Rules discussion on Fell Energy Spell: Do bonuses on items affect wielders?

[Segev]

Some appliances can still be used without power, just not as effectively. A sewing machine can be manually turned, for example. The sewing machine gives you +2 to craft: tailoring checks (masterwork tool), or if electricity is applied to the sewing machine, the bonus the sewing machine grants increases to +10. The electricity isn't giving you a bonus, it's improving the object that gives you a benefit.

The same goes for Greater Magic Weapon. A longsword allows you to attack at +0 for 1d8+Str damage (or at +1 if it's masterwork), or Greater Magic Weapon +3 makes it so that longsword allows you to attack at +3 for 1d8+3+Str damage.

And you're telling me that you're unaffected by the shift from having to turn the sewing machine by hand during the power outage and only getting a +2 to craft:tailoring to having only to use the mechanized system when electricity is flowing through it and it gives you +10 to craft:tailoring?

The same does go for GMW +3: without it, you have a 15% lower chance to hit anything where you weren't practically guaranteed a hit (or miss) already. You're telling me you're unaffected by that?

Seriously, this line of argumentation is doing a lot to support Oberron's position.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

And you're telling me that you're unaffected by the shift from having to turn the sewing machine by hand during the power outage and only getting a +2 to craft:tailoring to having only to use the mechanized system when electricity is flowing through it and it gives you +10 to craft:tailoring?

The same does go for GMW +3: without it, you have a 15% lower chance to hit anything where you weren't practically guaranteed a hit (or miss) already. You're telling me you're unaffected by that?

Seriously, this line of argumentation is doing a lot to support Oberron's position.

You're not what's being buffed by the spell or the electricity. Just like the electricity doesn't flow into your body from the sewing machine, neither does the spell cast on your weapon.

You're just as affected by the spell as a target you're attacking, i.e. neither of you are. The weapon is made more effective by the spell. If you're attacking a magic-immune target, the bonus doesn't go away, because the target isn't affected by the spell, just like you're not affected by it. The spell affects neither the target, nor the wielder, it only affects the weapon by making the weapon more effective.

[Oberron]

You're not what's being buffed by the spell or the electricity. Just like the electricity doesn't flow into your body from the sewing machine, neither does the spell cast on your weapon.

You're just as affected by the spell as a target you're attacking, i.e. neither of you are. The weapon is made more effective by the spell. If you're attacking a magic-immune target, the bonus doesn't go away, because the target isn't affected by the spell, just like you're not affected by it. The spell affects neither the target, nor the wielder, it only affects the weapon by making the weapon more effective.

Are you saying that a bonus to hit is not a buff for the attacker?

If the attacker isn't affected by magic weapon then how does it give a bonus to hit and damage? The weapon is not making the attack, the character using the weapon is and so far no one has been able to show otherwise.

As for magic immunity here is what it says for the demilich. "Demiliches are immune to all magical and supernatural effects, except as follows. ..." it says nothing about attackers being immune to magical or supernatural effects or being affected by them.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Are you saying that a bonus to hit is not a buff for the attacker?

If the attacker isn't affected by magic weapon then how does it give a bonus to hit and damage? The weapon is not making the attack, the character using the weapon is and so far no one has been able to show otherwise.

As for magic immunity here is what it says for the demilich. "Demiliches are immune to all magical and supernatural effects, except as follows. ..." it says nothing about attackers being immune to magical or supernatural effects or being affected by them.

The target of your attack takes extra damage from the spell being on the weapon, are you saying that's not a debuff for the creature being attacked?

You gain the benefit of the weapon's stats. The spell modifies the weapon's stats. The spell does not modify your stats, the weapon is what does that.

[Promethean]

I could actually see this working in a way.

If you think of the item enchanted with a Greater magic weapon spell as a focus for the spell and the actual spell effect being the +X bonus it works out. In said case, using fell energy GMW on a sword would create a +3 weapon with a hidden +2 for undead, but the +3 would become a +5 if the weapon was picked up by an undead. If said undead is killed by a living creature, the sword would revert to a +3 weapon in their hands.

It seems shaky from a mechanics perspective and probably isn't RAI, but from a conceptual/lore perspective it works fine.

[Oberron]

The target of your attack takes extra damage from the spell being on the weapon, are you saying that's not a debuff for the creature being attacked?

You gain the benefit of the weapon's stats. The spell modifies the weapon's stats. The spell does not modify your stats, the weapon is what does that.

Taking Damage because of an attack roll is not a penalty according to the rules.would you like to answer my question that so far no one seems to be able to and just either ignores or avoids?

Magic weapon does not modify ability score but it does modify the attacker's to hit roll which is a bonus. Saying you get a bonus from something and that it's not affecting you is a contradiction

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Taking Damage is not a penalty according to the rules.would you like to answer my question that so far no one seems to be able to and just either ignores or avoids?

