Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr. Dog 06-16-05, 07:40 PM	Arcane Strike allows you to burn spell slots for a bonus to hit and extra d4s of damage. Assuming you had the feat, and an overly abundant amount of spell slots, one could technically burn more than one spell slot in order to deal additional damage. It's a free action to burn the slot, and it never says it counts against your quickened spells limit for the round, so you could do it as often as you like until the DM says "no more free actions." The feat never says you can only use it once a round, or that you may only burn one spell. It says that the attack bonus you gain may not exceed your base attack bonus. But it never says that there is a limit to the damage. So burn 8 1st level slots, you get +8 to the attack roll (or +1, depending on the way one reads the feat), and 8 extra d4s of damage. Burn 8 5th level slots and you get your 40 or your BAB, whichever is lower as an unnamed bonus to attack rolls (or +5, depending on the way one reads the feat), and 40d4 of bonus damage. This damage is untyped. So an Illumian with festering anger, Aeshkrau (Strength as your casting stat for the purposes of bonus spells per day), and this feat could lay out even more damage than the already near-cheesy uber-strength would allow. Are there any other builds/strategies that could exploit this? Sorcerers get lots of spells per day, so they would work better than wizards for this strategy generally. Are there any classes that get tons of spell slots but really weak spells that would be better used to pitch to arcane strike?
Caelic 06-16-05, 07:43 PM	Err...strength and bonus spells approaching infinity are only "near cheesy?"
Axle_Steelcat 06-16-05, 07:50 PM	Rings of Wizardry As a DM I'd limit it to 1 arcane strike per attack.
Sanosuke_Zanbatou 06-16-05, 07:58 PM	Well, it's true that you could technically...but I doubt any DM would allow it. Even if he/she did, you could only do it a limited number of times per day. True Strike is gives +20 to your next attack, and it only uses one spell slot(granted it can only be used once in a round). Using all your slots wouldn't be all that smart, especialy if you're supposed to be the Support Caster. I wouldn't allow it, but I don't think it's that big a deal...just give whatever he attacked a Cloak of Displacement :P lol
djinni 06-16-05, 08:34 PM	I wouldn't allow it, but I don't think it's that big a deal...just give whatever he attacked a Cloak of Displacement :P lol but those types of things just appearing on a monster are kinda bad...all of a sudden the monster looks funny?
ninjarabbit 06-16-05, 08:36 PM	It's a good tactic if you're desparate but it's too easy to burn through all your spells and have nothing left for later doing that.
Baneslayer 06-16-05, 08:47 PM	I'd allow you to burn up to your BAB but not beyond. But... exactly how many spell slots do you think you have to burn in a day? It doesn't sound terribly efficient considering what else those spells could do for you.
Previn 06-16-05, 08:50 PM	A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself. Ref: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040120a So the most you could ever get for a bonus to attack is +9 (barring epic). Damage would seem to be uncapped, but as was pointed out earlier, most any spell is worth more as a spell than d4x spell level damage.
DisposableHero_ 06-16-05, 09:31 PM	So the most you could ever get for a bonus to attack is +9 (barring epic). Damage would seem to be uncapped, but as was pointed out earlier, most any spell is worth more as a spell than d4x spell level damage. Arcane strike lasts for 1 round not 1 attack. Most spells are worth more than d4*spell level, but are they worth more than say 4d4*spell level. A Swashbuckler3/Wizard5/ExoticWeaponMaster1/DragonSlayer1/EldritchKnight10 for example can drop an 8th level spell and add 40d4 damage to his full attack with a spike chain, not counting what you can do with cleave attacks or attacks of opportunity. In my group we let the damage scale up to base attack bonus in d4s and cap it there, but thats based on what we find balanced not on what the rules say.
Horatio 06-17-05, 08:01 AM	Didn't you notice? It states in the feat description, that the number cannot exceed your BA. Thus, with BA 8, you can burn two 4 level slots, 3 level and 5 level and so on (or less), but you are not able to burn more. Or you are able to burn more, but the bonus is still capped by your BA.
Pinky's brain 06-17-05, 08:05 AM	Id go with the bonuses from the same source dont stack rule too.
Mr. Dog 06-17-05, 09:08 AM	Didn't you notice? It states in the feat description, that the number cannot exceed your BA. Thus, with BA 8, you can burn two 4 level slots, 3 level and 5 level and so on (or less), but you are not able to burn more. Or you are able to burn more, but the bonus is still capped by your BA. Yeah, I did see that. Which is why my opening post to start the thread said: The feat never says you can only use it once a round, or that you may only burn one spell. It says that the attack bonus you gain may not exceed your base attack bonus. But it never says that there is a limit to the damage.
RadicalTaoist 06-17-05, 09:22 AM	Which would seem to imply that you can't exceed your BAB per round. Seems to make the most rules-sense to me. You got a BAB of +10? Only +10 to hit and +10d4 to damage this round for you. That still means this is sick for hexblades, which is fine.
faradhii 06-17-05, 09:40 AM	If you want the real cheese, it specifically states that you get arcane strike for your full complement of natural attacks. So.... Polymorph into your HD worht of Hydra. Not only do you get a pretty good form for combat, but that sacrificied 4th level slot at 7th level is an extra +4 to hit and +4d4 dmg. 7 times. Let's say 1/2 hit, that's still +14d4 in addition to the Hydra's pretty fair base damage. It gets worse once you get Draconic polymorph at 9th level.
Pinky's brain 06-17-05, 09:56 AM	Cast wraithstrike too and be a daggerspell mage/arcane trickster .... $$$.
Previn 06-17-05, 01:14 PM	DisposableHero, an 8th level spell sacrificed to Arcane Strike (assuming 4 attacks) is 32d4 = 80 extra damage on average for that 8th level spell slot, if you make a full attack and all hit 4 times (albeit at +8 to your normal TAB). A full wizard, using no feats or items could toss a Polar ray for 20d6 or 70 damage at range with a single much easier attack roll and still have a 30' move. Heck, Mass Charm Monster is an 8th level spell. I'll grant you that you might do a whopping 10 more damage with the strike, if everything goes perfectly for you. You've also spent a feat for a very negligable bonus, which most times isn't going to be much of a bonus. And while you get the added damage of your weapon (and all the benfits and penalities there of) that's still given that you've used a feat. Throw the Empower feat in for the wizard, and use an Empowered Chain Lightning. That's 30d6 = 105 to multiple (up to 20) targets at 1200' away. An Empowered Disentigate would do a 60d6 = 210 damage at 300'. And this is all just talking about damage, ignoring the utility that a high level spell has, often the ability to instantly end an encounter, or avoid it in the first place. Arcane Strike is a feat with a very, very limited use where it is optinal to use. Unless you're putting a lot of effort into making the feat work, just casting the spell is going to be better. {Edit: Useful times: Your number of attacks gives you a signifigant damage increase in total, or the possible damage output is needed to kill something now (i.e. the BBEG)} RadicalTaoist, you can't get +10 to hit with this feat. The maximum you can get is +9 (barring epic). If you burn 3 4th level slots, you gain the same unnamed, non-stacking +4 bonus 3 times. Total attack bonus increase? +4
DisposableHero_ 06-17-05, 01:38 PM	DisposableHero, an 8th level spell sacrificed to Arcane Strike (assuming 4 attacks) is 32d4 = 80 extra damage on average for that 8th level spell slot, if you make a full attack and all hit 4 times (albeit at +8 to your normal TAB). A full wizard, using no feats or items could toss a Polar ray for 20d6 or 70 damage at range with a single much easier attack roll and still have a 30' move. Heck, Mass Charm Monster is an 8th level spell. I'll grant you that you might do a whopping 10 more damage with the strike, if everything goes perfectly for you. You've also spent a feat for a very negligable bonus, which most times isn't going to be much of a bonus. And while you get the added damage of your weapon (and all the benfits and penalities there of) that's still given that you've used a feat. Throw the Empower feat in for the wizard, and use an Empowered Chain Lightning. That's 30d6 = 105 to multiple (up to 20) targets at 1200' away. An Empowered Disentigate would do a 60d6 = 210 damage at 300'. All very true, but we're hardly talking about full wizard's when we're discussing arcane strike. We're likely talking about gish who have spent their spell slots on buffing spells and have optimized their attack/damage potential as well. I'm not saying the feat isn't narrow, nor am I saying there aren't better spells around, but it is worth a look at. That 8th level spell is worth 32d4 if you have 4 attacks around, mine had 5 (notice the exotic weapon master/spiked chain for say... flurry of strikes, we could use haste or a speed weapon for the same effect though). It also should be compared to a quickened spell as its using a free action, on top of the 40d4 (average 100 damage) he still gets all the damage from his regular attacks and an increase in accuracy (which can translate into a big increase in damage with power attack). Plus that figures that with a reach weapon he won't make attacks of opportunity or cleaves. Each extra attack is another 10 average damage provided by that feat and another +8 to hit to increase the chances of adding the character's normal damage again. The optimal place to use this feat is not very very limited as you suggest, its an entire character archetype (and a popular one at that). It is of narrow use in that its likely only good within that archetype but I think it deserves more credit them some here are giving it. Name another feat that can add about 100 damage to a gish's full attack routine without any other help, and then, tell me how using that precludes using arcane strike too.
faradhii 06-17-05, 02:09 PM	the build I use now in my friday night game is Ftr 1/Wiz 6/SS 1/EK 1 The DM allowed arcane strike to be used with missle weapons within 30' (similar to sneak attack). So I took Point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, Many shot, imp rapid shot, you get the idea ( we got 2 UA flaws and I used the martial wiz option from UA to get all the feats). At level 9, I shoot 6 arrows a round every two of which needs to go together using the same atack roll. with stats and items I have about +16/+16/+11 to hit within 30'. I take all buff spells with a few AOE spells for crowd control. Round 1, the party waits till I cast haste. Round 2 I now have 8 arrows going out at +16/+16/+11(+16). I sacrifice My Diviner spell "Scrying" for an extra +4 to hit with each of the 3 attack rolls and +4d4 on each of the 8 arrows. On average, I'd say 3 rolls hit the target meaning 6 arrows hit. With stats and items that's 1-8 +6 +4d4 per arrow or 6d8 +36 +24d4. meanwhile my party is happily bashing things while hasted and I'm safely tucked in the background (with imp invis if we are the ones initiating combat) Most bad guys get a bit surprised when they take about 123 points of damage. The Use of archery is not RAW, but you can get a similar effect from a properly made up melee GISH; maybe getting up to whirlwind strike with a spiked chain (you could argue that the touch attacks get the arcane dmg too, although I sure as heck wouldn't allow it!). In a nut shell, I love the arcane strike feat, it allows me to memorize utility and buff spells while still being an effective offensive weapon!
