Post/Author/DateTime	Post
drboals 05-09-07, 03:41 PM	I have a player, who claims to be a WotC employee among other things, who is determined that with arcane strike you can funnel all of your day's allowance of spells into one hit and do +100d4 or so damage. Patiently explaining to him that the book clearly states "a spell" not all your spells or as many spells as you want doesn't seem to convince him. Has anyone else run into this before? Can you REALLY do +100d4 damage if you have 100 levels of spells channeled into your weapon? That would seem a little broken to me, to say the least. Please let me know what you think Dan
Japangirl 05-09-07, 03:43 PM	Your player is wrong and you are right. I've never seen that interpretation before and I have no idea how he got there. A spell means exactly that: one spell. Any other interpretation does completely break the feat, as you mentioned.
Mattastrophic 05-09-07, 03:53 PM	Well, you certainly can add +100d4... you'd just have to have a 100th-level spell slot. But seriously, Arcane Strike does not stack with itself. You certainly can sacrifice multiple spells to it... but only the highest-level one will matter. -Matt
bitznarf 05-09-07, 04:16 PM	As I see it, it has less to do with sacrificing 'a spell' or 'many spells' to it. It is as Matt said, and issue of 'bonuses from the same source' stacking with themselves. So he could burn all his spells if he wanted to (perhaps to multiple weapons as a TWFer), its a free action, but the bonuses do not stack with each other on the same weapon.
Rerednaw 05-09-07, 04:38 PM	Of course if he is such a stickler, remind him that you are the judge and that he is perfectly free to appeal your ruling to the local Triad. Hey if he is a WoTC employee, maybe he should be on the Triad. :D
bitznarf 05-09-07, 04:42 PM	He can't actually appeal to the triad. If there is cause for concern, the only person he can appeal to is the Appeals GM, or the Senior GM of the event if an Appeals GM is not appointed. The Triad *cannot* overrule a GM.
WizO_Mengde 05-09-07, 04:47 PM	Hi there guys... player in question. As for the reason I'm saying the RAW support me, one has to look at the feat itself. When it says "A" spell, it means "A" spell per use of Arcane Strike, much like one can draw "A" weapon when using the quick draw feat. WotC stuff is VERY specific when it comes to limitations, and if it was meant to be limited to one spell per round or per weapon then it would be said as "one spell per round" or "one spell per weapon", which it plainly does not. If you claim otherwise, feel free to show your source in your reply. In addition, damage always stacks when you have the same type of damage from different sources, i.e. sneak attack damage, or any damage really, with no other exceptions to the contrary that can be seen, though this obviously does not work when it comes to attack bonuses, according to RAW stacking rules. As such, RAW, one can use arcane strike as many times as one has spells for a free action, and if one wishes to dump ALL their spell levels into one single round of attacks, they are legally able to do so RAW, in essence supercharging their weapon before leaving them spell less. Feel free to reply, though if you are going to try and refute it, please use RAW examples to show how and/or why this is incorrect. Oh, and there seems to be a slight bit of confusion here... this isn't an Living Greyhawk game, the DM just knows you guys have a great knowledge base when it comes to the RAW, as do the guys in the char op boards, and a few other places.
drboals 05-09-07, 04:55 PM	Oh, and there seems to be a slight bit of confusion here... this isn't an Living Greyhawk game The game is using Living Greyhawk rules, so this is a valid forum to check to see if in LG you can stack a hundred spells into an arcane strike.
WizO_Mengde 05-09-07, 04:59 PM	The game is using Living Greyhawk rules, so this is a valid forum to check to see if in LG you can stack a hundred spells into an arcane strike. Slightly modified LG rules, yes. And I'm not disagreeing that this is a valid forum, that was a clarification for people saying I or you could appeal to regional GMs, :) And I *wish* I had a hundred spells to stack together, but unfortunatly it's just a hundred total spell levels lol.
bitznarf 05-09-07, 04:59 PM	When it says "A" spell, it means "A" spell per use of Arcane Strike, much like one can draw "A" weapon when using the quick draw feat. WotC stuff is VERY specific when it comes to limitations, and if it was meant to be limited to one spell per round or per weapon then it would be said as "one spell per round" or "one spell per weapon", which it plainly does not. No argument here. In addition, damage always stacks when you have the same type of damage from different sources, i.e. sneak attack damage, or any damage really, with no other exceptions to the contrary that can be seen, though this obviously does not work when it comes to attack bonuses, according to RAW stacking rules. Do you have rules to support your contention here? Every time I've seen bonus sneak attack dice, there is a clause that says "if an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack" or something similar. I am basing my interpretation off of 'bonuses from the same source don't stack'. I don't have my PHB in front of me, so that is not a direct quote. As such, RAW, one can use arcane strike as many times as one has spells for a free action, and if one wishes to dump ALL their spell levels into one single round of attacks, they are legally able to do so RAW, in essence supercharging their weapon before leaving them spell less. Feel free to reply, though if you are going to try and refute it, please use RAW examples to show how and/or why this is incorrect. Could you also provide some RAW to back yourself up?
Mommy was an Orc 05-09-07, 05:00 PM	As such, RAW, one can use arcane strike as many times as one has spells for a free action, and if one wishes to dump ALL their spell levels into one single round of attacks, they are legally able to do so RAW, in essence supercharging their weapon before leaving them spell less. Except bonuses from the same source never stack(unless Dodge or different circumstance). The spells charging Arcane Strike might be different spells, but they're still resulting in a bonus from the same source - the feat Arcane Strike. Also, the number of times you can use a free action in any given round is expressly at the discretion of the DM. Stacking In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified. 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.
WizO_Mengde 05-09-07, 05:08 PM	Except bonuses from the same source never stack. The spells charging Arcane Strike might be different spells, but they're still a bonus from the feat Arcane Strike. No argument here. Do you have rules to support your contention here? Every time I've seen bonus sneak attack dice, there is a clause that says "if an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack" or something similar. I am basing my interpretation off of 'bonuses from the same source don't stack'. I don't have my PHB in front of me, so that is not a direct quote. Could you also provide some RAW to back yourself up? From the SRD: In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no(emphasis mine type at all), The damage from Arcane Strike comes from the different spells being sacced, and is untyped. By your ruling one couldn't use more then 1 point of power attack damage or more then +1 to AC from power attack and combat expertise, as both bonuses come from the same 'source' (their respective feats). The bonus doesnt come from the feat, it comes from the spells sacrificed. As for free actions, they are not part of this discussion and bringing them up is pretty much strawmanning from the argument at hand.
bitznarf 05-09-07, 05:21 PM	From the SRD: The damage from Arcane Strike comes from the different spells being sacced, and is untyped. By your ruling one couldn't use more then 1 point of power attack damage or more then +1 to AC from power attack and combat expertise, as both bonuses come from the same 'source' (their respective feats). The bonus doesnt come from the feat, it comes from the spells sacrificed. With Power Attack you choose a number and apply it. You don't choose '1' and apply it multiple times. Strawman. In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source You need to read the rest of the line. The source is Arcane Strike. Every time. By the way, is this the same group of players here? http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=844211 Edit: if so, this post sums it all up fairly well it doesn't and it doesn't. It also doesn't say you can't do it. The DM can rule however he likes, because the RAW doesn't specify. The pickiest, by the RAW interpretetation I can come up with is that you could do it multiple times, but you'd only benefit from the best result because of how stacking from the same source works. Ie, you'd get the best attack mod bonus of the spells you sacrificed, and you'd get the best result of the "levelxd4 damage" dice for each spell. Which means you CAN arcane strike away multiple spells in a given round but it is fairly pointless to do so because the outcome will only be a very slight improvement in overall damage for loss of entire spells.
Mommy was an Orc 05-09-07, 05:23 PM	The damage from Arcane Strike comes from the different spells being sacced, and is untyped. By your ruling one couldn't use more then 1 point of power attack damage or more then +1 to AC from power attack and combat expertise, as both bonuses come from the same 'source' (their respective feats). The feats Power Attack and Combat Expertise(up to max of 5) both allow you to take a penalty to hit up to that of your BAB in exchange for a specified benefit. You take a penalty to hit of 7, you do an extra 7 or 14 hp of damage with Power Attack depending on weapon use. The bonus doesnt come from the feat, it comes from the spells sacrificed. Right...if that's a true statement, you don't even need the feat to sacrifice the spells in that way. The bonus obviously comes from the feat because there's no other way to get that bonus.
clik_ml 05-09-07, 05:25 PM	The DM is given some purview on limits to free actions, but with that neither here nor there, something that completely thwarts the +100 arcane strike bonus is that it is limited by the user's BAB. So unless the caster has a BAB of +100, then he can't burn that much.
WizO_Mengde 05-09-07, 05:25 PM	Right...if that's a true statement, you don't even need the feat to sacrifice the spells in that way. The bonus obviously comes from the feat because there's no other way to get that bonus. Incorrect. The bonus comes from the feat AND spells sacrificed. Just like you need the feat to do so, you also need to have the spells on hand. As such, it has multiple sources. ETA: And this isn't about the attack bonus clik, as stated above.. it's about the spell level damage stacking together. My character is the type who realizes the need for desperation or one hit kills when needed, and one of his tactics is to "use up" all his magic energy into one strike to do exactly that when nessecary.
Sieylianna 05-09-07, 05:32 PM	I'd treat it the same as the ruling that you can only expend turn undead attempts to accomplish 1 thing, even if it is a free action. So you power arcane strike with one spell of your choice. That's it. Burning multiple spells isn't an option. Ed
Mommy was an Orc 05-09-07, 05:41 PM	Incorrect. The bonus comes from the feat AND spells sacrificed. Just like you need the feat to do so, you also need to have the spells on hand. As such, it has multiple sources. No. The bonus comes from the feat. The feat is powered by spells sacrificed. Bonuses do not come from multiple sources. But let's pretend you're right - bonuses from the same source don't stack. If you get a bonus from Arcane Strike and Magic Missle and then Arcane Strike and False Life, they still both came from Arcane Strike. So they don't stack.
Eric Anondson 05-09-07, 05:43 PM	When it says "A" spell, it means "A" spell per use of Arcane Strike, much like one can draw "A" weapon when using the quick draw feat. WotC stuff is VERY specific when it comes to limitations, and if it was meant to be limited to one spell per round or per weapon then it would be said as "one spell per round" or "one spell per weapon", which it plainly does not. You must sacrifice one of your spells for the day (of 1st level or higher) to do this, ...It can be reasonably argued that it does in fact limit it to one spell. The problem comes from how many free actions you can do in a round on your turn. In theory, it could be infinite. It is difficult to imagine any judge thinking that it would be reasonable to let a spellcaster sacrifice every spell he, or she, knows instantly. Luckily, Arcane Strike does seem to put a hard cap on how much you can pump in.The bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus.There is room for serious abuse with this feat if judges allow more than one per round of Arcane Strike. Most arcane types aren't going to have a high BAB, ever. But specialized builds are possible, like spellsword Spirited Charging lance wielding types, where the BAB is a little higher than an average arcanist. With the limit on no higher than BAB, it doesn't seem so terrible.
bitznarf 05-09-07, 05:43 PM	Aww.. I didn't ninja MwaO this time. Dam work calling me away.
solbergb 05-09-07, 05:53 PM	I allow you to sacrifice as many spells as you want, but I also strictly enforce the stacking rules. Ie, only the highest "to-hit" bonus will apply (that of the biggest spell sacrificed) and only the largest combined roll of the "d4's" associated with each spell will apply. So it would be wasteful and stupid to do so, unless you are worried about rolling all "1"s on your d4's. But if you wish to use multiple free actions to expend multiple spells at my table, it's your resources.
bitznarf 05-09-07, 05:56 PM	LOL, almost 'taking 4' on the feat with 1st level spells.
solbergb 05-09-07, 06:20 PM	Note that the strike only works on one weapon, so if you fight with multiple weapons, it might make sense to sac one spell for each weapon. This is one case where the free action thing translates into an advantage at my table for TWF gish's. OTOH, they need all the help they can get if they somehow pulled off the TWF feat tree, paid for two expensive weapons and fit in arcane strike. So I'm ok with the outcome.
bitznarf 05-09-07, 06:22 PM	Heroics. Or perhaps a wand of heroics.
solbergb 05-09-07, 06:31 PM	heroics is on the Closed list...
bitznarf 05-09-07, 06:35 PM	I don't see it on the Closed list, and I know of one player who has recieved access to it. Am I blind? The only closed 'h' spells I see are Hand of the Faithful (SpC) and Heart Ripper (SpC) †.