Magic weapon does not modify stats you are correct. It does modify the characters to hit though which is a bonus. Saying you get a bonus from something and that it's not affecting you is a contradiction

Magic Weapon doesn't modify anything on any character. It modifies what a weapon gives you. A masterwork weapon gives you +1 to hit, if you cast Greater Magic Weapon +3 on that the weapon instead gives you a +3 to hit and to damage. The spell doesn't give you that directly, it changes how the weapon affects your to-hit and damage stats when you're wielding it.


Greater Magic Weapon is Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object).
"A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless."
"A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities."

Someone casts Greater Magic Weapon on a sword. Someone else with SR that the caster can't beat picks up that sword and uses it. They don't need to lower their SR to do so, because they're not being affected by the spell. The sword gives them a bonus, not the spell; SR doesn't interfere with your own items. By your reasoning, he would need to voluntarily lower his SR for the entire time he's using that sword, or he wouldn't gain the bonus from it. Either he's being affected by the spell and SR applies, or he's gaining a benefit from the item and SR doesn't interfere.


Finally, we have Rules Compendium p130-131 regarding spell resistance and why spells would or would not need to check against it, Greater Magic Weapon is a transmutation:

Transmutation: These spells are subject to spell resistance
if they transform the target creature. Transmutation spells
aren’t subject to spell resistance if they’re targeted on a point
in space instead of on a creature. Some transmutations make
objects harmful or more harmful. Even these spells aren’t usually
subject to spell resistance, because they affect the objects,
not the creatures against which the objects are used.

[Oberron]

Magic Weapon doesn't modify anything on any character. It modifies what a weapon gives you. A masterwork weapon gives you +1 to hit, if you cast Greater Magic Weapon +3 on that the weapon instead gives you a +3 to hit and to damage. The spell doesn't give you that directly, it changes how the weapon affects your to-hit and damage stats when you're wielding it.


Greater Magic Weapon is Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object).
"A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless."
"A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities."

Someone casts Greater Magic Weapon on a sword. Someone else with SR that the caster can't beat picks up that sword and uses it. They don't need to lower their SR to do so, because they're not being affected by the spell. The sword gives them a bonus, not the spell; SR doesn't interfere with your own items. By your reasoning, he would need to voluntarily lower his SR for the entire time he's using that sword, or he wouldn't gain the bonus from it. Either he's being affected by the spell and SR applies, or he's gaining a benefit from the item and SR doesn't interfere.


Finally, we have Rules Compendium p130-131 regarding spell resistance and why spells would or would not need to check against it, Greater Magic Weapon is a transmutation:

It is also a target spell.

When Spell Resistance Applies
Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does:

Targeted Spells
Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately

Magic weapon targets a weapon not the creature which is irrelevant for FES but relevant for SR.

[Segev]

You're not what's being buffed by the spell or the electricity. Just like the electricity doesn't flow into your body from the sewing machine, neither does the spell cast on your weapon.

You're just as affected by the spell as a target you're attacking, i.e. neither of you are. The weapon is made more effective by the spell. If you're attacking a magic-immune target, the bonus doesn't go away, because the target isn't affected by the spell, just like you're not affected by it. The spell affects neither the target, nor the wielder, it only affects the weapon by making the weapon more effective.

Fell Energy Spell says literally nothing about having to have the spell directly buff the undead, only that the spell must give the undead a numerical advantage that is expressly termed a "bonus."

I fully understand the argument you're making; I don't think you understand why I'm finding it less and less convincing the more you hammer on it. You're not demonstrating that the sewing machine having electrical power is failing to affect my ability to tailor.

This is seeming more and more like the question of whether an electrokinetic can get more out of an electrical powered sewing machine than non-electrokinetics could, but would not get anything more out of a non-electrically-powered sewing machine than non-electrokinetics could. The magic boosting the weapon is making it better for all wielders, but the undead resonate in some way with the Fell Energy within it, making the bonus higher for the undead than any other wielder.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Fell Energy Spell says literally nothing about having to have the spell directly buff the undead, only that the spell must give the undead a numerical advantage that is expressly termed a "bonus."

That's not what Fell Energy Spell says, though:
"Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects."

If the spell doesn't affect the creature, it doesn't qualify for any modification by Fell Energy Spell.

The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it.

The RAW is clear on this. The RAI is even more clear on this. It's crystal clear that some of the participants in this thread just want this to work regardless of what the rules say, and are continually grasping at straws for any excuse to justify it. Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell? Because I've already pointed out the RAW that says the creature is not being affected by that spell. Trying to disprove my arguments does not prove your own, you still have the burden of proof in pointing out the rules that say you're right.

[Oberron]

That's not what Fell Energy Spell says, though:
"Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects."