Previn 06-17-05, 02:13 PM	All very true, but we're hardly talking about full wizard's when we're discussing arcane strike. We're likely talking about gish who have spent their spell slots on buffing spells and have optimized their attack/damage potential as well. I'm not saying the feat isn't narrow, nor am I saying there aren't better spells around, but it is worth a look at. You missed the point. It is not a good feat even for a gish. If you have a high level slot, Arcane Strike is not better than casting the spell. For all the effort your pulling to get the bonus, even for the build you lised, using the slot to cast a spell is still a much better option then blowing it for for what is negligable additional melee damage. That 8th level spell is worth 32d4 if you have 4 attacks around, mine had 5 (notice the exotic weapon master/spiked chain for say... flurry of strikes, we could use haste or a speed weapon for the same effect though). It also should be compared to a quickened spell as its using a free action, on top of the 40d4 (average 100 damage) he still gets all the damage from his regular attacks and an increase in accuracy (which can translate into a big increase in damage with power attack). Plus that figures that with a reach weapon he won't make attacks of opportunity or cleaves. Each extra attack is another 10 average damage provided by that feat and another +8 to hit to increase the chances of adding the character's normal damage again. You're missing the point that you have to be in melee and make a full attack and hit will all of your attacks. It is not a free action, it's a full attack with some spice. Just because you burn the slot doesn't assure you the damage, often you'll end up with less damage due to missing those last attacks. The fact that your build had 5 attacks doesn't meant that everyone will. It also reinforces my point. You have to work to make Arcane Strike useful. By skipping Arcane Strike and picking up Empower Spell instead, you're still dealing more damage with a spell. And look at what's your trying to compare: Using 3-4 feats (Exotic Weapon prof., Arcane Strike, Combat Reflexes, Cleave) and Full attack action and a spell slot to just a spell slot. The optimal place to use this feat is not very very limited as you suggest, its an entire character archetype (and a popular one at that). It is of narrow use in that its likely only good within that archetype but I think it deserves more credit them some here are giving it. Name another feat that can add about 100 damage to a gish's full attack routine without any other help, and then, tell me how using that precludes using arcane strike too. It is a very limited selection. You're blowing things like Prismatic Wall, Mass Charm, Summon Monster 8 and Empower Chain Lightnings and Disintegrates to MAYBE, equal the damage potiential, and come no where close to the utility and encounter ending ability of the spells. This becomes even more apparent if you start adding in mutiple foes. You're blinded by the "but damage!!" and missing the point that the spells are worth much more when they are cast. You're looking at the feat as adding damage to your attack routine, but missing that it's doing so by sacrificing the greater damage that you would have gotten for casting the spell. Spells that could instantly end an enounter in your favor. Yes it's nice that if everything is in your favor to use the feat it can be great, but 90% of the time, it is not worth it.
gabrion 06-17-05, 02:22 PM	This is a great feat and trick for Persistent Tank builds. I actually played one such build and the only real point of having spells was to cast all of your buffs in the morning (making them persistent of course) and then acting as a tank the rest of the day. The point is that such builds wont be using their spells in combat anyway, so why not put them to good use? As far as comparative damage goes, lets not forget that the melee build will also be putting out a lot more base damage besides the extra from arcane strike, which makes the comparison of an 8th level spell a bit unfair. Once such a build gets well-buffed (which happens every morning), he can kick some major booty.
Previn 06-17-05, 02:50 PM	This is a great feat and trick for Persistent Tank builds. I actually played one such build and the only real point of having spells was to cast all of your buffs in the morning (making them persistent of course) and then acting as a tank the rest of the day. The point is that such builds wont be using their spells in combat anyway, so why not put them to good use? As far as comparative damage goes, lets not forget that the melee build will also be putting out a lot more base damage besides the extra from arcane strike, which makes the comparison of an 8th level spell a bit unfair. Once such a build gets well-buffed (which happens every morning), he can kick some major booty. Arcane Strike with lower level spells might be worth it if you blow a lot of lower level spells for damage at once. Magic missile gives up to 5d4+5 Arcane striking with 5 attacks give 5d4. But that's going to eat up lower level slots very quickly. As well, casting in combat is usually a case of taking a 5' step back. If you have high level spells, they will be better used when cast. Even with tank builds, wouldn't the slot be better used for an extended or persistant buff than a 1 round damage bonus? If this was for divine casters, which it could be (but I doubt effectively), I'd be a lot more enthusatic about it. But since it's basically for arcane spells, the return isn't worth it.
Khazra Reborn 06-17-05, 03:01 PM	the best part of arcane strike is that you can get a free +20 to attack for power attacks....note to self:hexblade lancer needed!
colm_l 06-17-05, 03:03 PM	You missed the point. It is not a good feat even for a gish. If you have a high level slot, Arcane Strike is not better than casting the spell. For all the effort your pulling to get the bonus, even for the build you lised, using the slot to cast a spell is still a much better option then blowing it for for what is negligable additional melee damage. Actually, I'd disagree. The point isn't necessarily the bonus damage but that combined with the bonus to hit is pretty solid. It compensates nicely for the Gish' lower BAB & stacks with true strike. I doubt it is intended for a pure caster in the first place. It helps you bring your standard melee damage to bear against a higher AC opponent (power attack etc.) than you otherwise could. It's not to everyone's taste but it is a pretty good feat for what it does.
Pinky's brain 06-17-05, 03:09 PM	In a decent gish build arcane strike combined with wraithstrike will give you a full attack practically guarantueed to take anything down with straight damage alone ... no spell can give you the same level of certainty.
gabrion 06-17-05, 03:12 PM	Even with tank builds, wouldn't the slot be better used for an extended or persistant buff than a 1 round damage bonus? Usually yes. I only used it because I had problems finding enough high level spells with a range of personal and the DM wouldn't allow me to make touch spells persistent when cast on myself. I also felt that there was a point of diminishing returns with persistent spells. I mean after you get buffed to a certain point and you are always hitting for a bunch of damage, you would be better off using the spell slots with this feat to add onto your damage. While you are right in pointing out that high level spells are usually better used to do damage on their own, the problem is what you are able to do in one round. If you have already established the ability to do uber melee damage, then adding onto it with Arcane Strike is a better option than forgoing your attacks to cast a spell. One more thing to add here is possible use in conjuntion with Tensor's Transformation. I know a lot of people don't like the spell, but the build I mentioned before used TT as its final persistent buff each morning, which made left over spell slots pointless. Arcane Strike helped make them effective again. I don't really know if all that was legal (the DM didn't see any reason why I couldn't use Arcane Strike while under the effects of TT). This was kinda a special case, but it was an effective tactic. If this was for divine casters, which is could be (but I doubt effectively), I'd be a lot more enthusatic about it. But since it's basically for arcane spells, the return isn't worth it. No doubt it would be better for divine casters, but as you said, it would be difficult to effectively get 3rd level arcane casting. I think it does take a specific build, but this tactic can be very effective in such a build.
UMiskatonic 06-17-05, 03:16 PM	In any game, there will be circumstances where you need to take down the big bad guy RIGHT NOW. In those circumstances, you might be advised to throw everything you have at him this round, as there might not be a next round if you fail. This is when this Arcane Strike move is absolutely great. It's certainly not a every-day tactic, and definately not a character build, but I for one am happy to see a finishing move I never thought of before. Thanks, Mr. Dog.
Namarus 06-17-05, 03:40 PM	I think the point that a lot of you who say the feat isn't good. This spell allows you to convert a utility spell that you had memorised into a nice bit of extra damage.
