing a dagger from each, until you ran out of iterative attacks)




The only point I'm still disagreeing on is the point in time when you no longer wield the weapon. I'm still not seeing specific rules that state your position or at least clearly indicate it. Without those rules cite, the discussion only has your word for it. If your position is based off of reading 'implications' of a variety of rules that specifically state this and that with only indirect relevance to your position - that's a house rule.

Thus, I'll ask again - cite some specific rules that explicitly state your position. Not the 'lack of rule' example you cited above as such are not 'explicit'.

Failing the explicit rule cite, try citing specific examples from the alleged 'source books' where items are enchanted with non-specifically restricted enchantments like spell storing. Be sure to identify the source books... Core Rulebooks are A-OK for a rules discussion, but unearthed arcana wouldn't be.

 

[drnuncheon]

That's not inconsistent with the definition of wielded presented in the thrown weapons description. You pick up a chaotic dagger. You have a negative energy level. You throw it at someone, the negative energy level remains until after the action is resolved, then it's gone.

But that's not really what it says, is it? Read what's there, and not what you want it to say.

"The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded."

Now, there's two possibilities here.

One is that 'in hand' and 'weilded' are synonymous. I don't think anybody is going to argue that a dagger that has just been tossed across the room is still "in hand". If they are synonymous, then the negative level goes away as soon as the dagger leaves the hand.

The second possibility is that they are not synonymous. Then, you have this problem - the negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand, by the rules. Once you throw it, it is no longer in hand...so the negative level does not remain...but it is still weilded so it does not disappear. Paradox! You're suddenly in some sort of bizarre quantum-physics experiment where you may or may not have a negative level!

What effect does a negative level have if it does not remain but it does not disappear?

J

P.S. Where's your rules quote on the exact point when you stop weilding a weapon? Still waiting for that. I know it's in there, because you would never dare make a ruling based on a mere pants-based assumption.

 

[FrankTrollman]

At the point where you roll for damage, the weapon is now sticking into your enemy. You are wielding that weapon as per page 113. This has already been posted on this thread, and there can be no argument.

Now the rules don't explicitly say that you are ever no longer wielding a weapon - but based on the fact that "use" and "wield" are used interchangeably in the same sentences under thrown weapons, and weapon sizes - and the rules say that swinging a sword (ie.: making an attack) is "using it" (for the purposes of use activated items like magical swords in the DMG) - it is reasonable to assume that you are wielding the weapon until the end of your attack.

A = B
B = C
.: A =C

Using and Wielding a weapon are equivalent.
Using a Weapon includes attacking with it.
Therefore Wielding a Weapon includes attacking with it.
Logical rules of equivalence substitution.

So the process of Wielding the weapon ends after you attack with it - as you are wielding it for the entire term that you are attacking with it.

So when you throw a dagger at someone, and the dagger impacts your enemy, you add your strength bonus to the damage roll because you are wielding that dagger at that time (page 113, PHB). This is explicit.

And if for some reason this can't penetrate for you: I am going to make fun of you. It really can't get much clearer than this.

-Frank

 

[drnuncheon]

So the process of Wielding the weapon ends after you attack with it - as you are wielding it for the entire term that you are attacking with it.

So, when you throw the +1 chaotic dagger, when does the negative level go away?

When it is no longer in hand - as the rules explicitly say - or when it is no longer wielded - also as the rules explicitly say? Ignoring the contradiction won't make it go away.

The word 'wielded' is not used consistently throughout the book. In one place, it means what you claim it means. In another, it explicitly does not. Therefore, unless you can prove which meaning is meant in any particular citation, you have no case, and you're back to relying on DM judgement.

J

 

[Camarath]

The only point I'm still disagreeing on is the point in time when you no longer wield the weapon. I'm still not seeing specific rules that state your position or at least clearly indicate it. Without those rules cite, the discussion only has your word for it. If your position is based off of reading 'implications' of a variety of rules that specifically state this and that with only indirect relevance to your position - that's a house rule.