Howie23 05-09-07, 06:35 PM	heroics is on the Closed list... Heroics is NONC. David
solbergb 05-09-07, 07:46 PM	what I get for trusting hearsay is egg on my face...remembering right the concern was NPC's pulling in closed feats via Heroics, not pulling in Heroics. Ah well.
ThaiGQ 05-15-07, 01:05 AM	Of course, with a name like Mengde, I wouldn't expect any less but for him to be ruthless and try to take advantage of every possible rule he can...his choice of name most likely reflects his own personality (no insult intended, just in jest). ;) P.S. Personally, I'd go with Kung Ming or Tzu-Lung myself! :D
The_Jester 05-15-07, 09:54 AM	When it says "A" spell, it means "A" spell per use of Arcane Strike, much like one can draw "A" weapon when using the quick draw feat. Poor analogy. The Quick Draw feat does not need clarification on how many weapons can be drawn. It has a built-in limit (number of hands). WotC stuff is VERY specific when it comes to limitations, and if it was meant to be limited to one spell per round or per weapon then it would be said as "one spell per round" or "one spell per weapon", which it plainly does not. They're specific but not perfect. If they were there wouldn't be dozens of pages of errata, FAQs, Sage Advice, clarifications, etc. They are forever missing lines, words, specific examples and the like. You are correct that it does not specify that only a single spell can be used but there are a number of minor quantifiers ("sacrifice one spell") and the limit placed on BAB. This is a fallacious argument akin to not wearing pants to McDonald's because the sign only reads "**** and shoes" or robbing the bank in Monopoly. If you claim otherwise, feel free to show your source in your reply. Logic. A single feat should not grant +1d100 to damage. A wizard should not be able to do that much melee damage. A single feat should not grant that large of a bonus. This is not what was intended and thus should not be allowed. In addition, damage always stacks when you have the same type of damage from different sources, i.e. sneak attack damage, or any damage really, with no other exceptions to the contrary that can be seen, though this obviously does not work when it comes to attack bonuses, according to RAW stacking rules. Not always. An enchantment bonus to damage does not stack with a second enchantment bonus to damage. Again, the feat does not specify but it would be within the established RAW to claim that the two bonuses do not stack. As such, RAW, one can use arcane strike as many times as one has spells for a free action, and if one wishes to dump ALL their spell levels into one single round of attacks, they are legally able to do so RAW, in essence supercharging their weapon before leaving them spell less. And a good DM will adjudicate it is like dumping all your spells into castings of magic weapon. I would personally rule that the bonus to attack limits the bonus to damage and cannot exceed the caster's BAB and that the added damage would count as an "arcane strike" enchantment bonus that stacks with all other forms of damage enhancement but not itself. Is it spelt out plainly in the book as such? No, but I believe this is the intent of the feat and it balances appropriately with other feats. But hey, what do I know? Maybe I just like wearing pants.
jstorrie 05-15-07, 03:26 PM	Modifiers to an attack don't stack, so if you activate Arcane Strike multiple times per round, your to-hit doesn't go up any higher than the highest level of spell you drop into it. But bonus damage dice are not modifiers, so there's a good case to make that you can nova out with the 1d4s. There's a strong case against it, too–DM control of how many free actions you can reasonably use per round, and perhaps more importantly, threat of the DM throwing his dice at you. It is obviously not the intent of the feat that you can drop your entire allotment of spells into one attack.
Wraith235 05-16-07, 01:07 AM	the easy answer to this is in several parts #1 ) WotC Customer support .... its a 1-800 # #2 ) if WoTC Customer support says it is a viable interpretation of the rules or if he continually argues then let him do it once or 2x .... then do it back to him ..... I am a firm believer in whats good for the goose is good for the Gander
Will_DM_for_Pizza 05-16-07, 01:15 AM	What's the actual errata of Arcane Strike actually say?
Mithreinmaethor 05-16-07, 02:57 AM	What's the actual errata of Arcane Strike actually say? There is nothing in the Complete Arcane Errata or in the FAQ about the Arcane Strike feat.
The_Jester 05-16-07, 09:00 AM	It's from Complete Warrior.
amnuxoll 05-16-07, 11:26 AM	Hi there guys... player in question. As for the reason I'm saying the RAW support me, one has to look at the feat itself. ...blah...blah...RAW...blah...RAW...blah ...RAW...blah...blah...RAW...blah... RAW...blah This is pretty shameful I must say. As a moderator on these boards you should not be supporting a rule interpretation that is obviously unbalanced and overpowered. Your defense of the interpretation reminds me an awful lot of the joke about humans not needing to sleep since they aren't in any monster manual and therefore are not "creatures" per se. The "rules as written" clearly state that you should use common sense when interpreting the rules. Failing that, the "rules as written" clearly state that the DM may limit how many free actions you can take in a turn. One of your roles as a moderator on these boards is to encourage the growth our hobby. By openly supporting a poor rule interpretation like this you are violating that tenet, IMHO. :AMN:
trollbill 05-16-07, 12:51 PM	This is pretty shameful I must say. As a moderator on these boards you should not be supporting a rule interpretation that is obviously unbalanced and overpowered. Your defense of the interpretation reminds me an awful lot of the joke about humans not needing to sleep since they aren't in any monster manual and therefore are not "creatures" per se. The "rules as written" clearly state that you should use common sense when interpreting the rules. Failing that, the "rules as written" clearly state that the DM may limit how many free actions you can take in a turn. One of your roles as a moderator on these boards is to encourage the growth our hobby. By openly supporting a poor rule interpretation like this you are violating that tenet, IMHO. :AMN: All this is pretty much moot. It has been demonstrated that other interpretations of Arcane Strike to that of Mengde's are valid within the rules. And while I definitely agree that Mengde's interpretation blatently violates the spirit of the rules, it does not seem to violate the letter, as he interprets it. But in the end, it isn't his decision, it is the DM's (doubly so because it isn't an LG campaign). Since either interpretation is legally valid, the DM should be free to choose his interpretation, and the player should abide by it even if he doesn't agree. Even if Mengde feels the rules are crystal clear to him and thus are not subject to interpretation, the rules on Free Actions are also clear, and the DM can use those to limit the Feat if he feels the interpretation is too abusive.
bitznarf 05-16-07, 01:09 PM	'Abuse' of the rules is an issue that in my opinion lies solely between the GM and the players. Outside judgements on that sort of thing irk me. If the players and the GM agree to play in one way, who are we to tell them that they are wrong and should not be playing the way that has been agreed to between the GM and players?
WizO_Mengde 05-16-07, 01:51 PM	Modifiers to an attack don't stack, so if you activate Arcane Strike multiple times per round, your to-hit doesn't go up any higher than the highest level of spell you drop into it. But bonus damage dice are not modifiers, so there's a good case to make that you can nova out with the 1d4s. There's a strong case against it, too–DM control of how many free actions you can reasonably use per round, and perhaps more importantly, threat of the DM throwing his dice at you. It is obviously not the intent of the feat that you can drop your entire allotment of spells into one attack. I agree with that, the DM CAN control it via the use of free actions, and if he had chosen to do so, I would have been fine with it. It's more along the lines that the DM said RAW it couldn't happen, which was what this debate was about. And as for the intent, why couldn't one dump all their spells? Sure, it provides a great one hit (almost)-insta kill, but after that I'd be completely wiped out spell wise... so it's balanced in that way. if WoTC Customer support says it is a viable interpretation of the rules or if he continually argues then let him do it once or 2x .... then do it back to him ..... I am a firm believer in whats good for the goose is good for the Gander Of course what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm a believer in rule equality, and hope my opponents are played as smart as they should be (i.e. based on their IN CHARACTER alignment, wisdom, and intelligence, not the dm's). This is pretty shameful I must say. As a moderator on these boards you should not be supporting a rule interpretation that is obviously unbalanced and overpowered. Your defense of the interpretation reminds me an awful lot of the joke about humans not needing to sleep since they aren't in any monster manual and therefore are not "creatures" per se. The "rules as written" clearly state that you should use common sense when interpreting the rules. Failing that, the "rules as written" clearly state that the DM may limit how many free actions you can take in a turn. One of your roles as a moderator on these boards is to encourage the growth our hobby. By openly supporting a poor rule interpretation like this you are violating that tenet, IMHO. :AMN: Actually I'm here to make sure everyone has a good time. There's nothing in my contract telling me I can't play private games in the way I like. Besides, who's to say your common sense is a) common and b) actually sensible? In my (somewhat vast) experience, I've found that personal interpretations are usually the most varies and least unified, as well as incorrect compared to the facts at hand. As such, it's usually best to use the rules as written (despite your dislike for the term) whenever possible, as they provide a more balanced framework then a vast amount of house rules that most likely haven't received a fraction of the detail and work used in the main rules, IMHO.
amnuxoll 05-16-07, 03:28 PM	Actually I'm here to make sure everyone has a good time. I am not having a good time reading your posts on this topic. As such, it's usually best to use the rules as written (despite your dislike for the term) whenever possible, as they provide a more balanced framework then a vast amount of house rules that most likely haven't received a fraction of the detail and work used in the main rules, IMHO. "Rules as written" implies that the rules are not subject to interpretation. This is silly. :AMN:
bitznarf 05-16-07, 03:30 PM	I am not having a good time reading your posts on this topic. Might I suggest you stop reading this thread then? It seems kinda like watching a horror movie even though you dislike them and there are many other movies around to watch.
WizO_Mengde 05-16-07, 03:50 PM	I am not having a good time reading your posts on this topic. No one's forcing you to read the replies or even the thread, my friend. "Rules as written" implies that the rules are not subject to interpretation. This is silly. :AMN: Actually, it's not pretty silly. If a rule is a certain way, then well.. it's a certain way. While a DM can easily house rule it, or make a decision on vague wording, the rules are written in a specific way, and those rules do support my position, whatever your personal views on them may or may not be. ETA: As for the person who noticed my online namesake, I'm flattered with the comparision. :D
bitznarf 05-16-07, 03:54 PM	Actually, it's not pretty silly. If a rule is a certain way, then well.. it's a certain way. While a DM can easily house rule it, or make a decision on vague wording, the rules are written in a specific way, and those rules do support my position, whatever your personal views on them may or may not be. I don't disagree that the rules *could* (maybe) be interpreted that way, I just don't agree with that interpretation. In every case I have seen of extra damage dice stacking they have either been of different types, or they have specifically said that they stack. Look at PrCs that give/advance Sneak Attack.
WizO_Mengde 05-16-07, 04:10 PM	That's one way to look at it true, but one can also look at the fact that damage types always stack, and there's not one example of them not stacking as well. But that's my "interpretation" :)
bitznarf 05-16-07, 04:15 PM	That's one way to look at it true, but one can also look at the fact that damage types always stack, and there's not one example of them not stacking as well. But that's my "interpretation" :) Right, fire stacks with cold which stacks with sneak attack which stacks with sonic, but fire does not stack with fire. As for separate sources giving extra damage dice, IIRC sonic weapon (SpC, Bard2 Sor/Wiz2) doesn't stack with other sonic damage a weapon may already have. Arcane Strike on the other hand is untyped so the only thing it doesn't stack with is itself.