NineInchNall 06-17-05, 05:12 PM	Arcane Strike with lower level spells might be worth it if you blow a lot of lower level spells for damage at once. Magic missile gives up to 5d4+5 Arcane striking with 5 attacks give 5d4. But that's going to eat up lower level slots very quickly. That's not quite a fair comparison. You should remember to add in weapon damage, strength damage, power attack damage, enhancement damage, and shock/flaming/acidic/frost/etc. damage, plus the chance for a critical or sneak attack damage. Add in a persistent wraithstrike, and that damage is as good as guaranteed. Admittedly, I'm the type who would prefer to just cast mindrape and end the fight right there, or be a dweomerkeeper and supernatural spell myself a monstrous thrall, but there are times when magic is not the answer, such as when enemies have high spell resistance, or protection from your spells, or when you want to keep a low profile about your casting ability, ad nauseum. In such cases Arcane Strike's extra damage and attack bonus can help make use of spells that wouldn't otherwise be cast. :twocents:
Previn 06-17-05, 06:32 PM	Ok some people need to read the rules. You can get a MAXIMUM of a +9 attack bonus for a 9th level spell from this feat. It NEVER gets higher than +9 by the rules. The attack bonus is only equal to the highest spell level you sacrifice. Sacrificing multiple spells DOES NOT continue to raise the attack bonus granted by the feat. colm_l, given the vast selection of spells and numerous feats to enhance them, it is trivial to find a spell of less than 9th level that will give you +9 to hit, especially for more than 1 round. Damage wise the feat is also typically inferior to casting the spell. Those situations where it is not requires several things to in favor of the user. gabrion, Tensar's Transformation would be one of the very few times that Arcane Strike would be somewhat good. As for forgoing melee damage to cast a spell, what if you are not in melee? What if you are closing? What if there are multiple enemies not in your reach? What if you can't make a full attack? What if you have a spell that says "We win" like Mass Charm Monster? I agree that it does take a specific build, but let's be honest, we can make anything good with a specific build here, it's what we do. :D That being said there's a point where you say: "Yeah, it could have been good, but it's just not worth it." I this feat is that time. If the build is so specific that it gives up better options, is that really a good thing? Namarus, but is that damage better than what spell would have given you if you had cast it? Most of the time it's not, and when it is, it took a lot to get to that point. NineInchNall, the comparison is perfectly fair. I'm comparing the damage of a spell slot between how much damage it does if cast, and how much it does if used for Arcane Strike. Any other sources of damage is irrelivant. If I have to loose damage for no real gain, then it's not a good thing. The fact that you get less damage, despite spending a feat says a lot. That it requires specific circumstances to get that damage is also very telling. I'm not saying that Arcane Strike cannot ever be useful folks, I'm point out that the contivences necessary to make it good also make it not a good feat. Are the times when it is the cat's meow? Yes. But those times are few and far between, and in the mean time, it's costing you. That's not what you want when choosing feats. Yes we can make it good, in much the same way you use a hammer to force a square peg into a round hole. We can hammer it into doing something in that 1 build that everyone goes "Holy Cow! Look at that!' That doesn't make it good.
Mr. Dog 06-17-05, 06:50 PM	In any game, there will be circumstances where you need to take down the big bad guy RIGHT NOW. In those circumstances, you might be advised to throw everything you have at him this round, as there might not be a next round if you fail. This is when this Arcane Strike move is absolutely great. It's certainly not a every-day tactic, and definately not a character build, but I for one am happy to see a finishing move I never thought of before. Thanks, Mr. Dog. You are welcome. I appreciate that.
gabrion 06-17-05, 06:54 PM	gabrion, Tensar's Transformation would be one of the very few times that Arcane Strike would be somewhat good. As for forgoing melee damage to cast a spell, what if you are not in melee? What if you are closing? What if there are multiple enemies not in your reach? What if you can't make a full attack? What if you have a spell that says "We win" like Mass Charm Monster? Well having the feat doesn't preclude the ability to cast spells. I was just saying that if you plan to be in melee a lot, and you expect to have extra spells left over at the end of the day, it's a good feat to fit in. I agree that it does take a specific build, but let's be honest, we can make anything good with a specific build here, it's what we do. :D That being said there's a point where you say: "Yeah, it could have been good, but it's just not worth it." I this feat is that time. If the build is so specific that it gives up better options, is that really a good thing? So why would anyone ever use Eldritch Knight in a build on these boards? Why did anyone even come up with the idea of a Gish? I think anyone who plays an arcane caster would be better off with Wizard 5/Incantrix 10/Fatespinner 5. With that build, why would I ever care about having 4 iterative attacks? My point is that the COB is also used to optimize certain concept, not just make the best character ever (although it also does that). So, if someone wants a build that casts arcane spells, but is built for melee combat when possible, the feat is a good choice IMO. For such a character, the feat is worth it. I'm not saying that Arcane Strike cannot ever be useful folks, I'm point out that the contivences necessary to make it good also make it not a good feat. Are the times when it is the cat's meow? Yes. But those times are few and far between, and in the mean time, it's costing you. That's not what you want when choosing feats. Yes we can make it good, in much the same way you use a hammer to force a square peg into a round hole. We can hammer it into doing something in that 1 build that everyone goes "Holy Cow! Look at that!' That doesn't make it good. Once again, I don't think the feat is a burden for the well optimized Gish. Actually it is a great feat for such a character. BTW, I think a lot of people play Gish builds, so finding a case where this feat is useful isn't all that hard.
Previn 06-17-05, 08:00 PM	Well having the feat doesn't preclude the ability to cast spells. I was just saying that if you plan to be in melee a lot, and you expect to have extra spells left over at the end of the day, it's a good feat to fit in. Agreed. If you can fit it in, nothing wrong with that. It's not worth focusing on though, or putting any effort into getting. It's a "this will be cool" feat. So why would anyone ever use Eldritch Knight in a build on these boards? Why did anyone even come up with the idea of a Gish? I think anyone who plays an arcane caster would be better off with Wizard 5/Incantrix 10/Fatespinner 5. With that build, why would I ever care about having 4 iterative attacks? My point is that the COB is also used to optimize certain concept, not just make the best character ever (although it also does that). So, if someone wants a build that casts arcane spells, but is built for melee combat when possible, the feat is a good choice IMO. For such a character, the feat is worth it. This I disagree with. The feat is too limited in scope to make up for what you would gain by using a spell instead. At low levels the bonus is in consiquential, at higher levels the bonus is ecplised by spells. The only place it really works is as an "I have to kill now. Consequences to heck." feat. It's not about hijacking a build, and forcing everyon to the same build. It's about realizing that there are better thinsg to do with both a feat and spell slot than blow both on a 1 round damage increase that is realtively ineffectual except in certain situations. Once again, I don't think the feat is a burden for the well optimized Gish. Actually it is a great feat for such a character. BTW, I think a lot of people play Gish builds, so finding a case where this feat is useful isn't all that hard. I have to disagree. I think a well optimized gish will find better uses for their spell slots with realtive ease. In my opinion, this feat rewards poor optimization with a seemingly powerful effect. I'm not seeing any sitiuations where this feat will be a real asset short of a single tough opponent with whom you are already engaged in melee and need large amounts of damage to kill. The feat doesn't help short up any gish weakness, it doesn't see constant use due to the limited and costly nature of it's "ammo," it is rarely damage efficent compaired to the spell you sacrifice, more limited in utility that the spell you sacrifice, requires more luck/skill/planning to use and has a realtively limited subsection of slots that are useful with it. The to hit bonus is nothing, it's the damage alone that makes this feat even noticable, and then, only when you use it in one of two ways (a single massive damage burst, or with multiple attacks, typically 5 or more).
DisposableHero_ 06-18-05, 12:04 AM	Previn, I don't mean any offense, but you're arguing against the feat in a vacuum. While casting a single high level spell will likely achieve better results for a character that wants to end the fight on spells alone, or result in more efficient use of that spell slot, effiency is not always optimal. There is something to be said for alacrity as well, and this feat can end a fight right this instant. While the consensus appears to be universally that you can't get a bonus higher than the highest level spell slot you drop, the damage bonuses do add up (if I'm mistaken here please correct me). While you might get more use from your 8th level spell slot than adding 40d4 to your attack routine. Dropping a few low level spells (that you likely at those levels won't have use for since you can end combats with your high level spells or fighting ability) will net you a sizable bonus to your damage. As was mentioned before you can drop utility spells you weren't going to use. 15d4 isn't something to scoff at if it comes basically free of charge on top of what you were doing anyway, and an optimized character at the levels we're talking about, 3 spell levels divided any way you choose is pretty close to free of charge. While there are better things for a character to have from a solo standpoint, we're not talking about an uberbuild designed for a single trick here, we're talking about an actual, gonna see play character type, in an actual D&D party. The damage is in addition to what you're doing in melee, and it adds up to a lot. As for the usefulness of this effect, it comes up all the time. Every joke has a punchline and similarly every party, no matter how much versatility and battlefield control needs a way to take there enemies from here to the afterlife. This feat helps a lot in making a character who can fill that role, and still back up primary arcane casters or primary tanks in either of their roles. Having this feat as a prepared caster means you can prepare all the utility spells that would have to compete for space with damage dealing spells, because if push comes to shove, arcane strike can let you use them for brute force.
TinManFan 06-18-05, 12:15 AM	Ok, as for the usefulness of AS. Hey, it's great for a specialist wizard who gave up spheres, like enchantment or evoc (Why poeple do that, I dunno). Also it's fun for an EK who's channeling a Scorching Ray. Just somehting about ditching a 6th lvl spell along with it. 12d6+6d4+wpn + Xd6 elements, it's fun to roll that many dice. And once you can channel a Disintegrate, WHOOOO DOGGY! That's a spell just BEGGING for Intensify Spell once you hit epic.
runestar 06-18-05, 02:45 AM	I think its a good feat, as it allows your spells to be much more than they are. They are either the spells a wiz memorised them in their slots to be, or, in the event that they are useless, they can at least be burnt for a combat bonus, instead of sitting pretty in their spellcaster's mind while his teammates are getting whupped in battle. No wiz, however onmipotent, will be able to memorise a "model" set of spells and guarantee that each spell he has chosen will have a chance to be cast. This feat helps them by turning what would otherwise have been a wasted spell into something usefull - damage now. Further improves their versatility, what's not to like? It allows you to manage what limited resources you have more efficiently. The misconception here is that some think that since they have acquired said feat, they are under some obligation to burn every available slot they have to fuel its usage.