IMO the attack action does not allow you to reevaluate your bonuses and conditions (inculding wielding) between the attack roll and the damage roll. If you begin an attack wielding the weapon it is my belief that you are considered wielding that weapon untill the attack is resolved. If this is not so how do you weild a thrown weapon? The rules state that the wielder adds his strenght mod to damage but how can he do this is he is not considered the wielder while rolling for damage?

I would appreciate if you could please state the rule that allows you to interrupt your attack action to reevaluate your bonuses, penaties, and conditions between your attack roll and damage roll.

 

[drnuncheon]

I would appreciate if you could please state the rule that allows you to interrupt your attack action to reevaluate your bonuses, penaties, and conditions between your attack roll and damage roll.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about the rule that allows you to activate a spell effect when you're not touching the item that generates the effect.

Would anyone allow someone to throw a wand and then activate it from a distance?

J

 

[FrankTrollman]

We're not talking about that. We're talking about the rule that allows you to activate a spell effect when you're not touching the item that generates the effect.

What's the problem. It's a function of wielding the weapon. You make the decision to activate after you score a hit and before you roll damage. Since you are explicitly still wielding it at least until you roll damage (PHB page 113) - you are in like Flynn.

Remember that Spell Storing Weapons are not Spell Trigger items. They are Use Activated - the same category as the +2 enhancement bonus on a weapon. So unless you want to tell me that +2 arrows no longer function when fired because you aren't wielding them any more - there's no room for debate here.

Would anyone allow someone to throw a wand and then activate it from a distance?

It depends upon the circumstances. However since you cannot normally activate a wand in the middle of an attack - the point is moot. Activating a wand is at least a standard action, so this can never come up. If for some reason you had a wand that could be activated as a free action in the middle of an attack resolution - that would work just fine.

Do you have any more apples? I have lots of oranges for you to make trivial comparisons with....

-Frank

 

[drnuncheon]

it is reasonable to assume that you are wielding the weapon until the end of your attack.

You know what, Frank? Even if you are right about when one is or isn't wielding a weapon, you're wrong about using spell storing. From the description of the weapon quality:

Any time the weapon strikes a creature and takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires it.

From this we see that the free action of casting the spell very definitely occurs after the end of the attack action, because the creature has already taken damage - at which point the person who threw the weapon is no longer the wielder according to you. If they are no longer the wielder, they can't choose to trigger the spell.

J

Edit: i before e except after c

 

[Caliban]

Where is the touch requirement in the Spellstoring enhancement?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

OK, now that you've thought about that one: stop wasting our time.

-Frank

Frank, if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, then shut up and stop wasting my time. Seriously.

And as for the touch requirement, which one are you referring to?

If you mean the touch requirement for activating the Spell Storing ability, that would be part of that whole "wielding" thing. If it's not currently in your hand, you aren't wielding it, and thus can't activate it. Pretty simple concept.

And even if you could activate it, the Vampiric Touch spell doesn't work over a distance, you wouldn't get any HP from it. Heck, it's debatable as to wether or not you would get HP from it even if you are wielding it.

 

[Caliban]

At the point where you roll for damage, the weapon is now sticking into your enemy. You are wielding that weapon as per page 113. This has already been posted on this thread, and there can be no argument.
[/b]

You can't really be serious.

[Now the rules don't explicitly say that you are ever no longer wielding a weapon - but based on the fact that "use" and "wield" are used interchangeably in the same sentences under thrown weapons, and weapon sizes - and the rules say that swinging a sword (ie.: making an attack) is "using it" (for the purposes of use activated items like magical swords in the DMG) - it is reasonable to assume that you are wielding the weapon until the end of your attack.

False assumption. You stop wielding the weapon the moment it leaves your hands. You stop using the weapon the moment it leaves your hands.

A = B
B = C
.: A =C

Using and Wielding a weapon are equivalent.
Using a Weapon includes attacking with it.
Therefore Wielding a Weapon includes attacking with it.
Logical rules of equivalence substitution.

Doesn't apply when your base assumption is false. Nice try though.

And if for some reason this can't penetrate for you: I am going to make fun of you. It really can't get much clearer than this.

-Frank

Try it. I'll be happy to get you banned.