KarmaInferno 05-16-07, 04:45 PM	And as for the intent, why couldn't one dump all their spells? Sure, it provides a great one hit (almost)-insta kill, but after that I'd be completely wiped out spell wise... so it's balanced in that way. The problem is, nobody would dump ALL their spells into a strike. They'd dump just enough spells sufficient to kill their target and then do it again on the next, and the next, and the next. Have you any earthly idea just how many spells a day some casters get? At high levels you might be able to do killer Arcane Strikes two-three times a combat, every combat given the limited number of combats in LG mods. THAT is what is unbalancing. -karma
WizO_Mengde 05-16-07, 05:26 PM	Right, fire stacks with cold which stacks with sneak attack which stacks with sonic, but fire does not stack with fire. As for separate sources giving extra damage dice, IIRC sonic weapon (SpC, Bard2 Sor/Wiz2) doesn't stack with other sonic damage a weapon may already have. Arcane Strike on the other hand is untyped so the only thing it doesn't stack with is itself. Actually fire does stack with fire... a flaming burst weapon shows this, by giving an additional 1d10 damage. And I do believe sonic weapon would stack, unless specifically saying otherwise or it grants the property to a weapon (books not being at hand to verify). The problem is, nobody would dump ALL their spells into a strike. They'd dump just enough spells sufficient to kill their target and then do it again on the next, and the next, and the next. How would the player know this though? There isn't any FF-style "scan" spells to let the player know exactly how much hp are left on his enemy. As such, one would have to guess just how many, and thus always run the risk of 'wasting' spells in an attack. In essence, if one does this as a regular maneuver, in the end they could run the risk of wasting entire spells for a guarunteed kill! Not very 'broken', if you ask me :). Have you any earthly idea just how many spells a day some casters get? At high levels you might be able to do killer Arcane Strikes two-three times a combat, every combat given the limited number of combats in LG mods. So? Compare that damage to say... the hp total of a frenzied berserker, or an undead dry lich, or a dragon who takes care of their con. Sure, they might fire off a few hundred point attacks in a round... but they can do that anyway with the spells on hand. The only difference is rather then taking ONE spell, it takes SEVERAL spells... which all go to waste when rolling a natural 1. In other words, from a purely mechanical point, using multiple arcane strikes is really a wasteful tactic. THAT is what is unbalancing. It's not unbalancing to do 20d4 damage by sacrificing at least 3 spells in one action that still require a strike roll to which DR applies, when one can do 20d6 or 20d8 with a proper 9th level spell, sometimes with no attack roll, and/or no SR or save.
bitznarf 05-16-07, 05:31 PM	Actually fire does stack with fire... a flaming burst weapon shows this, by giving an additional 1d10 damage. And I do believe sonic weapon would stack, unless specifically saying otherwise or it grants the property to a weapon (books not being at hand to verify). Flaming burst doesn't stack with other fire effects, it would not be a flaming sword with more fire added on, it is a flaming burst sword. Sure, flaming burst references the flaming enhancement, however it also supersedes the flaming enhancement, a weapon can't be both flaming and flaming burst. Take a look at the alchemical capsules from.. Complete Adventurer? for another group of non-stacking damage dice. As for sonic weapon I too don't have my books with me, but I am fairly sure it doesn't stack with other sonic effects.
Japangirl 05-16-07, 05:34 PM	It's not unbalancing to do 20d4 damage by sacrificing at least 3 spells in one action that still require a strike roll to which DR applies, when one can do 20d6 or 20d8 with a proper 9th level spell, sometimes with no attack roll, and/or no SR or save. What spells are we talking about here? I can't think of any 9th level spells that do that much damage with no attack roll, save, or SR. BTW, I do think you're wrong about Arcane Strike. Damage types do not stack with themselves unles they say they do. Your example of Flaming Burst specifically says it stacks, which Arcane Strike does not. "In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit." -SRD, emphasis mine
solbergb 05-16-07, 05:43 PM	Uh..yeah, actually it is unbalancing. Lets just take my sorcereress for example. I actually considered giving her arcane strike at level 12, for use with her whirling blade spell, a spell that she can sculpt. Under this interpretation, I could choose to do enough damage in a 40' cone, 60' line, 20' spread or four 10x10x10 cubes to anhillate anything my adamantine scimitar touched just by deciding to spend a level 3 slot and sufficient spell slots. Normally her attack and damage mods with arcane strike, combined with the usual GMW on the weapon would be: +22 d6+10+6d4 = 28.5 damage on everything in the area with a level 6 spell burned, maybe 40 if I burned triple weapon capsule retainers. It's a touch underpowered for the spell burn, but arcane strike wasn't intended for a character like her, a primary caster. A level 12 gish with haste, 11 BAB and only 5th level spellcasting is going to get the +5 to hit and +5d4 damage (with power attack, assume net 22.5 damage per swing with same attack mod) on four attacks, a good tradeoff for a level 5 spell. The practical limit for hitpoints at APL 12 is about 300. With the ruling suggested my sorceress could kill anything her weapon touched in the area with about 108 spell levels. She has 124 spell levels to work with after the GMW on her weapon and sculpt spell+whirling blade. That means at the cost of only one extra feat she goes from "damage kinda like a maximized fireball when the enemy saves" to "I win" on one encounter for sure, or 2-3 if the enemies are a bit less beefy. If her bard cohort is handy, she'll only miss on a "1" for any AC 30 or lower (and she has a fatespinner reroll). If I end the encounter, I may not need those spell slots anyway. She can also play the "I win" card to cause, say, a T-rex of legend to explode from the inside after it swallowed her, just by punching it with arcane strike and a spiked gauntlet, burning whatever spell slots she needs to to get past the hitpoints. It has DR/20? No problem. Just burn another 8 spell levels. Letting a sorcerer nova with all her spell slots for the cost of one feat is a BAD IDEA. And the stacking rules for same effect would preclude it anyway. The feat lets you call it multiple times (perhaps so you can arcane strike multple weapons for the TWF guys) but on the SAME WEAPON you are just getting the best effect. Damage dice for same effect from same source don't stack.
bitznarf 05-16-07, 05:46 PM	Lets just take my sorcereress for example. I actually considered giving her arcane strike at level 12, for use with her whirling blade spell, a spell that she can sculpt. I'm sure you are aware of the table variation on this one, whirling blade has an effect entry, not an area entry, I just figured I would mention it for those who may not be aware.
WizO_Mengde 05-16-07, 05:51 PM	What spells are we talking about here? I can't think of any 9th level spells that do that much damage with no attack roll, save, or SR. I didn't say one that didn't have all three, I said one that either ignored one or a couple of them. For example... orb of fire. 20d6 ranged touch attack, no save, no SR. And for the whirling blade, that's been taken care of. I'd discuss whirling blade, but it's been shown how it's false.
bitznarf 05-16-07, 05:55 PM	You haven't dealt with the bonus damage dice stacking issue yet however.
solbergb 05-16-07, 06:06 PM	I'm sure you are aware of the table variation on this one, whirling blade has an effect entry, not an area entry, I just figured I would mention it for those who may not be aware. I'm aware of it, but it is "effect, 60' line" when you read the fine print. Note that all area entries ARE effects, and line is one of the explicitly defined kinds of effects. So it isn't much table variation. I've never seen it not work myself, but it isnt' a common tactic for me - I mostly use whirling blade as a magic missile that works on constructs or high-SR outsiders (with oil of bless weapon to make it sting). I've probably sculpted it at less than 4-5 tables total. Should I encounter a DM that doesn't like it after I remind him that lines ARE effects - I'll go along and find something else to do (or settle for whirling fewer enemies) And it doesn't change my point. Being able to auto-kill anything the blade can hit in a line just by burning enough spell slots is insane. Being able to auto-kill anything I can punch with my spiked gauntlet is insane. For a more traditional gish, being able to auto-kill anything I can reach with my weapon for a round (up to 4ish enemies) is insane. This is at level 12. It only gets worse as it scales higher. Even at level 9, minimum for getting the feat, you can play "I win" vs pretty much any CR14 or lower creature, if you can hit it. And of course truestrike ensures that you CAN hit it, should it come to that.
Japangirl 05-16-07, 06:30 PM	I didn't say one that didn't have all three, I said one that either ignored one or a couple of them. For example... orb of fire. 20d6 ranged touch attack, no save, no SR. Orb of Fire, the fourth level spell from CA and SpC that's 1d6 per caster level, max 15d6? Or some other Orb of Fire that I'm not aware of? If you are saying it's metamagicked up a lot, that's a lot of feats to make that work, so it really doesn't count. Sure, some 9th level spells only have one of the three of SR, save, and attack roll. But some lower level spells have that too, and 20d6 from a 9th level spell isn't that bad (average damage of 70), or even 20d8 (average 90). The 90 damage wouldn't have killed my rogue (not the beefiest character) even at level 12, though she would have been unconscious and bleeding and not terribly happy about the situation. There are so many better things to do with 9th level spells than do 20d6 damage! All this is really besides the point though. 100d4 is a minimum of 100 damage, max of 400, and likely to be about 250. That is waaaay overpowered from a low-level fighter feat when you try to compare it to level 9 spells to argue that it isn't broken.
copper_wyrmling 05-16-07, 08:18 PM	I'm aware of it, but it is "effect, 60' line" when you read the fine print. Note that all area entries ARE effects, and line is one of the explicitly defined kinds of effects. Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see where you're getting this. Under "Aiming a Spell", PHB p.175, there are three types of spell targeting described: "the next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate". There is then a bold header for "Target or Targets", a bold header for "Effect", and a bold header for "Area". They are described as distinct categories. "Line" is described as one of the standard potential shapes for an area, but that doesn't mean that whenever a spell is described as creating a line-shaped effect, it must be an "area spell". (Similarly, a spell that created a sphere of solid stone - or a spherical music box - probably wouldn't be an area spell, even though "sphere" is a standard shape for an area.) Also, spellwarp sniper makes it pretty clear that when they say "area spell" they're talking about "spell with an Area entry", since the PrC later says that you replace the area entry with an effect entry of "ray" when you warp a spell - that precedent (or whatever you call it when a related issue is clarified in a later book) isn't necessarily applicable to Sculpt, but it's an indication of intent. Can you point me to the bit of the PHB you're looking at? So it isn't much table variation. I've never seen it not work myself, but it isnt' a common tactic for me - I mostly use whirling blade as a magic missile that works on constructs or high-SR outsiders (with oil of bless weapon to make it sting). I've probably sculpted it at less than 4-5 tables total. Should I encounter a DM that doesn't like it after I remind him that lines ARE effects - I'll go along and find something else to do (or settle for whirling fewer enemies) Where I am, the table variation is all in the other direction: I assume that I can't sculpt any spell that doesn't have an Area entry (i.e. no sculpted confusion or fog spells). And it doesn't change my point. Being able to auto-kill anything the blade can hit in a line just by burning enough spell slots is insane. Being able to auto-kill anything I can punch with my spiked gauntlet is insane. For a more traditional gish, being able to auto-kill anything I can reach with my weapon for a round (up to 4ish enemies) is insane. This is at level 12. It only gets worse as it scales higher. Even at level 9, minimum for getting the feat, you can play "I win" vs pretty much any CR14 or lower creature, if you can hit it. And of course truestrike ensures that you CAN hit it, should it come to that. Yeah, I agree with this. In LG the rule that "bonuses from the same source don't stack" has been explicitly clarified to apply to identical powers from two copies of the same item (e.g. multiple beads of karma); I can't see any reason why the bonus to damage and attack rolls from arcane striking two separate spells should be treated as two different sources, and there are very good spirit-of-the-rules and game-balance reasons for ruling that they're the same source (to my mind, that is also the most obvious reading of the RAW). As has been pointed out, the reason the feat is a good feat normally and completely ridiculous with this interpretation is that it applies to more than one attack. It's not 20d4 for 20 spell levels, it's 80d4 or 100d4 from a melee full attack, or more if you get a whirling blade lined up right (and a LOT more if you let it work through both ends of a double weapon for each spell burned).
The_Jester 05-16-07, 08:52 PM	I wouldn't say it's unbalancing to drop all your spells for a single attack with 100d4 damage. It still requires an attack roll, likely using a wizard's modifier. It does get broken with the addition of one spell. Round 1: true strike. Round 2: melee attack with every spell but a single 1st-level. Still, at 100d4 (only 100-400 damage) might easily do less than a good disintegrate. But the only differences are: a) automatic massive damage. If space out, say four attacks with 25d4, there's a good chance the fort save will be failed eventually. b) no saving throw
Japangirl 05-16-07, 09:08 PM	A 15th level Disintegrate is 30d6 damage, or an average of 105 damage on a failed save. That's just about MINIMUM damage on the Arcane Strike with 100d4 added on . . . A Maximized Disintegrate (9th level spell, in LG we never get those) does 180 damage, still on the very low side. Not seeing how it isn't broken still.
Mommy was an Orc 05-16-07, 09:19 PM	A 15th level Disintegrate is 30d6 damage, or an average of 105 damage on a failed save. That's just about MINIMUM damage on the Arcane Strike with 100d4 added on . . . A Maximized Disintegrate (9th level spell, in LG we never get those) does 180 damage, still on the very low side. Not seeing how it isn't broken still. Yeah, my secondary character in play would be able to do fantastic damage at 12th. She's going to have both Arcane Strike/Ascetic Mage, Blades of Flame, 26 Strength, Flurry of Blows, GMW, and maybe of couple of things going. She's already going to be doing in the hundred-two hundred points of damage range from 12th-15th. The ability to burn more spells than that, particularly 1st level ones which she should be able to Memento back by that point gets ridiculous really fast.
jstorrie 05-16-07, 11:00 PM	How would the player know this though? There isn't any FF-style "scan" spells to let the player know exactly how much hp are left on his enemy. Uh. There is, Mengde, and it's open in LG: Combat Awareness. It's pretty trivial to pick up Combat Awareness in most gish builds, either by aiming for Arcane Strike at 9 or by picking up a bonus Fighter feat at 12 via Eldritch Knight or Spellsword. And Wis 13 is hardly a detriment for most gishes, as you might want to pick up Arcane Disciple for Cleric melee buffs, too. If it were consistently ruled that you could stack Arcane Strike damage, I guarantee you would see a lot of Arcane Disciple/Arcane Strike/Combat Awareness gishes, sniping enemies out with 'just enough.' And they would be definitely overpowered for Living Greyhawk, which is leagues away from a lenient home game.