R-man 06-18-05, 03:21 AM	I am playing a Warmage-8/Fighter-1 Gold Dwarf in a campaign who is about to go into Eldritch knight. I have taken Arcane Strike for my character not for primary use but for Utility use. In regular combat I will always use my spells properly first however against creatures that have absurdly high SR and Resistances such that I have difficulty damaging them I will use Arcane Strike. Also Arcane strike can be used while grappling with a dagger, my character gets grappled a lot due to a very small party. My next feat will be close quarters fighting...not the best choice but I am getting really tired of being grappled by all the monsters.
RadicalTaoist 06-18-05, 07:20 AM	Technically you could argue that the Arcane Strike bonuses don't come from the same source - you're sacrificing different spell slots, which serve as different sources for the bonus... But that's besides the point. Restricting AS in this way seems to make as much sense to me as, say, having the Complete Divine spell Dragon Breath supersede the Dragon Breath spell in the Draconomicon. If my interpretation will be called houserule, so be it.
colm_l 06-18-05, 07:27 AM	colm_l, given the vast selection of spells and numerous feats to enhance them, it is trivial to find a spell of less than 9th level that will give you +9 to hit, especially for more than 1 round. True, but how many of them can you prepare before you stop being useful for anything but melee & how many of them are free actions? Damage wise the feat is also typically inferior to casting the spell. Well, the closest spell to it is blades of flame from CA - which is only an extra d6 of fire damage to attacks for a round without a bonus to hit. You also appear to be ignoring the fact that AS is used with a melee attack, not by itself. 1 spell, 1 round. - go with scorching ray @4d6: 14 damage average if it hits (Touch AC) Great sword: str 18, with 2nd lev. AS: 2d6 +2d4 + 6 per attack: 18 damage average per attack if it hits (full AC) This however proves very little since we can't objectively compare them. Agree to disagree on its value per spell slot? Those situations where it is not requires several things to in favor of the user. Once more I disagree. The point of it is to add flexibility by allowing you to convert utility spells into extra damage. Yes a frontloaded evoker etc. will do more damage per spell slot but utility spells allow a wizard to bypass many encounters. This means that in the fight that really matters the evoker will be lower on spells & HP & while the Arcane Striker can convert what he has left of his utility spells to damage & a to hit bonus when he runs out of his combat spells. The misconception here is that some think that since they have acquired said feat, they are under some obligation to burn every available slot they have to fuel its usage. Very true
TinManFan 06-18-05, 10:32 AM	People think you can burn off more than one spell. Well, the rules state you get one free action I believe. Burning off a spell is yer free action for the round.
DisposableHero_ 06-18-05, 10:33 AM	People think you can burn off more than one spell. Well, the rules state you get one free action I believe. Burning off a spell is yer free action for the round. You are confusing free and swift actions, it is swift actions (and immediate actions) that are limited to once per round, free actions lack this limitation.
CappyTheMule 06-18-05, 12:33 PM	This feat simply wasn't meant for full casters, because a full caster's trump card is casting and casting at the expense of everything. Horrible BAB, no armor (battle sorceror/warmage excluded), crap HP and a good Will save (Yay!)- Full casting comes at a price. A gish on the other hand usually has good BAB, servicable armor, fair hp and usually good fort and will saves, and they have the versatility to go in sword swinging when that is called for. And sometimes it is. What if you're stuck in an AMF? Fighting a golem? What is your mass charm going to do against a an army of undead? And with the wide array of spells out there I know you COULD find an answer, but I found one that works quite nicely, and works for a whole archetype of characters, and on top of that I have similar access to spells that your wizard or sorceror does. And as mentioned, there are those classes like bard and hexblade that get a spell list that supplements but by no means defines their class. For these characters Arcane Strike is a boon, turning that expeditious retreat spell you picked up and you don't remember why as a hexblade into servicable damage. Or upping your BAB nicely as an Assassin to ensure that your Death Attack hits. Arcane Strike was made for characters who (can) use melee as a primary or viable secondary means of being effective in a combat situation. It converts one resource into another and basically adds a clause on every spell you have saying 'alternatively, you can use this spell as a free action to add X BAB and Xd4 damage to all your attacks for one round, where X is this spell's level'. If you're a full arcane caster, this won't matter, and there really is no reason to take this feat. But if you intend on swinging a sword every once in awhile, this stands out as a very good choice, dovetailing your two assets nicely. Also, I think that the assumption that gishes aren't a widely used archetype is pretty baseless and unresearched. Bladesinger, Rage Mage and Spellsword are 3 gish PrCs that are found in the Complete Warrior alone (I define gish PrCs as classes that increase BAB and Spellcasting at a decent rate). In fact, I think the idea of a warrior who can sling spells around maybe one of the most often repeated themes for prestige classes that you can find.
Previn 06-18-05, 04:26 PM	Previn, I don't mean any offense, but you're arguing against the feat in a vacuum. While casting a single high level spell will likely achieve better results for a character that wants to end the fight on spells alone, or result in more efficient use of that spell slot, effiency is not always optimal. There is something to be said for alacrity as well, and this feat can end a fight right this instant. It can end a fight "right this instance" against a single opponent in melee AND that you have a full attack action for. You are the one who does not understand the argument. You cannot grasp how limited the feat is in actually use, and the mechanical weaknesses of the damage it does. You are continually seizing on the damage alone and not the utter lack of ability to use the feat for that. You are blinded by the big numbers in a strict case, and missing every logical point against it being viable because you can see nothing more than "40d4!!!!!!" While the consensus appears to be universally that you can't get a bonus higher than the highest level spell slot you drop, the damage bonuses do add up (if I'm mistaken here please correct me). Correct. I will point out that it is not a consensus about the highest attack bonus you can get from the feat. It's a hard and fast rule. I pointed this out on the first page, with my first post and provided a link. Like so many things I do people keep ignoring that. While you might get more use from your 8th level spell slot than adding 40d4 to your attack routine. This is the biggest problem. Everyone assumes that you get massive dice just for using the feat. You do not. It requires you to be in melee AND using a full attack action AND have enough attacks AND have the right slots AND not to have a better option with a spell. It is not 40d4 all the time. Most of the time it will be 8d4 (assuming an 8th slot is used). A well optimized build will kill the lesser things with ease, meaning this feat is reserved for use against a single tough relatively non-moble target that can be engaged in melee with a full attack. Dropping a few low level spells (that you likely at those levels won't have use for since you can end combats with your high level spells or fighting ability) will net you a sizable bonus to your damage. As was mentioned before you can drop utility spells you weren't going to use. 15d4 isn't something to scoff at if it comes basically free of charge on top of what you were doing anyway, and an optimized character at the levels we're talking about, 3 spell levels divided any way you choose is pretty close to free of charge. Say you drop low level spells to get 15 dice. That's what? All your 1st and 2nd level spells for the day for 1 round of massive damage to a melee target? Or are you ONCE AGIAN assuming that you get a full attack and have 5+ attacks. Nice how you always assume the best case is always the only way it is. And you don't drop a utility spell for damage unless you're sure you won't need it. If you are sure you won't need it, you either memorized a worthless spell to start with, are at the "final encounter" for the session or progressed past the point where you thought you would need the spell. Of those, only 1 should happen in an optimized build and then only rarely. None of those will ever happen to a spontanious caster. While there are better things for a character to have from a solo standpoint, we're not talking about an uberbuild designed for a single trick here, we're talking about an actual, gonna see play character type, in an actual D&D party. You bloody well are talking about "an uberbuild designed for a single trick here." You cannot argue that casting spell is not a better return in damage, range, ease to hit, utility and opportunity. I've already shown that spells are all of that with less work and less investment. You people insist upon balthering on about "more damage in melee!!!" and do not see the implications of how rarely you do get more damage with this feat, and the cost of getting that extra damage. A primary caster will not take this feat. A build with low BAB will not take this feat. A build without lots of slots will not take this feat. A gish build might take this feat if they had the right slots, enough attacks to make it worthwhile and there was nothing better. It is not an optimal feat to take. The damage is in addition to what you're doing in melee, and it adds up to a lot. As for the usefulness of this effect, it comes up all the time. Every joke has a punchline and similarly every party, no matter how much versatility and battlefield control needs a way to take there enemies from here to the afterlife. This feat helps a lot in making a character who can fill that role, and still back up primary arcane casters or primary tanks in either of their roles. Having this feat as a prepared caster means you can prepare all the utility spells that would have to compete for space with damage dealing spells, because if push comes to shove, arcane strike can let you use them for brute force. You're too busy looking at the damage to see how rarely you will get to use that damage in any effectual manner. Let alone even use the feat. The spell you wasted using this feat was almost assuredly capable of killing that target, and it was probably also capable of killing a number of other targets as well, at range, with a single easy roll, or none at all. To have Arcane Strike be even remotely feasble to deal damage you must meet ALL of the following conditions: 1) Have a full attack avalable. 2) Are in melee with the target. 3) Have 4 or more attacks for your full attack. 4) Use a spell slot that was not capable of dealing with the target itself. 5) Not have had a spell that was capabale of dealing with the target in 1 shot or damaging the target at range. 6) Not be facing multiple opponents. 7) Not be a spontanious caster. If the situation meets all 7 of those, then it is a good time to use Arcane Strike. So to get the feat to be effective, you need the proper combat situation, the probper build and poor spell selection. Or, you could: 1) Have a spell to deal damage. 2) Cast it, possibly needing to using a 5' step. That is why the feat is not a good choice. It is not all damage all the time. It's lots of damage in very specific circumstances, most with with the spell would have been a better choice to use. Which you and eveyone else keeps ignoring. I will repeat it for those who are logic impaired: It is not all damage all the time. It's lots of damage in very specific circumstances, most with with the spell would have been a better choice to use. It is rarely 40d4 extra damage, it is typically 8d4 extra damage, or none at all beause theere is no need or opportunity to use the feat. If you have the extra feat, or you want the style over efficiency, take it. But don't think it's the best choice until you've exhausted everything else.
