Your take on Spell Storing weapons

[Saeviomagy]

The description of the Spell Storing weapon special ability says that the spell stored inside can be cast as a Free Action upon striking an opponent. This brings up two questions... first, if the spell normally requires an attack roll (such as Ray of Enfeeblement, Vampiric Touch, or Touch of Idiocy), is another attack roll needed if the first succeeds? For example, let's say Bob the Fighter has a +1 Spell Storing Greatsword with Inflict Serious Wounds stored inside it. Let's say he rolls a 14 (high enough to hit his opponent). Does he need to roll again to see if the spell hits, or does it use the same roll (in this case, 14)? If it uses the same attack roll, then if the weapon threatens and confirms a critical hit, does the spell as well?

I believe there is a rule/post/faq entry/errata/something like that, which says that extra damage from a spell on a weapon hit is treated just like extra damage dice otherwise - IOW you crit with the weapon, and get no bonus to the spell.

Otherwise having imp crit and using a rapier is really really good to crit with spells which otherwise would either never crit, or only crit on a 20.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe there is a rule/post/faq entry/errata/something like that, which says that extra damage from a spell on a weapon hit is treated just like extra damage dice otherwise - IOW you crit with the weapon, and get no bonus to the spell.

I don't think I've seen it spelled out for Spell Storing weapons - I usually get that by extrapolating from the Tome and Blood ruling on delivering a touch spell with an unarmed strike (on a critical, unarmed strike damage is doubled, but not associated spell damage), rather than a touch attack...

-Hyp.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Exactly. If you opt to do unarmed damage in addition to using a Touch spell (by making a normal attack roll rather than a touch attack roll), you're effectively making your fists into limited Spell Storing weapons. Spell damage from a Shocking Grasp would still be doubled if you rolled a natural 20, even though you're attacking with your fist rather than the spell. I don't see why it would be different for a Spell Storing weapon.

However, one could easily rule that if the spell doesn't crit on a 17 by itself, it doesn't crit on a 17 when the weapon it's stored in does. So a Keen Longsword with Shocking Grasp in it would do double the Sword damage when rolling a 17, but not double the spell damage. If he rolled a natural 20, or a 19 with the Improved Critical (Touch) feat, then it would be a different story.

But then, that leads us to the question... who would need the feat- the person wielding the weapon, or the person casting the spell? After all, all effects of the spell (such as duration, damage, caster level, DC, whatever) is all determined by the caster of the spell, even if s/he has feats that increase them (such as Spell Focus). Then who would have to have Improved Critical (Touch) in order for the spell to threaten a critical on a 19 when cast from a Spell Storing weapon?

Geez, all the questions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Exactly. If you opt to do unarmed damage in addition to using a Touch spell (by making a normal attack roll rather than a touch attack roll), you're effectively making your fists into limited Spell Storing weapons. Spell damage from a Shocking Grasp would still be doubled if you rolled a natural 20, even though you're attacking with your fist rather than the spell.

Not according to Tome and Blood.

If you deliver the spell as a touch attack, on a confirmed critical, your Shocking Grasp damage is doubled.

If you deliver the spell with an unarmed strike, on a confirmed critical, your unarmed strike damage is doubled, but your Shocking Grasp damage is normal for the spell, not critical damage.

-Hyp.

 

[mikebr99]

Not according to Tome and Blood.

If you deliver the spell as a touch attack, on a confirmed critical, your Shocking Grasp damage is doubled.

If you deliver the spell with an unarmed strike, on a confirmed critical, your unarmed strike damage is doubled, but your Shocking Grasp damage is normal for the spell, not critical damage.

-Hyp.

Thanks for bringing that up Hyp.

But... If a specific spell has the ability to critical all on it's own during normal casting and targetting... and the weapon that just delivered that spell to the target, hit a "critical" spot, would not the spell also be delivered into that "critical" spot by being in the weapon?


Mike

 

[Hypersmurf]

But... If a specific spell has the ability to critical all on it's own during normal casting and targetting... and the weapon that just delivered that spell to the target, hit a "critical" spot, would not the spell also be delivered into that "critical" spot by being in the weapon?

If that were the case, the same would apply to delivering a spell with an unarmed strike.

Since it specifically does not apply to delivering a spell with an unarmed strike, it follows by inference that it is not true for a spell-storing weapon... although, as noted, it does not specifically state this.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If that were the case, the same would apply to delivering a spell with an unarmed strike.

Since it specifically does not apply to delivering a spell with an unarmed strike, it follows by inference that it is not true for a spell-storing weapon... although, as noted, it does not specifically state this.

-Hyp.

Thanks hyp - that's probably the reference I was thinking of.

Does the spellsword in the same book have any more info on spell-storing weapons used in this manner? Or was the previous restriction on spell-storing such that it was impossible to have a crittable spell in a weapon anyway?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or was the previous restriction on spell-storing such that it was impossible to have a crittable spell in a weapon anyway?

There have always been legal crit-capable spells that can be stored in a Spell-Storing weapon - Inflict Wounds, for example.

-Hyp.