Wraith235 05-17-07, 12:14 AM	well I was thinking about this some more and the 100d4 is really just the tip of the Iceburg when you start looking at it ... a 1st lvl Rog/ 5th wiz / 10 Daggerspell mage w/ a 22 int (this is Human) has a Total of 111 Spell levels and 4d6 Sneak attack so 1d4 +51d4 +4d6 + 5d6(Vamp Touch) 61 - 262 damage and 1d4 +52d4 +4d6 + 5d6(Vamp Touch) 62 - 266 damage Total for 2 attacks 123 - 528 damage or 1d4 + 107d4 + 4d6 + 5d6(Vamp touch) 117 - 486 damage now also at 10th Dagger ... you can quicken 1 spell as part of a full attack action (True strike) while having True strike from the Round before for a total of Minimum of +36 (38 if attacking with 1 dagger)to hit (20 +8 +8 [+4 if flankingand 1 dagger]) and thats just a Melee Combo from the top of my head I'm sure there are some MUCH Worse .... but the RAW is only 1/2 of the Equation when it comes to overpowering a feat creative players will come up with Ways to make it that mnuch more evil
The_Jester 05-17-07, 09:54 AM	A 15th level Disintegrate is 30d6 damage, or an average of 105 damage on a failed save. That's just about MINIMUM damage on the Arcane Strike with 100d4 added on . . . A Maximized Disintegrate (9th level spell, in LG we never get those) does 180 damage, still on the very low side. Not seeing how it isn't broken still. There are rods of metamagic and class abilities. I know a sorcerer/fatespinner in my region can pop out a maximized disintegrate once a mod.
magebeast 05-17-07, 12:39 PM	There are rods of metamagic and class abilities. I know a sorcerer/fatespinner in my region can pop out a maximized disintegrate once a mod. A maximized disintegrate is 180 damage. That's less than average damage for a 100d4 arcane strike.
solbergb 05-17-07, 12:49 PM	yeah, and also a maximized disintegrate is normally 30 points of damage. I think I've seen something fail a disintegrate save exactly twice in all my 10-16 APL play, on both sides of the table. Neither time did the spell do enough hitpoint damage to kill the target.
Wraith235 05-18-07, 07:34 PM	ok to direct quote from the Complete Warrior Page 96 Complete Warrior PrerequisiteAbility to cast 3rd level spells, Base attack bonus +4 Benifit When you activate this Feat (a free action that does not provoike an attack of opportunity), you can channel arcane energy into a melee weapon, your unarmed strike, or natural weapons. you must sacrifice one of your spells for the day(of first level or higher)to do this, but you gain an attack bonus to all your attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed, as well as extra damage equal to 1d4 x the level of the spell sacrificed.the bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus. for example, Yarren the elven bladesinger has a base attack bonus of +11 and the ability to cast 4th level spells..On his turn he chooses to to sacrifice one of his 4th level spells for the day,marking it off as he hadcast it.Untill his next turn he has a +4 bonus on his attack rolls and an additional 4d4 points of damage with a single melee weapon of his choice (his rapier). now for 2 quote that SHOULD end this "you must sacrifice one of your spellsfor the day in order to do this "but you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for one round equal to the level of The spell sacrificed" and if you look at most feats only activate once per round (cleave) while some feats Remain active throughout your turn (Great cleave)
magebeast 05-18-07, 07:46 PM	Your argument is moot because it's a free action. So the "one spell" thing doesn't really matter - you can do it a number of times up to the arbitrary limit of the DM limiting free actions.
Mithreinmaethor 05-18-07, 10:57 PM	the part you are missing is that it states 1 spell. if it would allow for more than one then the wording would have specified it. i.e as a free action you can sacrifice any number of spells per day to gain etc etc etc
Keldir 05-19-07, 12:45 AM	Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort, and over the span of the round, their impact is so minor that they are considered free. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what you can really do for free. For instance, calling out to your friends for help, dropping an object, and ceasing to concentrate on a spell are all free actions. DM's call, since each use is a free action. The feat itself comes from the Complete Warrior, which I believe was published before the swift action concept came out. This type of action should be errata'd to a swift action, of which, there should only be one per round.
dkay807 05-19-07, 01:08 AM	Removed redundant post.
magebeast 05-19-07, 02:03 AM	the part you are missing is that it states 1 spell. if it would allow for more than one then the wording would have specified it. i.e as a free action you can sacrifice any number of spells per day to gain etc etc etc Okay, so as a free action you use the feat. How many free actions do you still have available? Well, if I've got another, I use the feat again. There are no limits to the number of times you can use it in a round. So you use it again as a free action. That's not the issue.
thorinXXX 05-20-07, 11:45 AM	Okay, so as a free action you use the feat. How many free actions do you still have available? Well, if I've got another, I use the feat again. There are no limits to the number of times you can use it in a round. So you use it again as a free action. That's not the issue. So we are back to bonuses from the same source do not stack.
WizO_Mengde 05-20-07, 01:05 PM	Orb of Fire, the fourth level spell from CA and SpC that's 1d6 per caster level, max 15d6? Or some other Orb of Fire that I'm not aware of? If you are saying it's metamagicked up a lot, that's a lot of feats to make that work, so it really doesn't count. Actually IIRC it doesn't cap at 15d6. The only spell that caps is the sonic one, due to the fact that sonic is a very deadly 'element' in dnd. But yes, Orb of Fire is one example, being a ranged touch attack with no save or SR. It doesn't even need to be metamagiced up heavily. A simple Empowered or Maximized and it's doing tons of damage. Add energy substitution and energy admixture, and it's even worse. Or repeat spell... or quicken. Lot's of small 1-2 *useful* feat investments to do something several times a day verses dumping all your spells into one melee rounds worth of attacks. 100d4 is a minimum of 100 damage, max of 400, and likely to be about 250. That is waaaay overpowered from a low-level fighter feat when you try to compare it to level 9 spells to argue that it isn't broken. Except that by doing the 100d4 damage to one single person, you're sacrificing a total damage output far greater, as you pointed out yourself... and that's not even counting the non direct damaging insta-kill type spells! And it's a mistake to assume that a "low-level fighter feat" is overpowered when a) you actually need to be mid-level to even qualify for it and b) to be able to do the damage I'm talking about, you need 12 levels of sorcerer and a charisma in the 30's, or 16 levels of wizard and an intelligence near 40, after which you have NO SPELLS LEFT. In other words, only a high level caster can actually pull off this kind of attack, and as we both agree on, the spells said casters can pull off without funneling them into an arcane strike are much much worse. Thanks for helping prove my point :)
magebeast 05-20-07, 03:01 PM	In other words, only a high level caster can actually pull off this kind of attack, and as we both agree on, the spells said casters can pull off without funneling them into an arcane strike are much much worse. Thanks for helping prove my point :) What where did we say this?
Wraith235 05-20-07, 05:12 PM	well a 15th lvl wizard will have about 111 spell levels so ya it is a high level caster however I believe a Wizards BAB at 15 will be sufficient for 2 attacks in a round and therefore yuour looking at (if both attacks hit) 200-800 damage since it is all attacks with 1 weapon for the round honestly I dont think that you will ever change your PoV and thats fine .... just as a suggestion tho ... ask if your DM Will allow such a gross Abuse of Rules before you try joining his table .... I know that I would not allow that at my table and thats what its goiing to eventually come down to DM Choice you cant argue it anymore once the DM Says no (well you can but you hold game upo forever and get the name as a pain in the Buttocks)
The_Jester 05-22-07, 11:36 AM	Except that by doing the 100d4 damage to one single person, you're sacrificing a total damage output far greater, as you pointed out yourself... and that's not even counting the non direct damaging insta-kill type spells! But it is also including non-damaging spells such as grease, glitterdust, water breathing, scrying and anything else in the repertoire and adding it to damage. It is also type-less damage (strict melee) so a fire-mage fighting a fire elemental can just switch to the feat and use up all his spells opposed to casting only non-damaging or even healing spells. And at the level most insta-kill spells are usable by players many monsters have ungodly amounts of hp and saves anyway so it's very seldom they will be killed by said attack while 100d4 will drop most anything or leave it so weak the rest of the party can easily finish it off. I'm talking about, you need 12 levels of sorcerer and a charisma in the 30's, or 16 levels of wizard and an intelligence near 40, after which you have NO SPELLS LEFT. We're latching onto the most likely and extreme case of abuse, as it does highlight how bad it can get. But let's go with a more light-weight example. A level 1 fighter, level 7 sorcerer. Level 8 character and, let's say 18 Cha. Only 39 spell levels true and a BAB of +4. Dump a single spell slot onto true strike the attack with a two-handed weapon for full power attack and blow all your spells. 39d4+8+weapon dmg, not too bad. Factor in a decent strength and magic weapon and it's a minimum of 49 before the weapon dmg comes in. And 2 feats had to be burned to do so (out of a possible 4). Of course, the average damage will be around 105 and the maximum damage caps out at 164 (again plus weapon damage). Not great for a single attack where at the same level you'd likely do as good with the 2-3 fireballs you have at your disposal, and not guaranteed kill anything you'd encounter as a L8 character. It'd be dumb to use it against a group, or early in the day when you expect more combats. But against the Boss Monster, perhaps one where your high level spells might be useless. Then it's an automatic hit for probably massive damage and in a single round. Then come the scrolls, wands and other disposable spells. Of course, there's always the possibility of a critical...
mlund 05-22-07, 05:16 PM	Actually IIRC it doesn't cap at 15d6. The only spell that caps is the sonic one, due to the fact that sonic is a very deadly 'element' in dnd. All the Orb spells cap out. Fire, Acid, Electricity, and Cold cap out at 15d6. Sonic caps out at 15d4. Force caps out at 10d6. - Marty Lund
copper_wyrmling 05-22-07, 05:37 PM	We're latching onto the most likely and extreme case of abuse, as it does highlight how bad it can get. But let's go with a more light-weight example. A level 1 fighter, level 7 sorcerer. Level 8 character and, let's say 18 Cha. Only 39 spell levels true and a BAB of +4. Dump a single spell slot onto true strike the attack with a two-handed weapon for full power attack and blow all your spells. 39+8 dmg. 46+weapon dmg, not too bad. Factor in a decent strength and magic weapon and it's as high as 49 before the weapon dmg comes in. Not great for a single attack where at the same level you'd likely do more with the 2-3 fireballs you have at your disposal, and definitely unlikely to kill anything you'd encounter as a L8 character. And 2 feats had to be burned to do so (out of a possible 4). It'd be dumb to use it against a group, or early in the day when you expect more combats. But against the Boss Monster, perhaps one where your high level spells might be useless. Then it's an automatic hit for probably massive damage and in a single round. Then come the scrolls, wands and other disposable spells. Of course, there's always the possibility of a critical... Each spell level burned adds 1d4 to the damage, not 1. So assuming your spell-level calculation is right, damage is 8 + 1.5*Str + weapon damage + 39d4, or an average of 105 + 1.5*Str + weapon damage. Note also that this is a very suboptimal build for a gish type.
Mithreinmaethor 05-22-07, 07:35 PM	I still think you are restricted to the ability to add no more than you have in BAB.