If the spell doesn't affect the creature, it doesn't qualify for any modification by Fell Energy Spell.

The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it.

The RAW is clear on this. The RAI is even more clear on this. It's crystal clear that some of the participants in this thread just want this to work regardless of what the rules say, and are continually grasping at straws for any excuse to justify it. Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell? Because I've already pointed out the RAW that says the creature is not being affected by that spell. Trying to disprove my arguments does not prove your own, you still have the burden of proof in pointing out the rules that say you're right.

Can I get a quote on where "The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it" is said or talked about? If you are talking about your quote about spell resistance that has already been disproven.

"Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell?"

Where it talks about rolls.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

It is the character making an attack roll. They get a bonus to hit from magic weapon. They are being affected.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Can I get a quote on where "The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it" is said or talked about? If you are talking about your quote about spell resistance that has already been disproven.

"Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell?"

Where it talks about rolls.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

It is the character making an attack roll. They get a bonus to hit from magic weapon. They are being affected.

No, the character gains the bonus that the weapon grants to them. Whether it's a masterwork weapon, a permanent magic weapon, or a temporarily magic weapon due to a spell, doesn't matter in the slightest bit. The character's attack rolls are only being affected by that weapon. Nowhere in the RAW does it say otherwise, you have zero legs to stand on.

[Oberron]

No, the character gains the bonus that the weapon grants to them. Whether it's a masterwork weapon, a permanent magic weapon, or a temporarily magic weapon due to a spell, doesn't matter in the slightest bit. The character's attack rolls are only being affected by that weapon. Nowhere in the RAW does it say otherwise, you have zero legs to stand on.

You just said the character gains a bonus. How is that not affecting them?

As for the character's attack roll being affected not the character that is also wrong by the same section I quoted.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

It's clear that the attack roll is the character trying to do something.

[King of Nowhere]

Regardless of the exact reading of RAW, it is clear that by RAI fell energy is something that affects undead, makes the undead more powerful, while magic weapon is something that affects the weapon and not the bearer.

[Oberron]

Regardless of the exact reading of RAW, it is clear that by RAI fell energy is something that affects undead, makes the undead more powerful, while magic weapon is something that affects the weapon and not the bearer.

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say with "RAI fell energy is something that affects undead...."etc. The most common use of fell energy spell is with desecrate which doesn't target undead but still affects them, magic weapon can clearly make an undead more powerful when using a weapon that has it cast on it and magic weapon itself states that it is a bonus that is to-hit, something only the bearer of the weapon can make.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

RAW magic weapon affects the bearer.

[Telok]

It occurs to me that an argument could be made that the effect of GMW, in granting a bonus to hit and damage to the weapon, affects undead that are attacked with that weapon.

[Oberron]

It occurs to me that an argument could be made that the effect of GMW, in granting a bonus to hit and damage to the weapon, affects undead that are attacked with that weapon.

Someone previously tried to argue that but didn't have much merit. The undead that is being attacked by a magic weapon is not gaining a to-hit bonus or damage bonus, both of the bonuses affect the bearer's rolls not the defender. Unless you have something to support that argument?

[DarkSoul]

The target of an attack from a weapon enchanted with GMW is affected just as, if not more, negatively as the wielder of the weapon is positively affected by the enchantment, if you follow this absurd reasoning that FES buffs GMW. If struck by an attack for 12 points of damage from a weapon that's +3 due to FES+GMW, it would have only been 10 points under normal circumstances. So yes, by this logic the target of the attack is affected as much (or more in the case of a critical hit) as the wielder of the weapon.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds yet? The spell affects the weapon, not the undead. Maybe read through Rules Compendium 134-135 and see if it helps.

[Remuko]

The target of an attack from a weapon enchanted with GMW is affected just as, if not more, negatively as the wielder of the weapon is positively affected by the enchantment, if you follow this absurd reasoning that FES buffs GMW. If struck by an attack for 12 points of damage from a weapon that's +3 due to FES+GMW, it would have only been 10 points under normal circumstances. So yes, by this logic the target of the attack is affected as much (or more in the case of a critical hit) as the wielder of the weapon.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds yet? The spell affects the weapon, not the undead. Maybe read through Rules Compendium 134-135 and see if it helps.

Gonna agree with this and reiterate what I said on page 1

I remember this same argument coming up in a thread about a demilich (iirc). Saying that since the demilich has magic immunity, none of his things could be dispelled, because dispelling them would affect him and he's immune to effects of spells.

I thought it was ludicrous then, and I still think it is now.