Qaetar 06-18-05, 07:33 PM	You are the one whom does not understand the argument. I'm sorry, but you misused "whom." (Qaetar)
Previn 06-18-05, 10:06 PM	I'm sorry, but you misused "whom." (Qaetar) Yes, thank you for adding so much to the disccusion. :rolleyes: Fixed. But can you spot the other errors? :devil:
Urnsk 06-19-05, 12:06 AM	Actually, you don't need those 7 specifications. You only need to: Be in melee, and really have 3 attacks in a round for it to be worth it. Why? Gish builds are actually pretty common in my experience in games. Since 3.0 came out, I've been in 23 campaigns with 7 different gaming groups. Of those, 19 have had a character who could be qualified as "Gish". 11 of those have been spontaneous, 8 have been preparers. Frequently, characters in my experience get in fights in which there is a "boss" and a bunch of "mooks". You don't need to kill the mooks quickly, typically, but that boss needs to go down RIGHT NOW. Almost as frequently, there are 2 or more enemies of significant enough power that they are each a very real threat. Being able to go from 4 threats to 3 in one round is not an insignificant thing. I would, further, argue that the spontaneous caster Gish is more versatile with Arcane Strike than a preparer. A Sorcerer will still have access to those damage spells later, where the Wizard really needs to prepare the utilities or damage spells, and the Wizard will be spending more money on spells than he will on equipment, an often overlooked advantage of the spontaneous casters. The claim is also assuming several more rather... foolish... points. Melee damage + somewhat less than theoretic average from a spell in one round is better than better spell damage. Gish characters, like most Mystic Theurge and similar builds tend to have an excess of spells at the end of the day. I'm usually pretty conscious of how many spells my characters actually use in a campaigns typical day; if I were also a Gish (especially a spontaneous Gish who didn't need to worry about losing "the right spell"), I all of a sudden have a not-insignificant damage boost. Furthermore, by level 13 or so, level 1 and 2 spells are terribly plentiful, and I can't remember the last time a 13th level character of mine was just lamenting, "By gum! I wish I had another 2nd level spell!" +2 to hit, and +2d4 damage vs... a wasted spell slot. To re-emphasize a point, a Gish is not a primary caster. They are a secondary caster. The primary caster should be expected to have the "dealing with a target in 1 shot" if such a thing is possible. This is a fighter type who uses spells to supliment himself, not to define himself. These characters do not tend to have feats devoted to making spells hit, nor modifiers to help beat DC's, nor any other such things that a primary caster focus' on. That is- get this- the role of the primary caster. And no one is advocating this spell for a primary caster. To put a finer point on this, a character with a pair of Kawagana (OA), and the TWF chain, Weapon Finesse, EWP, and a level or 2 in EWM is pretty effective crowd control. The AoO's they get, the possibility (and, with this, probability) of Cleaves, the possibility of Criticals, and being able to do this in ONE ROUND is pretty major. Are they going to do as much damage on average in a round as a primary caster who's dishing out major high level spells? No. Are they going to control a battle field and deal very significant damage and not have left over spells later on, and help the primary caster keep their reserve of powerful spells for when nothing else can possibly work? Absolutely. Are they now able to actually out-damage the primary spellcaster in a single round? Answer: YES. This is a *FEAT* that can add up to +9 to hit and +9d4, for one round. Depending on readings of the feat, it can add substantially *MORE*. So... your 7 "requirements for it to be useful..." are bunk. 1) Conceded; you don't use this feat unless you have Dervish Dance on the opening round of combat, unless the enemy is already in reach. 2) Kind of an obvious point for a melee Gish character... that's kind of, y'know, their roll. The archetypical roll people are discussing. The point not getting into your head. 3) No, you need 4 attacks in a round, or to be a big enough threat that the BBEG decides to go after you instead of the weak-sauce primary caster. If you can do that in 2 attacks, then you have accomplished your goal. AoO's, cleaves, etc.. are just gravy. 4) I'm not sure how the heck you decided this... 2 rounds vs. 1 round, I'll take the one round. Otherwise, I'll spend a 2nd round, and burn a spell slot, and do more damage again. Gee, darn. 5) If I'm capable of beating a BBEG's save or SR as a Gish, then the BBEG's a sissy. Gish's have already got MAD and lower spellcaster levels. They just aren't cut out for 1-shot-wonders. 6) This is a rather artificial point. Even without Reach or Cleave, killing an opponent is never a bad thing. Use this feat on the BBEG, or any member of an equally powerful group, and you just did your whole party a pretty big favor. 7) Being a spontaneous caster is an advantage for this build, not a detriment, and is actually advantageous for this type of feat: You'll have more spell slots available to you. I'm not sure you understand tactics, logistics, or strategy... flexibility is one of the greatest powers there is in this game, and this feat is wonderful flexibility for a character already designed around that concept.
DisposableHero_ 06-19-05, 02:05 AM	As Urnsk already pointed out the general issues, I'll stick to the specifics It can end a fight "right this instance" against a single opponent in melee AND that you have a full attack action for. hmmmm yes, I wonder how many times in a campaign a well designed character intent on being in melee makes a full attack against his opponent in melee. Apparently its not nearly as common as I thought. You are the one who does not understand the argument. You cannot grasp how limited the feat is in actually use, and the mechanical weaknesses of the damage it does. You are continually seizing on the damage alone and not the utter lack of ability to use the feat for that. You are blinded by the big numbers in a strict case, and missing every logical point against it being viable because you can see nothing more than "40d4!!!!!!" No, I'm afraid you're the one neglecting a simple fact. This feat works well in a specific circumstance. That circumstance is: when making a full attack in melee. The requirements of the feat place the further restriction that to take this feat you must be an arcane caster, thus you must be an arcane caster intent on fighting in melee. Since these characters have existed without this feat, and by every indication are quite common even without this feat, I think its safe to assume that even if it is for a niche, that niche is alive and well and thus the feat deserves mention for it. I'm not missing "the utter lack of ability to use this feat" because there is no lack of ability to use it as is. It requires you to be making a full attack with a character that casts arcane spells. You're trying to argue against this feat by saying that purely casting is more effective than using it. While true in many cases that isn't the point because we've established that it is for characters that aren't about purely casting the spells, its for characters willing to sacrifice some spellcasting for combat ability. Last I checked that was what this feat was all about in the first place. Let me spell it out so it can't be missed again: Arcane Strike is not for pure casters, it is for characters who are already spending their time in melee making magically enhanced full attacks If you don't think these characters exist, I suggest googling for gish on these boards to see what you find. Correct. I will point out that it is not a consensus about the highest attack bonus you can get from the feat. It's a hard and fast rule. I pointed this out on the first page, with my first post and provided a link. Like so many things I do people keep ignoring that. As no one is arguing it is therefor consensus. It is also a hard and fast rule but calling it a consensus means there is no dispute and thus is correct, so that nitpick (along with this response) is a big waste of space. This is the biggest problem. Everyone assumes that you get massive dice just for using the feat. You do not. It requires you to be in melee AND using a full attack action AND have enough attacks AND have the right slots AND not to have a better option with a spell. It is not 40d4 all the time. Most of the time it will be 8d4 (assuming an 8th slot is used). A well optimized build will kill the lesser things with ease, meaning this feat is reserved for use against a single tough relatively non-moble target that can be engaged in melee with a full attack. Well, you do get massive dice just for using the feat because (and here's the real trick) You don't use the feat if you're not in line to benefit from it. You're not going to use it outside of melee, you not going to use it unless you're making a full attack (or have less than +6 base attack), you're not going to find a better option with a spell when you're making a full attack because it takes a free action and gives a solid boost to both accuracy and damage. Power attack is pretty freaking terrible when you're half a mile away too. Empower spell doesn't look to good in an antimagic field. Every feat sucks when you're not in the right spot to use it. The only thing you need for this feat to be good is to be in melee, making a full attack. After that, everything else is gravy. Face it, the characters taking this feat are going to be in melee, and they are going to be making full attacks and thus they are going to get serious benefit where they wouldn't have otherwise. If you're not a fan of that type of character, thats cool, but don't toss crap on this feat for catering to a specific character type. If an 8th level spell slot is only doing 8d4 damage thats a **** poor use of this feat and you know it. Lastly, it is no worse at taking down more than one foe than the full attack action is. The boost in damage interacts synergistically with every other trick that helps you do well in melee combat. Say you drop low level spells to get 15 dice. That's what? All your 1st and 2nd level spells for the day for 1 round of massive damage to a melee target? Or are you ONCE AGIAN assuming that you get a full attack and have 5+ attacks. Nice how you always assume the best case is always the only way it is. Nice how you always assume that we'll be using this feat in the least optimal situations for it. Nice how you assume that whole character needs to be built around this feat. Nice how you assume that you can do better in the given character archetype without ever giving an example. Nice how you ignore my points again and again and again obviously without taking the time to consider what I'm saying. This is