The_Jester 05-22-07, 07:36 PM	Each spell level burned adds 1d4 to the damage, not 1. So assuming your spell-level calculation is right, damage is 8 + 1.5*Str + weapon damage + 39d4, or an average of 105 + 1.5*Str + weapon damage. Note also that this is a very suboptimal build for a gish type. CRAP! I knew that too. I even double checked the die and pre-reques for the feat. Then I got distracted by figuring out how many spell levels and doing fighter crap and got completely distracted.... I'll edit it.
solbergb 05-22-07, 08:57 PM	Bad as this ruling is as a player, it gets much much worse when the monsters start doing it. Take this character, which is only CR9, so can appear as an APL6 monster, or in an APL14 encounter without affecting the EL at all. I'm not trying very hard, lets make it a half-elf to prevent race from helping. Elite array, 14 strength, 13 dex, 12 con 15 int 10 wis 8 cha statbumps to dex, int, headband of intellect+2, gloves dex+2 at level 9, 14 str, 16 dex, 12 con, 18 int, 10 wis 8 cha feats: power attack, quicken spell, improved initiative, arcane strike Uses a +1 quarterstaff as his weapon. He's a diviner, forbid enchant or something. prepares quickened truestrike in his extra slot arcane strikes his level 1-4 slots away on the first hit charge and melee attack for (ignoring concealment via truestrike) +27 d6+3+8+49d4 = 138 damage (or +31 to hit and 130 damage) and he's got a L5 spell left to cast overland flight with, so he can start out capable of charging most anyone. Most characters can't survive 138 damage in one shot until APL14ish. The only defense is to have him roll a "1" or have "APL15 dedicated to armor class" level armor - possibly flatfooted armor class that high or have non-concealment miss-chances such as those provided by "blink". (invisibility or blocking line of sight can help only if they can't "move+attack". Their bat familiar is going to pinpoint you. They WILL have a bat familiar to pick targets for them...) At APL14 though, I could have SIXTEEN of these popcorn guys. That's about 3 per character. I guarantee I could get some deaths in this encounter at any table from APL6-16, and at higher levels a TPK isn't out of the question. It's nuts. It's unbalanced. It's not good for the game. As a GM, follow the LGCS rules on unnamed bonuses from same source not stacking, and avoid the problem.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 02:04 PM	It'd be dumb to use it against a group, or early in the day when you expect more combats. But against the Boss Monster, perhaps one where your high level spells might be useless. Then it's an automatic hit for probably massive damage and in a single round. Then come the scrolls, wands and other disposable spells. Of course, there's always the possibility of a critical... Except the bonus dice doesn't get multiplied in a critical, only str/base weapon damage/etc, so the bonus damage is negligible. As for insta hits, you still fail on a natural 1... so yeah, it's one of those all or nothing tactics which can work once in awhile... which was what I was going for in the first place with it. Besides, just because one has a +20 to hit doesn't mean they can do it all the live long day... Your example of a ftr1/sorc 7 would probably have what...+8 attack at most. (+4 BaB, we'll say +2 str or dex, maybe +1 weapon focus, +1 weapon) So with true strike, you have a +28 to hit. Against certain opponents, that might not even be close (a defensively minded mage or monk... dragons, etc) True strike helps, but it doesn't make it an "auto hit" by any means, especially if its against the 'big bad'. All the Orb spells cap out. Fire, Acid, Electricity, and Cold cap out at 15d6. Sonic caps out at 15d4. Force caps out at 10d6. My mistake. However, one can easily throw a LOT of d6's around all day with a full complement of orb spells, especially if one adds in simple metamagic, like empowered and whatnot, thus the point is still valid.
solbergb 05-23-07, 02:15 PM	There is a huge difference between being able to do 300 damage in one attack and 300 damage over 3 rounds. It is true for players, and it is even more true for NPC's used against players, who never have to worry about a fight later in the day and often won't survive past one action anyway. If you can't discern the difference, that's probably why you think it is ok to arcane strike an infinite number of spell slots. Also keep in mind that if you run into the very rare opponent where one of my popcorn wizards can't hit reliably he STILL has all his other spells for the usual suspects that can hit any armor class. It will actually be a fair encounter if all his opponents have armor class 40+, but I've seen like 2 of those in Living Greyhawk, at any APL, and only one at APL lower than 10 (where these guys start coming online at APL6) I've seen zero parties that had everyone with sufficient AC to make this kind of encounter anything but "free kills for the DM" Fortunately, in Living Greyhawk, the LGCS has ruled on untyped stuff of any kind NOT stacking even if from same source. Arcane strike isn't the only open-ended thing out there.
solbergb 05-23-07, 02:21 PM	the live long day... Your example of a ftr1/sorc 7 would probably have what...+8 attack at most. (+4 BaB, we'll say +2 str or dex, maybe +1 weapon focus, +1 weapon) So with true strike, you have a +28 to hit. He has to be level 9 to get arcane strike. Arcane strike would add another +4 to hit, and levle 9, wiz or fighter, either way gives you another +1. So you're looking at +33 to hit, and no concealment miss chance with a CR9 opponent. Avoiding that isn't realistic for 100% of level 6-8 PC's and the vast majority of even level 15 PC's, nor is it realistic for the vast majority of Monster Manual bad guys of CR9-17. This is not a once in a while thing. This is, a CR9 +7 initiative creature that, 19 times out of 20, 130ish damage to a target regardless of defenses. At APL8 I can have two of them, so I have a 99.75% chance of doing at least 130 damage to one target, and a 90% chance of doing 260 to one target or 130 to two targets. and I'm still not even trying. Take my popcorn wizards above, swap power attack for weapon focus dagger, and they're attacking at +32 and doing 129 damage. Take off 5 points of damage, and I can do that damage to everyone I can get in a line with whirling blade. How many parties can survive two whirling blades ripping through their battle line, doing 124 damage to each person in the line 19 times out of 20? Especially if used by highly mobile flying enemies who can line up a decent shot? At APL14, I'd have 16 of them....at that level even 42 armor class is only going to stop half from hitting. I don't think any LG PC's really can suck up 240 points of damage even at APL14, and they certainly can't do 360 points. So if 6 of the 16 include you in their attacks, you'll need 50AC to only get hit once on average, and you have a significant chance of getting hit twice. If you can get to 52 AC, you will probably get through unscathed, but anything below 50 and it's 240 damage for you. And, well, I've got enough cash to equip them with a few orb spells from scrolls to finish off anybody still standing....when you don't have to fight a whole party, 30ish damage from 16 touch attack sources is sufficient to kill most things.
clik_ml 05-23-07, 06:36 PM	I'm a little confused why this tactic keeps being reduced to a single attack with +100d4 damage. With a full attack and TWF it gets crazy. Heck, I'm pretty excited about the legimate use of the feat whence my would-be Unseen Seer is near retirement. I'll have a potential 7 attacks per round, with +5d4 arcane strike +6d6 sneak attack, plus weapony goodness. If I just pumped that up to my BAB (so, +11d4) that would reduce most any enemy to dust at around 300 damage/round... repeatable for several rounds daily. A generic gish build (1 Ftr/6 Wiz/1 Spellsword/7 Eldritch Knight) with TWF feats and haste could unload 7 attacks in one round easily enough. The nightmare encounter of a bunch of level 9 gishes with arcane strike would still be nasty since they could have 5 attacks while hasted and two-weapon fighting. Having one enemy buffer/transporter (wizard using benign transposition, quickened for extra nastiness if you please) could ensure that these baddies TPK every single time. Any critter with a bunch of natural attacks and some spellcasting can, again, lay the smack down all over town thanks to Arcane Strike. Dragons come to mind.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 06:40 PM	Note that you would need to sac spells levels to each weapon here, Arcane Strike only helps one weapon at a time, regardless of any other issues discussed on this thread.
Mommy was an Orc 05-23-07, 06:45 PM	Note that you would need to sac spells levels to each weapon here, Arcane Strike only helps one weapon at a time, regardless of any other issues discussed on this thread. Which is where Master's Touch and Lynxpaw(exotic finessable double weapon) becomes so nasty.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 06:48 PM	Wouldn't you need to sacrifice a spell to each end of the weapon, in the same way you enchant them as seperate parts?
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 07:00 PM	There is a huge difference between being able to do 300 damage in one attack and 300 damage over 3 rounds. Yes, there is. However, you neglect to mention how the person able to do 300 damage over 3 rounds can do it multiple times per day, the 300 in one attack... only one round per day, as has been shown before. It is true for players, and it is even more true for NPC's used against players, who never have to worry about a fight later in the day and often won't survive past one action anyway. Except that-- like my pc... those npcs don't metagame and do it all the time except in certain situations, such as being near death, or against an enemy they HAVE to defeat before it notices me/the npc. And if the DM does metagame like that, well... not a very good dm, is he? If you can't discern the difference, that's probably why you think it is ok to arcane strike an infinite number of spell slots. Please don't bring out the personal attacks. They're a) rude b) against the CoC, despite how phrased and c) in this case, incorrect, as I of course saw this a long time ago, and, as stated above, know that this is a tactic that can't be used often, but CAN be abused by a shoddy DM who would use tactics like "popcorn wizards" all the time to do this attack ASAP, despite the fact that in game they KNOW they'd be wasting their entire spell arsenal and will surely be killed soon afterwards. Also keep in mind that if you run into the very rare opponent where one of my popcorn wizards can't hit reliably he STILL has all his other spells for the usual suspects that can hit any armor class. Actually he doesn't, as he's used up all his spells on the "desperation attack", leaving him with scrolls and wands that can be disarmed and sundered when held. It will actually be a fair encounter if all his opponents have armor class 40+, but I've seen like 2 of those in Living Greyhawk, at any APL, and only one at APL lower than 10 (where these guys start coming online at APL6) I've seen zero parties that had everyone with sufficient AC to make this kind of encounter anything but "free kills for the DM" Except that again this isn't a LG game (as shown by the fact we start at level 15 with 1.5 million gp and four free feats, and again, is a metagaming tactic where the npcs act as nothing more then clay pigeons, the type of tactics that a good DM doesn't abuse. I'm a little confused why this tactic keeps being reduced to a single attack with +100d4 damage. With a full attack and TWF it gets crazy. Except as noted above you can only use this on one weapon... and I don't think it can be used that way with a double weapon, as per the "enchant each end separately rule". Heck, I'm pretty excited about the legimate use of the feat whence my would-be Unseen Seer is near retirement. I'll have a potential 7 attacks per round, with +5d4 arcane strike +6d6 sneak attack, plus weapony goodness. Which is also something that my character can do, as he's actually a sorc/rogue with unseen seer levels. The difference here is that every once in awhile you need to "go nova" (to use the psionic phrase), which this allows one to do. If I just pumped that up to my BAB (so, +11d4) that would reduce most any enemy to dust at around 300 damage/round... repeatable for several rounds daily. It would if a) all your attacks hit and b) they're susceptible to sneak attack damage, which many things aren't. Otherwise, you'll do decent enough damage, but you can easily do more with the spells if you leaned towards simple orb spells with sneak attack damage.