[Oberron]

The target of an attack from a weapon enchanted with GMW is affected just as, if not more, negatively as the wielder of the weapon is positively affected by the enchantment, if you follow this absurd reasoning that FES buffs GMW. If struck by an attack for 12 points of damage from a weapon that's +3 due to FES+GMW, it would have only been 10 points under normal circumstances. So yes, by this logic the target of the attack is affected as much (or more in the case of a critical hit) as the wielder of the weapon.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds yet? The spell affects the weapon, not the undead. Maybe read through Rules Compendium 134-135 and see if it helps.

From the SRD:

A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

What die roll is the target of an attack making? The attacker on the other hand from the SRD:

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Your logic does not match with the rules. As for what the 3.0 rules compendium says about targeting I'm not seeing anything that disproves my point or supports yours. Which section about targets specifically do you want me to read?

Gonna agree with this and reiterate what I said on page 1

I'll reiterate what i said to your response. I think I know which thread you are talking about but this is very different. The magic immunity for the demolish (according to the srd) talks about effects. Fell energy spell literally talks about affects

Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects. This increase does not apply to factors such as range, save DC, healing, or other numerical factors relating to a spell. Only effects described as bonuses gain this benefit. A fell energy spell takes up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

I'm not adding in words that are not there. But if you have anything to contribute other than this reminds you of a another thread please do so I would be happy to hear your thoughts.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say with "RAI fell energy is something that affects undead...."etc. The most common use of fell energy spell is with desecrate which doesn't target undead but still affects them, magic weapon can clearly make an undead more powerful when using a weapon that has it cast on it and magic weapon itself states that it is a bonus that is to-hit, something only the bearer of the weapon can make.

I'm trying to say that fell energy spell means "this spell makes undead more powerful". or, since it's applied to spells that already buff undead, "this spell makes the affected creature more powerful, and if it's an undead it becomes even more powerful". So, bull's strenght on an undead makes the undead stronger. Desecrate makes the undead more powerful, and is affected. bless makes the undead more skilled, and is affected. barksking makes the undead thougher, and is affected.
Greater magic weapon makes a weapon more powerful, and it has nothing to do with undead. just because an undead happens to be the one using the aforementioned ssword, it doesn't mean the spell is affecting the undead. It's like when you pick up a rock with telekinesis and throw it at a creature: the spell is affecting the rock, not the creature, and therefore it doesn't have to deal with spell resistance.

Now, I could accept an argument like "thhis weapon is especially powerful when used by an undead". Like there could be weapons whose magic is specifically attuned to elves, or dwarves, or orcs, so there could be weapons attuned specifically to undead, and fell energy magic weapon is one such spell. I would not read that way, but I can accept that argument.
On the other hand, when I say that I don't care about the exact RAW wording, I mean exactly that. I am a gamer, not a lawyer. I don't like to argue about the fine points of the semantics, and it feels like cheating anyway. So, an appeal to exact words is not going to persuade me of anything. Except perhaps that we would not enjoy playing at the same table.

[Oberron]

I'm trying to say that fell energy spell means "this spell makes undead more powerful". or, since it's applied to spells that already buff undead, "this spell makes the affected creature more powerful, and if it's an undead it becomes even more powerful". So, bull's strenght on an undead makes the undead stronger. Desecrate makes the undead more powerful, and is affected. bless makes the undead more skilled, and is affected. barksking makes the undead thougher, and is affected.
Greater magic weapon makes a weapon more powerful, and it has nothing to do with undead. just because an undead happens to be the one using the aforementioned ssword, it doesn't mean the spell is affecting the undead. It's like when you pick up a rock with telekinesis and throw it at a creature: the spell is affecting the rock, not the creature, and therefore it doesn't have to deal with spell resistance.

Now, I could accept an argument like "thhis weapon is especially powerful when used by an undead". Like there could be weapons whose magic is specifically attuned to elves, or dwarves, or orcs, so there could be weapons attuned specifically to undead, and fell energy magic weapon is one such spell. I would not read that way, but I can accept that argument.
On the other hand, when I say that I don't care about the exact RAW wording, I mean exactly that. I am a gamer, not a lawyer. I don't like to argue about the fine points of the semantics, and it feels like cheating anyway. So, an appeal to exact words is not going to persuade me of anything. Except perhaps that we would not enjoy playing at the same table.

I'll have to disagree with what you think fes means. It seems you are trying to make a fluff argument rather than a rules argument if I'm mistaken please correct me. The fluff for the feat even says it's to make the spell more effective for undead.

you add a dose of raw necromantic energy to your beneficial spell, making it especially effective for undead creatures

So a weapon with fes magic weapon is effective for a non undead but especially effective for undead creatures. Would you agree with that statement?

What would persuade you if not raw?

edit: You say desecrate and other area spells works because it makes them stronger. What is the difference between an area giving a bonus and a weapon with magic weapon giving a bonus? neither the creatures in the area or using the weapon to attack are the target of the spell but both gain a bonus from the effect when standing in the area/using the weapon.

[Remuko]

{Scrubbed}