an optimization board, it would be nice if we could assume we're are optimizing the way we play to and doing everything in our power to attain the optimal circumstances to put our characters abilities to work. Getting a full attack action is NOT HARD. Next time you play D&D count how many times somebody makes a full attack, just count it. If it were so impossible to make full attacks why would anyone ever be concerned about their base attack, why would anyone ever play a melee character, why would the term gish even exist? You bloody well are talking about "an uberbuild designed for a single trick here." For crying out loud its one feat. Its an investment of one feats worth of resources, the average 20th level character gets 7 of them. If it were an uberbuild designed for a single trick we'd be talking about how to synergize this with race, equipment, other feats, spell effects, class features, ability scores. We'd be talking about working synergy into EVERY ASPECT OF THE CHARACTER. What we're actually talking about is taking one feat that adds a solid boost to a popular character archetype. Calling this a one trick pony is like calling any full base attack class a one trick pony. OF COURSE IT ONLY ADDS TO ONE PART OF THE CHARACTER, IT IS ONLY ONE FEAT!. You cannot argue that casting spell is not a better return in damage, range, ease to hit, utility and opportunity. Show me a spell that reliably does more damage than 2d6+ 1.5x strength + enhancement bonus + special weapon abilities +8d4 twice a round, let alone more than 4 times. Then show me the same spell that can do so more reliably than an arcane/wraith striking gish (you know, +10 or more base attack + strength + enhancement + 8 + any number of combat abilities against touch AC). Note that this only assumes making a full attack (i.e. getting more than one attack) and hitting with both which, as I outlined above is probably a safe bet. This expends an 8th level spell and a 2nd level spell and 1 round. Try to find something with better returns on those resources. This also assumes we're not optimizing strength (which this board has pushed comfortably into the hundreds before), base weapon damage (which has been taken so far the rules don't actually specify how much damage it is), or free increases in spell slots to arcane strike with (AeshKrau Illumians who polymorph, rage, or cast strength enhancing spells, any casting stat enhancing spells, etc). I've already shown that spells are all of that with less work and less investment. You people insist upon balthering on about "more damage in melee!!!" and do not see the implications of how rarely you do get more damage with this feat, and the cost of getting that extra damage. No you haven't shown it. Answer the above challenge and I'll consider the point proven. Finally, we're getting the damage when we make a full attack. Thats hardly rare in my book, if it is in yours than the D&D you play is vastly different from the D&D I play. A primary caster will not take this feat. A build with low BAB will not take this feat. A build without lots of slots will not take this feat. A gish build might take this feat if they had the right slots, enough attacks to make it worthwhile and there was nothing better. It is not an optimal feat to take. 1) Full Caster: Granted, I'm not saying they will 2) Low BAB: Very much in agreement 3) Lots of Slots: I'd argue but it doesn't matter, gishes already max this out as best they can 4) Gish: Gishes already try for enough slots, and you don't have to use it anywhere but the optimal place, so thats moot. Enough attacks is 2 in all but the most extreme cases. The gishes in question were built for melee, so there likely isn't much better for them than melee. 1) Have a full attack avalable. 2) Are in melee with the target. 3) Have 4 or more attacks for your full attack. 4) Use a spell slot that was not capable of dealing with the target itself. 5) Not have had a spell that was capabale of dealing with the target in 1 shot or damaging the target at range. 6) Not be facing multiple opponents. 7) Not be a spontanious caster. 1) Yep, happens a lot IME 2) Thats what we're gunning for 3) Replace 4 with 2 and I agree 4) Moot if we can deal with them using only that spell slot in this way too, dead is dead and this will get a lot of tough targets dead in no time, and its hard to say if any single spell can boast the same success rate. 5) For Gish builds this is likely all the time since they aren't aiming to take a foe out with one shot spells, thats what a primary caster is aiming to do. 6) Its no less effective than any full attack would be against multiple opponents 7) Urnsk covered everything needed on this case I think To sum up my points. You keep taking the feat out of the context in which it will be used and claiming its useless. This is true of every feat. You claim the places where it is good are rare, I don't see it that way, I think its fairly obvious that if thats what you're gunning for making full attacks will in fact be quite common. This is the only true point of argument, and I'm sure we're both secure enough in our opinions on it to not waver despite the points raised on each side. But please, argue with me in the context of a melee gish, because I fully admit that this feat is for those characters alone. That said, I see no shortage of this type of character, both in the games I play and on the boards. Even if not optimal, for many it is a favorite, so optimizing it is worth some time.
Marcus Majarra 06-19-05, 11:23 AM	This is just me, but I would find the feat most useful in two-weapon fighting builds. (Improved/Greater) Two-Weapon Fighting + Karmic Strike + Double Hit + + Combat Reflexes + Arcane Strike = lots and lots of opportunities for extra damage dice. I mean, assuming all attacks are hits, and the character has a BAB of +16 or higher, with a Dex score of 18, and gets to make his 4 AoOs, burning a 5th-level slot grants him an extra 75d4 or 187 damage (over 15 attacks).
TinManFan 06-19-05, 11:53 AM	And hey, 2 wpn fighting is a pre-req for double wand wielder so you have something to do when you're outta spells.
CappyTheMule 06-19-05, 07:33 PM	I think listing all the characters who CAN'T use Arcane Strike is pretty Banal and doesn't add anything to the argument, other than pointing out that Arcane Strike is a feat that performs a specified roll for a specified type of character. Example: EMPOWER SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. This has been toted by the other side of the argument as a good feat, but the implied requirements are pretty specific. First and most obviously you have to be able to cast spells. Beyond having the appropriate class, you (usually) have to have at least one hand free, and the ability to speak, and you can't be caught in an AMF. You can't be interrupted or you'll have to make a concentration check or be useless for a round. And you don't always have the ability to make a five foot step. That very same horde of multiple opponentsthat disables Arcane Strike can just as easily swarm a wizard and prevent him from moving, and casting defensively has a pretty steep check for lower level characters. Oh, and by the way, metamagic feats are kinda sucky for spontaneous casters, taking them a full round to prepare ANY spell. So another requirement to be useful is that you have to be a caster that prepares spells, narrowing your classes who would viably take this feat down to wizards, clerics and certain offshoots (Wu-Jen, etc). You have to have at least a second level slot. You have to have a spell worth empowering, and the first spell that I notice on the basic wizard list that really benefits from empowering is Scorching Ray. You can make a case for others, but I think Scorching Ray is an agreeable start for good Empowerment candidates. That requires a fourth level slot, so there can't be any other spells that are more useful at fourth level than an empowered scorching ray for damage output or overall effectiveness. That means that you have to be level seven to really benefit from this feat and you can't prepare any other fourth level spells for that day. You can't be viably grappled or engaged in a melee situation, etc.... And you can make a case sans context for the uselessness of any feat by showing how narrow it's applications are. If you explained every feat by what it CAN'T do and when it CAN'T be used, you'll inevitably come up with a list of sub-optimal feats. A feat's strength isn't in it's general use to EVERY conceivable character, but rather it's ability to better a specific niche for characters. And this is where we have to start for the argument, that is, by pinpointing the demographic this feat is aimed at. And it doesn't take long to come up with gishes and secondary caster classes (bards,assassins, hexblades, etc.) as the people who benefit from this feat. These characters often play second fiddle to the primary caster in the group in terms of raw arcane power and usually aren't the primary frontline tank, though they can fill in either rolls if they are absent from the group. This group of characters find their strength in versatility, being able to adjust their tactics to the ebb and flow of battle, either subbing for a primary caster or (more likely) supplementing their combat prowess with spells. It follows suit that if the character is fighting, he isn't casting spells. So, if you're fighting half the time, that means you're NOT casting, so you will often have, as stated above, extra spells at the end of the day. And having a surplus of unused spells isn't very optimized. This is where Arcane Strike helps. It helps fully utilize a resource for an archetype that sometimes has trouble with getting the most mileage out of casting. If you approach every situation and ask yourself 'Would I rather cast a spell or would I rather make an attack?' and your answer is nine times out of ten 'I would rather cast a spell' then you probably shouldn't be a gish or any other supplemental caster (hexblade, bard, etc.). Gishes were never meant to be full-fledged primary casters-they simply don't have the feats to focus on casting and fighting and do them to the level of a character that specializes in just one. If you can accept the fact that gishes aren't primary casters, and then accept the fact that as such a gish won't choose a spell over an attack in every one of it's 3-4 daily encounters, then you can see how Arcane Strike is a good feat.
ninjarabbit 06-19-05, 08:25 PM	Haste alone makes arcane strike a good feat for gishes, bards, and the like. Arcane strike also works very well with power attack, with for example the +5 to attack you get from a 5th level spell being turned into +10 damage effectively. With a 16 BAB and being hasted that's up to +50 damage. Throw in cleave and other ways to get extra attacks, like the cleave feat and a monk's flurry of blows, and it's easy to get many attacks that make arcane strike a very effective feat.