magebeast 05-23-07, 07:24 PM	Except that-- like my pc... those npcs don't metagame and do it all the time except in certain situations, such as being near death, or against an enemy they HAVE to defeat before it notices me/the npc. And if the DM does metagame like that, well... not a very good dm, is he? If there are 12 of them vs 6 of you, why wouldn't they do it like that? Kill you fast, and if that's their only job for the day they're not in need of any resources. Or maybe they're all mad devotees of Tharizidun, certain of their eventual resurrection and rebirth if only they kill your party. I dunno the nature of your campaign, but finding a reason for NPCs to do just about anything is fairly simple for an imaginative DM. Please don't bring out the personal attacks. They're a) rude b) against the CoC, despite how phrased and c) in this case, incorrect, as I of course saw this a long time ago, and, as stated above, know that this is a tactic that can't be used often, but CAN be abused by a shoddy DM who would use tactics like "popcorn wizards" all the time to do this attack ASAP, despite the fact that in game they KNOW they'd be wasting their entire spell arsenal and will surely be killed soon afterwards. It wasn't a personal attack, I don't think, just a statement of how you view things. A lot of people, myself included, tend to judge how broken something is if an NPC does it. Even without metagaming, if you storm the castle of an evil wizard and enter his lair, he probably wants to kill you. He's probably not expecting a second attack on the same day, so using up all his resources isn't even out of character. Actually he doesn't, as he's used up all his spells on the "desperation attack", leaving him with scrolls and wands that can be disarmed and sundered when held. Say you kill six of those Popcorn wizards after they've killed three of your party members in the first round (this is being generous). Good luck sunder the object in six Wizard's hands before they lay down some more hurt. Except that again this isn't a LG game (as shown by the fact we start at level 15 with 1.5 million gp and four free feats, and again, is a metagaming tactic where the npcs act as nothing more then clay pigeons, the type of tactics that a good DM doesn't abuse. As I noted above, NPCs can have good reason for acting as clay pigeons. Except as noted above you can only use this on one weapon... and I don't think it can be used that way with a double weapon, as per the "enchant each end separately rule". This is a fuzzy area, because that specifically refers to permanent weapon enchants, and as far as I know there's no specific rule about double weapons and spells or abilities like this. I would be inclined to only allow it on one end. Which is also something that my character can do, as he's actually a sorc/rogue with unseen seer levels. The difference here is that every once in awhile you need to "go nova" (to use the psionic phrase), which this allows one to do. It would if a) all your attacks hit and b) they're susceptible to sneak attack damage, which many things aren't. Otherwise, you'll do decent enough damage, but you can easily do more with the spells if you leaned towards simple orb spells with sneak attack damage. "Not sneakable" is a strawman because after unseen seer you pretty much can only not sneak attack plants and oozes, and there are about two dozen of those versus a ton of sneakable monsters.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 07:41 PM	If there are 12 of them vs 6 of you, why wouldn't they do it like that? Kill you fast, and if that's their only job for the day they're not in need of any resources. Or maybe they're all mad devotees of Tharizidun, certain of their eventual resurrection and rebirth if only they kill your party. I dunno the nature of your campaign, but finding a reason for NPCs to do just about anything is fairly simple for an imaginative DM. because not every npc out there will have the pre-reqs neccesary and have the feat, nor would they all be kamikaze types who might fail at it. Nor would they always be in melee range to do so. If every single fight has stuff like that, well... that's bad dming, just like overloading constructs and undead against a rogue heavy group just because they're rogues, or making every meleeist into a frenzied berserker because well... they're npcs! If you get one person who does it every once in awhile... well it happens. It wasn't a personal attack, I don't think, just a statement of how you view things. He implied I didn't get it and insulted my intelligence. To me, that's a personal attack, no matter how politely phrased. A lot of people, myself included, tend to judge how broken something is if an NPC does it. Even without metagaming, if you storm the castle of an evil wizard and enter his lair, he probably wants to kill you. He's probably not expecting a second attack on the same day, so using up all his resources isn't even out of character. Except that a wizard for the most part can kill a pc dead much more easily then wasting precious spell slots. Save or die spells, summoning spells, or again, ye olde orb spells are MUCH more effective against a group... unless you think the supra intelligent wizard would blow all or most of their spells into a single melee round against ONE pc when the group is still there. Say you kill six of those Popcorn wizards after they've killed three of your party members in the first round (this is being generous). Good luck sunder the object in six Wizard's hands before they lay down some more hurt. I'd say that's being generous. What makes you think these wizards would a) be able to get the drop on us and b) even be able to attack like that? PCs can easily counter melee attacks such as that if properly prepared, and the wizards would be better off (if getting the drop on us), to deluge us with status effects and other nastiness, including save or dies, rather then popping off ALL their spells in such a situation... except again, as a metagaming tactic. As I noted above, NPCs can have good reason for acting as clay pigeons. CERTAIN pcs, every once in awhile, sure, if the personalities dictate it. But almost every PC, in the exact same way? Sure, if we were playing Dynasty Warriors or something like that. This is a fuzzy area, because that specifically refers to permanent weapon enchants, and as far as I know there's no specific rule about double weapons and spells or abilities like this. I would be inclined to only allow it on one end. Actually it works on stuff like bless weapon, etc. as well, AFAIK, so it isn't just for permanent effects. "Not sneakable" is a strawman because after unseen seer you pretty much can only not sneak attack plants and oozes, and there are about two dozen of those versus a ton of sneakable monsters. Unseen Seer does nothing of the sort. It boosts divination spell casting and gives +4d6 to precision damage, and gives a nondetection effect. There's NOTHING inherent in the unseen seer that allows it to sneak attack undead, constructs, et al.
Mommy was an Orc 05-23-07, 07:47 PM	Unseen Seer does nothing of the sort. It boosts divination spell casting and gives +4d6 to precision damage, and gives a nondetection effect. There's NOTHING inherent in the unseen seer that allows it to sneak attack undead, constructs, et al. It also lets you pick divination spells from any list to add as spells known. Listening Lorecall, Grave Strike, Golem Strike, etc...
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 07:49 PM	It also lets you pick divination spells from any list to add as spells known. Listening Lorecall, Grave Strike, Golem Strike, etc... Which are all spells any gish with sneak attack can get easily with UMD if they aren't ALREADY on their spell list, thus making the point moot. Heck, you don't even NEED to be a gish. UMD the scrolls or a wand or a staff and you can do it without the spellcasting at all if you want... as the point was that unseen seer somehow allowed it as part of its natural class progression, not in a way nearly any other class can emulate in one way or another.
Crazy Boro 05-23-07, 07:51 PM	Which are all spells any gish with sneak attack can get easily with UMD if they aren't ALREADY on their spell list, thus making the point moot. Heck, you don't even NEED to be a gish. UMD the scrolls or a wand or a staff and you can do it without the spellcasting at all if you want. The "-strike" spells only last the 1 round though, so wouldn't they only be useable for an AOO that you make and otherwise a wasted round?
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 07:59 PM	They only last the 1 round though, so wouldn't they only be useable for an AOO that you make and otherwise a wasted round? Yes, if you UMD it. However, any gish type (which you'd need to be to qualify for unseen seer before 13th level for the most part) can get those spells without unseen seer itself (in fact, one of the pre-reqs is arcane spell casting, so almost all non bard seers would have these spells on their lists), thus making the argument that Unseen Seer somehow allows one to be able to sneak attack things because they're an US silly, as nearly ANY gish can do so.
solbergb 05-23-07, 08:01 PM	I'm a little confused why this tactic keeps being reduced to a single attack with +100d4 damage. With a full attack and TWF it gets crazy. . Because I'm not trying very hard :) I'm illustrating that even without an optomized build, you can do enough damage to guarantee a kill if you get an action, on either side of the table. If I get into full attacks, with a build designed to exploit it it gets much, much worse. Especially if we're outside of LG where wraithstrike is still legal.
copper_wyrmling 05-23-07, 08:02 PM	Yes, if you UMD it. However, any gish type (which you'd need to be to qualify for unseen seer before 13th level for the most part) can get those spells without unseen seer itself (in fact, one of the pre-reqs is arcane spell casting, so almost all non bard seers would have these spells on their lists), thus making the argument that Unseen Seer somehow allows one to be able to sneak attack things because they're an US silly, as nearly ANY gish can do so. Arcanists only get Golem Strike. Grave Strike is a cleric spell, Vine Strike is a druid/ranger spell (although I can't remember if you can get that one through Unseen Seer), Listening Lorecall is druid I think (assuming you use the Spell Compendium version).
Crazy Boro 05-23-07, 08:02 PM	Yes, if you UMD it. However, any gish type (which you'd need to be to qualify for unseen seer before 13th level for the most part) can get those spells without unseen seer itself (in fact, one of the pre-reqs is arcane spell casting, so almost all non bard seers would have these spells on their lists), thus making the argument that Unseen Seer somehow allows one to be able to sneak attack things because they're an US silly, as nearly ANY gish can do so. I know that. It's just that you brought up that you don't even need to be a gish and could just rely on the scrolls, wands, etc for those spells. Otherwise, you need unseen seer to get all those spells since gravestrike is clerical and vinestrike is druid only iirc.
Eric Anondson 05-23-07, 08:05 PM	However, any gish type (which you'd need to be to qualify for unseen seer before 13th level for the most part) can get those spells without unseen seer itself (in fact, one of the pre-reqs is arcane spell casting, so almost all non bard seers would have these spells on their lists), thus making the argument that Unseen Seer somehow allows one to be able to sneak attack things because they're an US silly, as nearly ANY gish can do so.Grave strike is divine only (cleric and paladin), not arcane. Unseen Seer's advanced learning allows it to collect 'em all across all spell lists, arcane and divine.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 08:06 PM	I know that. It's just that you brought up that you don't even need to be a gish and could just rely on the scrolls, wands, etc for those spells. Otherwise, you need unseen seer to get all those spells since gravestrike is clerical and vinestrike is druid only iirc. No you don't... there's lots of ways, the cheapest of course being an item that allows it a few times per day (unless for some reason you're playing an undead/plant/golem heavy campaign in general, 3-5 times per day should be enough for most rogue types). The point here being that you DON'T need to be an unseen seer to have these abilities, and trying to say that being an U-S somehow makes it happen inherently is incorrect, as again, any type of arcane caster or person with UMD can do the same if they so wished.
copper_wyrmling 05-23-07, 08:09 PM	No you don't... there's lots of ways, the cheapest of course being an item that allows it a few times per day (unless for some reason you're playing an undead/plant/golem heavy campaign in general, 3-5 times per day should be enough for most rogue types). The point here being that you DON'T need to be an unseen seer to have these abilities, and trying to say that being an U-S somehow makes it happen inherently is incorrect, as again, any type of arcane caster or person with UMD can do the same if they so wished. Sure, if your DM lets you have custom magic items, there's a lot of stuff you can do. In LG, none of us will ever be able to do that ;) Arcane casters generally can NOT cast Grave Strike etc, you need a way to get cleric spells onto your list, and Unseen Seer grants that (and it's a very natural choice for anyone with a lot of sneak attack: LG encounters tend to feature undead on a very regular basis).
Crazy Boro 05-23-07, 08:09 PM	No you don't... there's lots of ways, the cheapest of course being an item that allows it a few times per day (unless for some reason you're playing an undead/plant/golem heavy campaign in general, 3-5 times per day should be enough for most rogue types). The point here being that you DON'T need to be an unseen seer to have these abilities, and trying to say that being an U-S somehow makes it happen inherently is incorrect, as again, any type of arcane caster or person with UMD can do the same if they so wished. All the items you previously had listed for your example had been use-activated items that prevented you from making an attack that round (like taking the action to UMD) and as such, I would have no clue as to you meaning special permanent items that allowed you to use it a specific amount of times a day as a swift action like in the spells.
solbergb 05-23-07, 08:13 PM	I'm not sure why I'm going to beat my head against the wall longer, except it's been a long day at work and at least it is a different wall than the work wall (or cubicle) "Not every NPC will do it" is not a useful argument that something isn't broken with a given interpretation. Metagaming that a broken rule won't be used is also not an argument that something isn't broken. I wish I could remember whose fallacy that is, but I think it is one. Or maybe I'm confusing it with the houseruling fallacy. "He won't have any power for the rest of the day" doesn't matter if he's dead should he refrain from using it. Just like nuclear weapons in real life, this kind of tactic is going to be in-character to use by the LOSING side. (this tendency in wargames to nuke everything when a side started to lose really worried strategic planners in the early 50s, when strategic strikes wouldn't end the world and conventional wars between nuclear powers using nuclera weapons were still considered an option) What's more, such a "popcorn wizard" could have a perfectly normal spell mix for an ordinary day. But the day PC's show up, keep in mind that an EL+2 encounter for the PC's is an EL+4-6 encounter for the bad guys (depending on party size and exact party levels). He is absolutely right to panic and unload the nuke - the only opportunity cost for having this option is a single feat and a 5th level slot for the quickened truestrike. It will get the most dangerous party member all the way dead, or several if he uses whirling blade. By removing himself from the action, even taking out only one PC, his team is most likely to win - AND he can still contribute somewhat with his emergency consumables, since he could do this attack at no real personal risk to himself (in the whirling blade option, or if he attacked an isolated PC) (math behind the EL's. Four CR9 creatures are EL13. That's an EL+3 encounter for an APL10 party, which consists of 4-6 characters who average 10th level. Lets say 4 CR10 PC's, making it the best case scenario. That is an EL14 encounter for our four popcorn mages, or for them an EL+5 encounter (EL+6 if the party is 6 PC's) Why wouldn't they panic? Their best chance of winning would be for each one to pick a PC and "nova". Encounters at normla EL's are tiered so PC's usually win, and that means any PC encounter is going to be a "fight of his life" situation for the NPC's once they realize what is going on or if they know the PC reputation) When you take two interpretations of a rule, and interpretation 1 leads to a nice power boost to any melee GISH build, good enough that it's as common as power attack for a 2hf melee on that kind of character vs interpretation 2 that turns any arcane spellcaster into an instant nuke if he starts losing... Most reasonable people would go with the interpretation that doesn't involve arcanists getting "I get to kill someone before I die, every time" for a single feat. It isn't like taking the more normal interpretation leads to any bad precedents for other feats or rules, quite the contrary - in general dissallowing stacking from same-source effects of any kind is a good way to avoid infinite loop exploits.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 08:13 PM	Sure, if your DM lets you have custom magic items, there's a lot of stuff you can do. In LG, none of us will ever be able to do that ;) One of several reasons I don't play LG :) Arcane casters generally can NOT cast Grave Strike etc, you need a way to get cleric spells onto your list, and Unseen Seer grants that (and it's a very natural choice for anyone with a lot of sneak attack: LG encounters tend to feature undead on a very regular basis). Of course, most arcane casters don't need to cast it, as they don't sneak attack as well... as for gish's, they can get it by multiclassing into cleric (which, in an undead heavy style of campaign, would be more logical over sorc/wizard for a sneak attacking gish anyway), or again, can do it through items, though limiting their effectiveness. The main point that hasn't been refuted by anyone though, is that U-S does NOT inherently allow free sneak attacks on things that can't be sneak attacked, as was originally stated and implied.
copper_wyrmling 05-23-07, 08:22 PM	Of course, most arcane casters don't need to cast it, as they don't sneak attack as well... as for gish's, they can get it by multiclassing into cleric (which, in an undead heavy style of campaign, would be more logical over sorc/wizard for a sneak attacking gish anyway), or again, can do it through items, though limiting their effectiveness. The main point that hasn't been refuted by anyone though, is that U-S does NOT inherently allow free sneak attacks on things that can't be sneak attacked, as was originally stated and implied. But if you go cleric, you don't have Golemstrike. LG has a lot of constructs too :( Also, in a point-buy system it's easier to make a smart rogue than a wise one (since you want Int for skills). You stated that the full-attack + sneak + arcane strike damage was only applicable when the monsters were vulnerable to sneak, which many things aren't. The reply to your post said that after taking a lot of levels in unseen seer, "not vulnerable to sneak" becomes largely irrelevant. So okay, if you want to be strictly correct, replace that with "after taking a lot of levels in unseen seer, you can make "not vulnerable to sneak" become largely irrelevant". The point stands - the unseen seer full attacking with sneak and arcane strike (not stacking the damage dice) can get excellent damage just from those two factors against almost all opponents, provided they chose their advanced learning to let them use their sneak attack against almost all opponents.
solbergb 05-23-07, 08:23 PM	One of several reasons I don't play LG :) So why are you posting here? Seriously, what works in a home campaign doesn't work in a global campaign with 15000 players. You can allow infinite arcane strike and for social or houserule reasons never have a case where in your campaign it causes a problem. Your players can agree to refrain from using it that way, and your DM can refrain from introducing monsters using it that way. You say it can be done in theory, but in practice you choose not to do it. The same can be said of things like divine metamagic persistent combined with nightsticks to make every spell that is persistable persistable for quite cheap. In a home campaign, the supply of nightsticks can be limited. In one like this, first persistent spell, then nightsticks, then divine metamagic were excluded because unlike the arcane strike case, the rules clearly supported the abuses. What we are telling you is that in OUR campaign, it WILL be a problem if this interpretation was followed. PC's would use it to vaporize enemies (more than 3 fights a day is unusual, and one fight a day isn't unusual) Authors would use it to vaporize PC's Instead, we take the other ruling, our "Campaign houserules" explicitly state that untyped stuff from same source never stacks. And thus we don't have the problems.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 08:24 PM	I'm not sure why I'm going to beat my head against the wall longer, except it's been a long day at work and at least it is a different wall than the work wall (or cubicle) Well it's your choice. "Not every NPC will do it" is not a useful argument that something isn't broken with a given interpretation. It is when the main point you're arguing is that for some reason every npc would start using it if it was legal. Metagaming that a broken rule won't be used is also not an argument that something isn't broken. I wish I could remember whose fallacy that is, but I think it is one. Or maybe I'm confusing it with the houseruling fallacy. You're thinking of the Oberoni fallacy, which doesn't apply. This isn't a broken rule, as it has both benefits and drawbacks, and can't be used by every pc or npc without a specific investment. In fact, you're suggesting that there should be HORDES or kamikazing npcs out there using this nova tactic because well.. they're npcs, which is actually the opposite of the type of rules the O-F is meant to be used against. "He won't have any power for the rest of the day" doesn't matter if he's dead should he refrain from using it. Just like nuclear weapons in real life, this kind of tactic is going to be in-character to use by the LOSING side. (this tendency in wargames to nuke everything when a side started to lose really worried strategic planners in the early 50s, when strategic strikes wouldn't end the world and conventional wars between nuclear powers using nuclera weapons were still considered an option) Which is perfectly valid, as again, it's a "desperation tactic", as said several times before... You've been saying it should be used right off the bat, all the time, by waves of enemies, despite the fact that a) not everyone would have the caster levels and b) not everyone would have the feat.... I'm not sure if you're strawmanning me or yourself with that last post. What's more, such a "popcorn wizard" could have a perfectly normal spell mix for an ordinary day. But the day PC's show up, keep in mind that an EL+2 encounter for the PC's is an EL+4-6 encounter for the bad guys (depending on party size and exact party levels). He is absolutely right to panic and unload the nuke - the only opportunity cost for having this option is a single feat and a 5th level slot for the quickened truestrike. Because again, the npc knows that a) the pcs are anything special and b) the npc knows that these guys are 4-6 levels above them. And of course, the npc with the varied spellcasting would rather kill themselves after taking out one person rather then use that full compliment of spells to somehow... escape and live. Seriously, it seems to me that you think the npcs would rather die in a blaze of glory rather then cut and run, which in dnd, is pretty easy to do with an ounce of smarts. It will get the most dangerous party member all the way dead, or several if he uses whirling blade. By removing himself from the action, even taking out only one PC, his team is most likely to win - AND he can still contribute somewhat with his emergency consumables, since he could do this attack at no real personal risk to himself (in the whirling blade option, or if he attacked an isolated PC) Which again, falls into the "desperation attack" catagory, not the "use every time catagory". When you take two interpretations of a rule, and interpretation 1 leads to a nice power boost to any melee GISH build, good enough that it's as common as power attack for a 2hf melee on that kind of character vs interpretation 2 that turns any arcane spellcaster into an instant nuke if he starts losing... Except that it's not an instant nuke, as a nuke would technically be capable of dropping the entire party. At the most, this takes out ONE (maybe two, if this wizard somehow took cleave), beings, and again, thats IF the wizard has no sense of self preservation. Most reasonable people would go with the interpretation that doesn't involve arcanists getting "I get to kill someone before I die, every time" for a single feat. That's nice. Except that they can do that with spells anyway (contingencies, etc., and its never a "I get to kill someone before I die, every time" seeing as how it's not an auto hit to do so... plus the fact that if several rounds have passed and they're near death, odds are their spell levels are signifigantly lower then normal, unless your kamikazes dont actually use their spells in hopes of novaing against one pc... in which case, again, very bad metagaming and dming.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 08:26 PM	So why are you posting here? Seriously, what works in a home campaign doesn't work in a global campaign with 15000 players. Because... again, the dm for the game I'm in decided to post about it here and I replied to him. Which, if you re-read the first page, you'd know. What we are telling you is that in OUR campaign, it WILL be a problem if this interpretation was followed. That's nice. This isn't about LG though, as stated again in the OP.
Timlagor 05-23-07, 08:39 PM	I do wonder what a WisO is doing posting to a thread that's completely outside the remit of the baord it's on.
solbergb 05-23-07, 08:45 PM	The point stands - the unseen seer full attacking with sneak and arcane strike (not stacking the damage dice) can get excellent damage just from those two factors against almost all opponents, provided they chose their advanced learning to let them use their sneak attack against almost all opponents. Yeah. And they can do it without needing the "popcorn mage" interpretation to be effective. They're essentially another form of gish. Unseen seer radically transforms what it means to be a rogue. To the point where I think it's probably a mistake to include it in the game, since it tends to make actual rogues irrelevant.
WizO_Mengde 05-23-07, 08:45 PM	I do wonder what a WisO is doing posting to a thread that's completely outside the remit of the baord it's on. Because as originally stated, the dm for the game posted here and I replied.
solbergb 05-23-07, 08:49 PM	WizO keeps expanding what I say well beyond what I actually said. It only takes ONE encounter of popcorn mages in the whole Flaness to TPK a party. And it's a cute encounter that scales neatly from APL6-16, TPKing everybody regardless of party mix or what tier they happen to be. It doesn't require everyone to use it. Something is broken if a PC using the tactic can routinely kill monsters many CR's higher than himself in a single action. 19 times out of 20. Something is broken if an NPC encounter designed with it will TPK a party every time. Which it can. One TPK ends a campaign. One PC killing all your BBEG's single-handedly over and over will also tend to end a campaign. It's a bad interpretation. If this is how you're going to rule in your campaign, all I can say is, better not let any PC take Arcane strike, and better show a lot of restraint if you use it yourself. Or there might not be a campaign after people vote with their feet. And actually, as you are the player, and he's the DM, why are you arguing with him? You won't win. I can't imagine your desire to make arcane-strike all-powerful is going to be very popular with the other players either - or it won't if the DM uses the feat the same way the players intend to. Anything that helps the underdog vaporize higher CR encounters is going to hurt PC's a lot more than the monsters. The expected result for NPCs is they lose, and PC's face a lot more encounters - losing one entirely ends the game.
copper_wyrmling 05-23-07, 08:53 PM	It is when the main point you're arguing is that for some reason every npc would start using it if it was legal. He's not arguing that. He's demonstrating that a party of PCs would most likely consider this tactic to be incredibly unfair and broken if it was used against them. That said... it is a nuke. It gives you a chance of winning, or at least pulling off a draw, against overwhelming odds. A lot of people SHOULD be working towards getting it, if we use your interpretation. You're thinking of the Oberoni fallacy, which doesn't apply. This isn't a broken rule, as it has both benefits and drawbacks, and can't be used by every pc or npc without a specific investment. That doesn't make something non-broken: it can still be broken if the benefits vastly outweigh the drawbacks and the investment is small compared to the cost. As a stupid extreme example to demonstrate the principle, consider a feat that lets you add +100 damage to any attack with a melee weapon, but you take 5 damage every time you make such an attack. The feat has prereqs of Power Attack, heavy armor proficiency, and +3d6 sneak attack. It has drawbacks, it can't be used without a specific investment... but it's pretty obviously ridiculously broken for a feat. To me, your interpretation of Arcane Strike seems about equally bizarre from a balance perspective. Which again, falls into the "desperation attack" catagory, not the "use every time catagory". Does it matter for NPCs? Does it matter for most PCs? Only if they're expecting to fight lots of encounters in the day... and just shorting half or a third of your spells into arcane strike is still an ungodly amount of damage if you let them stack. Except that it's not an instant nuke, as a nuke would technically be capable of dropping the entire party. At the most, this takes out ONE (maybe two, if this wizard somehow took cleave), beings, and again, thats IF the wizard has no sense of self preservation. Unless they're using whirling blade - I realize no truestrike in that case, but getting BAB = CL and Int to hit may be almost as good in some cases. If it's not LG, can they wraithstrike? Also remember, this is the wimpy example, what happens when you stick this interpretation on some random sorcerer NPC with a level of fighter. If you actually want to demonstrate the extremes of what this interpretation does, there are MUCH nastier things you can do. That's nice. Except that they can do that with spells anyway (contingencies, etc., and its never a "I get to kill someone before I die, every time" seeing as how it's not an auto hit to do so... "I get to kill someone before I die, 95% of the time" is not really significantly less scary. plus the fact that if several rounds have passed and they're near death, odds are their spell levels are signifigantly lower then normal, unless your kamikazes dont actually use their spells in hopes of novaing against one pc... in which case, again, very bad metagaming and dming. Spell burn is actually pretty slow in combat, since you can only cast one high-level spell / round - and at high levels, at least in LG, it doesn't usually take several rounds to figure out when you're really outmatched. (Last game my L12 sorcerer played was a two-rounder. Every day, she spent most of her L1 spells on semi-permanent Friendly Face, most of her L2 spells on semi-permanent See Invisibility, and all her L3 spells and most of her L4's on providing Phantom Steeds and Greater Magic Weapon for the whole party. She still finished every day with 60-70 spell levels left over.)