DisposableHero_ 06-19-05, 11:18 PM	This is just me, but I would find the feat most useful in two-weapon fighting builds. (Improved/Greater) Two-Weapon Fighting + Karmic Strike + Double Hit + + Combat Reflexes + Arcane Strike = lots and lots of opportunities for extra damage dice. I mean, assuming all attacks are hits, and the character has a BAB of +16 or higher, with a Dex score of 18, and gets to make his 4 AoOs, burning a 5th-level slot grants him an extra 75d4 or 187 damage (over 15 attacks). Can you do this with two weapon fighting straight up. The feat says you channel arcane energy into a melee weapon (meaning singular, as in you'd have to channel a spell into each weapon) but goes on to say that you get the bonus on all your attack rolls and damage rolls. Does it need to be a separate spell for each weapon?
ninjarabbit 06-19-05, 11:27 PM	Can you do this with two weapon fighting straight up. The feat says you channel arcane energy into a melee weapon (meaning singular, as in you'd have to channel a spell into each weapon) but goes on to say that you get the bonus on all your attack rolls and damage rolls. Does it need to be a separate spell for each weapon? Yes you have to use a separate spell for each weapon. For a two-sided weapon you have to use a speparate spell for each side. You'll burn through your spell quickly if you're not careful.
FabulousRex 06-20-05, 06:33 AM	Barring the rediculousness of some of the posters here in ignoring arguements in favor of a personal vendetta, there is one more type of charecter that benefits well from the Arcane Strike feat: Daggerspell Mages. Normally 2WF doesn't work well for mages of any sort, but being able to cast while holding daggers, having sneak attack damage on top, and likely also gunning for (stealthy) full attack options makes this a great feat for the vastly neglected Daggerspell Mage. By the time you get into the higher levels, adding extra damage on top of extra sneak attack damage is great. Most importantly though, it helps alot to hit with the rather low BAB of a Daggerspell PC. In short, for those (supposedly rare) occasions where I've got an opponent flanked and a full attack available, I want to be able to hit with that great bonus to hit, and do enough damage to put him down fast (being alot more frail than a normal Gish).
Marcus Majarra 06-20-05, 01:31 PM	Yes you have to use a separate spell for each weapon. For a two-sided weapon you have to use a speparate spell for each side. You'll burn through your spell quickly if you're not careful. There is one exception to this rule, and it's with natural weapons. Note that it's the only weapon listed plurally (as opposed to melee weapons and unarmed strikes being described singularly). Does anyone else think this makes the arcane-oriented Geomancer more viable? I mean, the most natural weapons you can get through your drifts is: Stage 3 Antlers (1 gore) Talons (2 claws) Crocodile Maw (1 bite) Stage 4 Acid Stinger (1 stinger) Stage 5 Unicorn Horn (1 gore) For a total of 5 natural weapons, which can all be fueled by one use of Arcane Strike, and that have a much greater accuracy than your typical iterative sequence combattant, especially since your Wiz3/Clr3/Geo10/MT4 can always compensate his deplorable BAB through Divine Power. If you're willing to forego 9th-level wizard spells, you can achieve Righteous Might as well. I'd bet nonpsionic Thri-Kreen (ECL3) would totally own this fighting style, due to having 5 natural weapons to begin with. Sure, the -2 Int penalty sucks for wizard casting (and you'll be wanting 17 wizard casting levels for 9th-level spells), but it doesn't mean you won't be a mean fighting machine. Of course, your typical arcane caster can achieve the same results through Polymorph, and your typical dual caster can do much better with Divine Power. After more thought, there is one build that puts Arcane Strike to good use, and it's the Wiz3/Drd3/MT4/ArcaneHierophant10. If anyone can find an animal wild shape that provides more than 4 natural weapons (current leaders being the Deinonychus and the Megaraptor with 4 weapons AND pounce), it'll be a contender for the Thri-Kreen, due to the ability to go super-boosted through Animal Growth, Nature's Favor, Greater Magic Fang, Nature's Avatar, and Tenser's Transformation. Combat Reflexes makes the Gargantuan Megaraptor truly deadly with Arcane Strike. The setup is very long for this combo, but it's reasonably achievable, considering the only spell in the list above with a duration measured in rounds is Tenser's Transformation. Come to think of it, I'm wondering how the Megaraptor is supposed to drink that potion that serves as a material component...
Previn 06-20-05, 02:10 PM	To sum up my points. You keep taking the feat out of the context in which it will be used and claiming its useless. This is true of every feat. You claim the places where it is good are rare, I don't see it that way, I think its fairly obvious that if thats what you're gunning for making full attacks will in fact be quite common. This is the only true point of argument, and I'm sure we're both secure enough in our opinions on it to not waver despite the points raised on each side. But please, argue with me in the context of a melee gish, because I fully admit that this feat is for those characters alone. That said, I see no shortage of this type of character, both in the games I play and on the boards. Even if not optimal, for many it is a favorite, so optimizing it is worth some time. I said, back in my second post that it was a very limited feat and difficult to use optimally. It is, I'm not taking it out of context, everyone has been taking my arguments out of context. "Gish" is a neblous term, it does not mean fighter/wizard alone as you seem to think it does. It does not mean 4 or more attacks and 8th level slots. Monk/sorcerers and rogue/wizards are also gish. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150451<br%20/>) So no, not every melee Gish build can use this feat. Not all of them have either the slots or BAB to make effective use of it. Some gish builds, like many of the Arcane Trickster builds have almost no use for Arcane Strike. Some gish builds like the 4 attack 8th level slots reach AoO ones people keep trying to use can. Even for those builds that can make good use of this, you also have to take into account that you have to close with an opponent before you can go hog wild in melee and dump a slot or slots for additional damage. The round you close with your opponent means no full attack, and so a very bad Arcane Strike use. So casting the spell and taking a 30' move would have gotten damage out quicker. The same hold true or a mobile opponent or one who is in a position that makes melee dificult or impossible. If you like the builds that can use this, and see it in your games, more power too you. If you want to optimize a build to use this feat, go for it. I've already stated that it's possible. But it is not for every build, far from it. Because it is so limited in the build you use, and then limited on when you use it for that build, I will never call it an optimal feat. {Edit:Original post changed completely.}
Previn 06-20-05, 02:38 PM	Let's try another approach: At what level do you take this feat and why that level?
Ringmereth 06-20-05, 02:42 PM	Urnsk, And I'm not sure you think enough to make that statement. I said this feat is feat is good if you work at it and in a few specific situations, the reasons it is not an optimal choice. Learn to read. All you keep doing is repeating the same 2 cases over and over again, which only proves my damned point: this feat is good if you work at it and in a few specific situations. If you have the extra slot, pick it up, but make sure you aren't missing something better first because you probably are. At last we come to a concensus. It is good if you work at it in a few specific situations. Working at it = playing a Gish character. Specific situations = making a full attack. What is so hard about realizing that these DO HAPPEN? People play Gishes. Said characters make full attacks. In those full attacks, THIS FEAT IS GOOD. That's the point we've been getting at from post one. If you want to argue against Arcane Strike, then give us a better feat for a Gish than one that'll frequently give him a considerable bonus to hit and damage.
Previn 06-20-05, 03:03 PM	{Edit: Nope screw it. I'm done short of seeing which levels people will take Arcane Strike at and why.}
DarknessEternal 06-20-05, 04:14 PM	You see, some casters use prepared magic, whether they are gish or not. As a prepared caster, they have to prepare their spells ahead of time (hence the name). Sometimes, there's just absolutely nothing you can do with the See Invisibility you have prepared, but it may sure be handy to get +2 to hit and +2d4 damage.
Elan The Eternal 06-20-05, 04:42 PM	Would a psionic version of arcane strike be under or over powered ?
TinManFan 06-20-05, 05:20 PM	Man, I never know Arcane Strike gave a + to attack. I'll need to go over that feat again.
Horatio 06-21-05, 02:08 AM	Yeah, I did see that. Which is why my opening post to start the thread said: Blind me, I had to be seriously disoriented when I read your post. Sorry for that.
Mr. Dog 06-21-05, 03:32 AM	It's cool, man. Just joshin' with ya.
DarknessEternal 06-21-05, 10:24 AM	Would a psionic version of arcane strike be under or over powered ? Absolutely. It wouls also be totally unnecessary given the existence of Deep Impact, Psionic Weapon, Greater Psionic Weapon, etc.
FabulousRex 06-21-05, 10:33 AM	Just get a Deep Crystal weapon and manifest Pregonitive Offence...
slade_caizer 06-21-05, 01:27 PM	You are confusing free and swift actions, it is swift actions (and immediate actions) that are limited to once per round, free actions lack this limitation. And curiously enough, swift actions and immediate actions are defined as types of free actions. You still get one on your turn and now one not on your turn. *sigh* I don't know why this thread got brought up, let alone lasted so long.
DisposableHero_ 06-21-05, 02:46 PM	I said, back in my second post that it was a very limited feat and difficult to use optimally. It is, I'm not taking it out of context, everyone has been taking my arguments out of context. The core of our disagreement is how often this feat is useful, I haven't been taking your argument out of context I've been arguing that said context is more common than you think. I've always recognized and admitted that this eat is most useful to a specific character archetype. "Gish" is a neblous term, it does not mean fighter/wizard alone as you seem to think it does. It does not mean 4 or more attacks and 8th level slots. Monk/sorcerers and rogue/wizards are also gish. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150451<br%20/>) When I say gish I am referring to a Fighter/Caster build, I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear and if your definition of gish stretched beyond this. On a side note, a number of rogue/caster and monk/caster builds could stand to use this feat simply because they need to boost to hit to make up for an abysmal base attack for a melee oriented character. Its not as optimal for them to be sure, but is still far from useless. So no, not every melee Gish build can use this feat. Not all of them have either the slots or BAB to make effective use of it. Some gish builds, like many of the Arcane Trickster builds have almost no use for Arcane Strike. Some gish builds like the 4 attack 8th level slots reach AoO ones people keep trying to use can. Not every melee caster/X build can use this feat to its fullest, thats for certain, but thats never what I meant. As stated before, by gish I was referring to Fighter/Caster types not Caster/X Even for those builds that can make good use of this, you also have to take into account that you have to close with an opponent before you can go hog wild in melee and dump a slot or slots for additional damage. The round you close with your opponent means no full attack, and so a very bad Arcane Strike use. So casting the spell and taking a 30' move would have gotten damage out quicker. The same hold true or a mobile opponent or one who is in a position that makes melee dificult or impossible. You're closing with your opponent anyway in the builds we're talking about. Arcane Strike or no, these builds are going into melee. They frequently use their magic for mobility to ensure that it is not difficult or impossible to close with the opponent and we're not dumping any spell slots to Arcane Strike until we get our full attack anyway. Furthermore this discounts the enormous number of full attack/charge or full attack/movement tricks available to these types of characters. If you like the builds that can use this, and see it in your games, more power too you. If you want to optimize a build to use this feat, go for it. I've already stated that it's possible. But it is not for every build, far from it. Because it is so limited in the build you use, and then limited on when you use it for that build, I will never call it an optimal feat. Your loss :D And curiously enough, swift actions and immediate actions are defined as types of free actions. You still get one on your turn and now one not on your turn. *sigh* I don't know why this thread got brought up, let alone lasted so long. Do you have a page reference/SRD quote where it states that you are limited to a single free action each turn, or that the existence of swift and immediate actions have imposed one of free actions rather than merely being classified as types of free actions to inherit the qualify of not taking any time to use? Also of note it specifically states that you cannot use a swift and an immediate action on the same turn. If you use a swift and then use an immediate you cannot take a swift in the next turn.
Mr. Dog 06-21-05, 05:57 PM	A character can perform more than one free action in a turn. Otherwise, people with the quick draw feat and only two hands could not make a full attack with thrown weapons. Re-read the rules on free actions.
Previn 06-21-05, 06:17 PM	DisposableHero, thanks for your reply. When I say gish I am referring to a Fighter/Caster build, I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear and if your definition of gish stretched beyond this. On a side note, a number of rogue/caster and monk/caster builds could stand to use this feat simply because they need to boost to hit to make up for an abysmal base attack for a melee oriented character. Its not as optimal for them to be sure, but is still far from useless. No worries, what was meant by gish seemed to be the biggest problem once I read your post and relized why we weren't seeing eye to eye on that everything else seemed to make sense. I agree that other gish builds can use it, and I don't think the feat will ever be useless for anyone, simply because it can be the instant kill for a target. But I still stick by my opinion that there are better things to take before it. You're closing with your opponent anyway in the builds we're talking about. Arcane Strike or no, these builds are going into melee. They frequently use their magic for mobility to ensure that it is not difficult or impossible to close with the opponent and we're not dumping any spell slots to Arcane Strike until we get our full attack anyway. Furthermore this discounts the enormous number of full attack/charge or full attack/movement tricks available to these types of characters. I won't disagree that they are going into melee. I'm just pointing out that there are times where you want to get the spell/damage out now rather than waiting for the time it takes to close. In my experience, a spell now is better than later. Again, this is probably just a difference in how we see things played.
gabrion 06-21-05, 06:36 PM	Let's try another approach: At what level do you take this feat and why that level? I'm trying not to cop out, but I think the best answer is "as soon as it is usefull." Generally I would want the feat as soon as possible, if I'm going to take it at all, but I don't want to take it before I have spells to spend on it. In other words, it really depends on the build. Some possibilities would be... Bard 3-Take it here because you know have first level spells. If you want to make a melee bard that is. Hexblade 9-Once again you have first level spells. This class should be concentrating on melee anyway, so getting this feat ASAP will assure you that you don't waste spell slots. Clerc 1-If you choose to make your cleric a melee monster (something I recomend at least once), this feat will be great from the get go. Just make sure everyone knows to by wands of vigor though, cause you may not be able to heal after battle. These are just a few examples of when I think it would be a good idea to take the feat (and feel free to disagree of course). I think what they really illustrate though is that any build that plans to take this feat should do so as soon as they plan to be in melee combat frequently. This will vary from build to build, since many gish builds change their focus during their career, but I think it is a viable way of deciding when to take the feat. Edit: Sorry all, but I wasn't looking at the feat when I wrote this post, and I forgot about the +4 BAB and 3rd level spellcasting prereqs. Because of those, none of the above options are viable, as Previn so politely points out in his reply.
Previn 06-21-05, 09:06 PM	I'm trying not to cop out, but I think the best answer is "as soon as it is usefull." Generally I would want the feat as soon as possible, if I'm going to take it at all, but I don't want to take it before I have spells to spend on it. In other words, it really depends on the build. Some possibilities would be... Bard 3-Take it here because you know have first level spells. If you want to make a melee bard that is. Hexblade 9-Once again you have first level spells. This class should be concentrating on melee anyway, so getting this feat ASAP will assure you that you don't waste spell slots. Clerc 1-If you choose to make your cleric a melee monster (something I recomend at least once), this feat will be great from the get go. Just make sure everyone knows to by wands of vigor though, cause you may not be able to heal after battle. These are just a few examples of when I think it would be a good idea to take the feat (and feel free to disagree of course). I think what they really illustrate though is that any build that plans to take this feat should do so as soon as they plan to be in melee combat frequently. This will vary from build to build, since many gish builds change their focus during their career, but I think it is a viable way of deciding when to take the feat. Uh, none of those characters can take the feat. It requires arcane casting of 3rd level spells and +4 bab. Have you read the feat?
gabrion 06-21-05, 09:21 PM	Uh, none of those characters can take the feat. It requires arcane casting of 3rd level spells and +4 bab. Have you read the feat? My apologies. Yes I have read the feat. As I said ealier, I used it in a persistent build before, but I had been playing the character for a very long time and didn't take the feat until I got CA, which was only a few months ago. I'm so sorry I forgot the prereqs for the feat. After playing that character and seeing all the information on this thread about how awesome of a feat this is, along with your correction about the prereqs, I guess my new answer to your question would be to take the feat as soon as you have a BAB of +4 and the ability to cast 3rd level spells. ;)
Sieylianna 06-28-05, 10:27 PM	Are there any other builds/strategies that could exploit this? Sorcerers get lots of spells per day, so they would work better than wizards for this strategy generally. Actually, I worked through the first 11 levels of spells per day for a specialist wizard and a sorcerer and you'd be surprised. The sorcerer has lots more spells per day, but the total spells level per day is pretty close through about 10th level. The wizard has more total spell levels per day then a sorcerer at the odd levels through 9th (picking up 3 spells of the higher level makes up the difference). I've been experimenting with a rogue/arcane trickster, using arcane strike to boost the damage versus things which are immune to sneak attacks. Ed
slade_caizer 06-28-05, 10:32 PM	A character can perform more than one free action in a turn. Otherwise, people with the quick draw feat and only two hands could not make a full attack with thrown weapons. And that's why I've never seen a useful thrower build.
DisposableHero_ 06-28-05, 10:55 PM	And that's why I've never seen a useful thrower build. arg.... Read your PHB: Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort, and over the span of a round, their impact is so minor that they are considered free. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. Case closed.
CappyTheMule 06-28-05, 11:02 PM	From the SRD: "Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free." "New Action Types Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve psionics or the activation of psionic items; many characters (especially those who don’t use psionics) never have an opportunity to take a swift action. Manifesting a quickened power is a swift action. In addition, manifesting any power with a casting time of 1 swift action is a swift action. Manifesting a power with a manifesting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Immediate Action: Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it’s not your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed." Bolding mine. What I read out of this is that swift actions (and immediate actions) are their own type of action, rather than being a subset of free actions. My reasoning behind this is that there is a set limit on how many swift and immediate actions per turn you can get, while free actions don't have a set cap (other than the one set by the GM's discretion). Note that both swift and immediate actions are stated as being LIKE free actions in that they can be performed while taking other actions, and do not affect your ability to take other types of actions including, I would venture to guess, free actions. I'm not really sure how relevant to this thread swift action rules are though, seeing that using Arcane Strike is listed as using a free action in my book. At any rate, I hope I helped clarify that rule! Edit: Disposable beat me to it! Clicking the post button must be an immediate action- I coulda sworn that it was my turn to post... :D
slade_caizer 06-28-05, 11:44 PM	From the SRD: "Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free." "New Action Types Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve psionics or the activation of psionic items; many characters (especially those who don’t use psionics) never have an opportunity to take a swift action. Manifesting a quickened power is a swift action. In addition, manifesting any power with a casting time of 1 swift action is a swift action. Manifesting a power with a manifesting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Immediate Action: Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it’s not your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed." Bolding mine. What I read out of this is that swift actions (and immediate actions) are their own type of action, rather than being a subset of free actions. My reasoning behind this is that there is a set limit on how many swift and immediate actions per turn you can get, while free actions don't have a set cap (other than the one set by the GM's discretion). Note that both swift and immediate actions are stated as being LIKE free actions in that they can be performed while taking other actions, and do not affect your ability to take other types of actions including, I would venture to guess, free actions. I'm not really sure how relevant to this thread swift action rules are though, seeing that using Arcane Strike is listed as using a free action in my book. At any rate, I hope I helped clarify that rule! Edit: Disposable beat me to it! Clicking the post button must be an immediate action- I coulda sworn that it was my turn to post... :D And at long last there is someone willing to argue intelligently AND be informative. Thank you so much for setting me straight. At long last there are no less than five doors opened to me. :schemes: And so much greater will be my DM's pain for the wait.