solbergb 05-23-07, 10:18 PM	actually, except at APL6, it is an instant nuke because it can drop the whole party (even at APL6, whirling blade might do it). If we're not in LG, we can assume the wraithstrike/whirling blade combo WILL be used for this tactic. There is no reason NOT to use it. at 6, we've got only one popcorn mage at 8 we've got two at 10 we've got four at 12 we've got eight at 14 we've got sixteen all of them can fly, to set up the line attack. All of them have superior initiatives, or I could swap one out for a bard/marshall to push inits much, much higher, and that guy could also arcane strike/whirl blade for a respectable amount, just not as much as the wizards, but boosting everyone's attack mods and their damage by a bit with wraithstrike and whirling blade, I don't need the quickened truestrike although after APL6 we might have one guy using truestrike to nail the guy in the party with concealment miss chance effect running and the other using wraithstrike to get everyone else. Those using wraithstrike can slap a few extra points of damage onto the mix. There's a lot I can do to raise attack mods if we swap out one popcorn mage for a bard or even if the mages sacrifice a small amount of their attack mods to work in a weapon buff or two (GMW adds +2 to hit for a cost of net 5 damage and runs all day. Heroism adds +2 to hit for loss of 7.5 damage and runs for 90 minutes, etc)
The_Jester 05-24-07, 10:18 AM	Which is perfectly valid, as again, it's a "desperation tactic", as said several times before... You've been saying it should be used right off the bat, all the time, by waves of enemies, despite the fact that a) not everyone would have the caster levels and b) not everyone would have the feat.... I'm not sure if you're strawmanning me or yourself with that last post. As we've already said, mix in a quickened true strike or a regular one before hand and it's lethal. Mix in with whirling blade and it's good against a group. Now, the ultimate tweak, toss in some pearls of power. It's no longer once per day. Heck, even the level 10 half-build I posted earlier had 39 spell levels to toss out. That could easily be split into a couple 20d4 attacks that should be halving hitpoints if not killing outright. Your other defenses (a +28 will not always hit) aren't really an adequate defense of the tactic. Just because a wildly broken rule cannot be used all the time and work doesn't mean it's not broken. And the +20 was before the die was even rolled, it's a 20+bonuses+d20 and could just easily get into the 30s or 40s. And the defense that a "1 still misses" doesn't mean much. You cannot say something is balanced because it will automatically fail 5% of the time. I'm impressed by your dedication. You're posting on a forum and everyone is posting against you and you stick with it. But there is a point where you have to concede defeat and bow out or just be remembered as "that stubborn WizO who just wanted to do +100d4" which completely removes any and all credibility you have. I hate to lose too but there is simply waaaaaaaay too much opportunity for abuse for that feat. We get it. You like the idea of having a mage be able to "nova". That's fine, that's cool. Could be a heck of alot of fun and lead to some interesting encounters and role-playing. But please, pretty please, don't argue that a feat legally lets you do it. Make a house rule that it does. Ask your DM for a personal ability and work out an appropriate penalty. But, really, c'mon. A feat that lets you do 20d4 damage and in a single strike and still leaves you with enough firepower to drop a couple fireballs? Be reasonable here.
cycloptic_squirrel 05-24-07, 04:28 PM	*sigh* Let me get this straight. You feel arcane strike is balanced when you're allowed to pump as many spells into it as you would like because you have to blow a significant portion or perhaps even the entire complement of your spells to get the spectacular 100d4 effect everyone is worried about. And you have 1.5 million gold to play around with? :uh-huh: OK - you go nova. It's awesome, but you're spent - at least until after the fight when you go to your ginormous bag of pearls of power. Now you're all better. Actually, scratch that, because that morning you cast (Rapid) Rary's Mnemonic enhancer two dozen times, preparing three first level spells each time. Now you have enough fodder to nova once a combat without impacting your higher level spells, and leaving the option for an emergency nova. After the combat you go to your ginormous bag of economically efficient pearls of power 1. Wait, no, you have a better idea - why don't you not do the nova and only do an incredible amount of damage every round. Yeah. That'll help make the times when you do the ridiculous amount of damage very dramatic. You're thinking of the Oberoni fallacy, which doesn't apply. This isn't a broken rule, as it has both benefits and drawbacks, and can't be used by every pc or npc without a specific investment. Just for a moment, let's use this reasoning on the bag of rats fighter. Benefits: This tactic has this in spades. You just get to keep hitting the bad guy. This is great! Drawbacks: Must carry bag in one hand, leaving it unusable for other things (shields, lanterns, practicing duck calls). Also, if you have a two handed weapon, but not quickdraw, you must carry it in the other hand, which prevents you from using combat reflexes (should you posses it) as well as the aforementioned activities. You must acquire a bag of rats after every fight, which might not make your local druid too happy, considering your intent. You must also keep rats alive until fight - protecting them from predators, poison gas, other fighters seeking to use the same tactic; this activity takes effort and time. Cannot be used by every pc or npc without a specific investment: This is also very true. You must have whirlwind attack, which is the pinnacle of a long feat chain. The bag of rats fighting style was not broken, as it has both benefits and drawbacks, and can't be used by every pc or npc without a specific investment. Except that it's not an instant nuke, as a nuke would technically be capable of dropping the entire party. At the most, this takes out ONE (maybe two, if this wizard somehow took cleave), beings, and again, thats IF the wizard has no sense of self preservation. In the right circumstances the feat can certainly be abused as a nuke. Take a straight up NPC wizard specialist (we'll say diviner - ditch enchantment), add some feats. Let's give him PC wealth, since your party will be very well equipped. He ends up with Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 24, Wis 10, Cha 8. Get him arcane strike and the great cleave tree. The other feats are personal choice. His spell levels start at 8 and go 2,4,5,6,6,7,7,7. He reserves two spells of levels 6,7, and 8 and one spell at each level of 1-5. Items - let's say +6 headband, +4 belt, a skillful whip dagger, a glove of storing, and a lesser metamagic rod of quicken; that leaves us about 85 k to play with. Basically, he casts overland flight and greater enlarge person. He might cast some other things, but he's conservative, sometimes he uses scrolls. When he engages the party, he might do superior invisibility. He might skip it and just cast brilliant blade. Point is, when this guy gets a full attack, he's unloading everything not previously reserved, 113 spell levels; you're only looking at a +25 to hit (more if he's smart) but that's also from a weapon that ignores armor. When he does hit, it's going to do around 300 hp. And if he kills someone, he can cleave into the rest of the party - the guy has 30 ft. reach. With a haste he'd have +25/+25/+20/+15. And he could do a quickened true strike on whoever seems very dodgy. And after the initial blast settles, he's still has roughly one spell from every level to clean up with, not counting any scrolls he has. And I've only picked out half his feats and a little over half his equipment. He can still function as a full wizard. And he still has the contingency in his back pocket. If he gets the drop on you, the first you'll know of it is your team getting cleaved through in one hit by someone using superior invisibility with true seeing and a brilliant blade. On the off chance he misses or fails to drop someone, there's a quickened snake's swiftness that lets him try again. That's the surprise round - now we get to roll for initiative. This guy is a nuke. He is not suicidal. He will go home after this fight, win or lose - a contingent teleport assures him of that. There should be three things of note about this guy: 1) He's designed with a purpose, but he could be tweaked up a lot. Prestige classes, weird items, a decent stat array, some broken feats. The only thing that isn't really bland about him is his weapon - though that could be remedied with a quickened Tensor's, which would work almost as well. 2) Probably not next level - but the level after - he can afford to permanently put brilliant on his weapon - that will cut his prep actions by a round, which is huge. 3) This guy is level 15. I am not claiming encounter will be like him; but do you think that it would be commonly expected that you could prevail over him with only 20% loss in resources? Now imagine twins. Except that by doing the 100d4 damage to one single person, you're sacrificing a total damage output far greater, as you pointed out yourself... and that's not even counting the non direct damaging insta-kill type spells! And it's a mistake to assume that a "low-level fighter feat" is overpowered when a) you actually need to be mid-level to even qualify for it and b) to be able to do the damage I'm talking about, you need 12 levels of sorcerer and a charisma in the 30's, or 16 levels of wizard and an intelligence near 40, after which you have NO SPELLS LEFT. In other words, only a high level caster can actually pull off this kind of attack, and as we both agree on, the spells said casters can pull off without funneling them into an arcane strike are much much worse. Thanks for helping prove my point :) With the cash flow you're talking about, it'd be about level nine for both. The wizard's int would only need to be 28 and the the sorcerer's charisma need only be 18. With that much capital, I'm sure you can combine rings of wizardry I, II, and III; it'd be about about half your projected wealth, but you could do it. It wouldn't really be even worth considering trying until a few levels later, but I am curious: what 6th level spell or set of spells utterly annihilate someone as completely as this feat? In short - the feat as you interpret it is very game breaking. It completely changes the dynamics of the situation. If the other guy can do it, there is little recourse short of not being in his way in the first place. If both parties can do it, it's pretty much who can penetrate the other guy's defenses and get one hit first? Might seem similar to what D&D combats are - but this comes much before anything near it's power is available.
WizO_Mengde 05-24-07, 04:42 PM	*sigh* Let me get this straight. You feel arcane strike is balanced when you're allowed to pump as many spells into it as you would like because you have to blow a significant portion or perhaps even the entire complement of your spells to get the spectacular 100d4 effect everyone is worried about. No, I'm saying it's balanced because to get that extra damage you have to give up spells to do so. Period. Whether it's 1 spell level, 10 spell levels, or a 100 spell levels. And you have 1.5 million gold to play around with? :uh-huh: Yes... though what this has to do with arcane strike, i dunno. Actually, scratch that, because that morning you cast (Rapid) Rary's Mnemonic enhancer two dozen times, preparing three first level spells each time. Now you have enough fodder to nova once a combat without impacting your higher level spells, and leaving the option for an emergency nova. After the combat you go to your ginormous bag of economically efficient pearls of power 1. Yes, because this is a game where I can dump a bunch of cash into pearls of power just to nova things one at a time. Or maybe a significant portion of that gold needs to be used on other things, such as followers, a stronghold, and items to keep me alive in a world where level 15 is somewhat low man on the totem pole. But no, that's ok, I'll just waste the gold so I can nova several times a day and ignore any other threats to my person whenever I'm not novaing. Because I'm an idiot. Wait, no, you have a better idea - why don't you not do the nova and only do an incredible amount of damage every round. Yeah. That'll help make the times when you do the ridiculous amount of damage very dramatic. Yes... because I'm going for dramatics here, not for a potentially cool attack I can do every now and again for tight spots.
clik_ml 05-24-07, 05:29 PM	Because I'm an idiot. Hey now, I think that name calling might be against terms of service.
Mithreinmaethor 05-24-07, 05:55 PM	I am still saying that the BAB is the hard wall you run up against. As an example a Sorc 6 / Fighter 9 with BAB +12 Spells 1st - 7 / 2nd - 6 / 3rd - 4 Could dump all 4 3rd level spells for +12 AB and +12d4 damage per attack. He couldnt dump anymore because you are restricted by your BAB. 2nd round could dump all 6 2nd level spells for the same above etc etc So after 3 rounds he is spell less. And hopes there isnt another encounter before the party rests. So at 15th he could have 3 attacks +24/+19/+14 each doing +12d4 damage for the 1st and 2nd rounds. +19/+14/+9 and +7d4 damage per attack the 3rd round. And does he really want to be in the middle of combat ? using all his spells like this and not having an AC worth a crap etc
solbergb 05-24-07, 06:19 PM	The feat only has a BAB limit on the attack bonus, not on the damage bonus.
The_Jester 05-24-07, 09:10 PM	Yes... because I'm going for dramatics here, not for a potentially cool attack I can do every now and again for tight spots. Drama is fine, just do NOT argue it's a legal rule option. Make up something else.
Mithreinmaethor 05-25-07, 05:50 PM	The feat only has a BAB limit on the attack bonus, not on the damage bonus. No they are tied together. Not separate of each other.
bitznarf 05-25-07, 06:20 PM	When directly contradicting someone elses interpretation of the rules, it helps to have some supporting text, else it turns into a 'yes it does', 'no it doesn't' type of debate. Just a FYI.
magebeast 05-25-07, 06:38 PM	No they are tied together. Not separate of each other. You must sacrifice one of your spells for the day(of 1st level or higher) to do this, but you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed. The bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus. You are of course welcome to interpret it that way, but I do not think a close reading of this feat actually links those two things.
Wraith235 05-25-07, 06:51 PM	so glad I typed the Feat text out
solbergb 05-29-07, 01:53 PM	No they are tied together. Not separate of each other. "the bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus." Where are you getting the implication that the damage bonus is affected? It explicitly says "to your attack rolls". It doesn't even remotely imply that the damage bonus is so limited. A level 11 wizard could presumably sacrifice a level 6 spell and get +5 to hit and 6d4 extra damage.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 02:30 PM	Hey now, I think that name calling might be against terms of service. Certainly nobody is allowed to insult a Wiz_O without consequence. tsk tsk tsk:angelhide
Vamroc 06-28-07, 05:48 PM	I have a player, who claims to be a WotC employee among other things, who is determined that with arcane strike you can funnel all of your day's allowance of spells into one hit and do +100d4 or so damage. Patiently explaining to him that the book clearly states "a spell" not all your spells or as many spells as you want doesn't seem to convince him. Has anyone else run into this before? Can you REALLY do +100d4 damage if you have 100 levels of spells channeled into your weapon? That would seem a little broken to me, to say the least. Please let me know what you think Dan I think what your player is trying to say is that you can have one spell prepared multiple times. Then blow all the castings of that spell in one attack. If they are all Empowered, Hightened, and you have multiple items that increase your caster level. +100D4 is possible very very unlikly but possible. By the time you have enough levels to cast 1 augmented 3 lvl Lightining Bolt as an 8th level Lightining Bolt your on the verge of retirement. So why waste all those slots on those two feats. It's very counter productive when you lose all that potential just to cast 1 lvl 8th level bolt. I can think of actual 8th level spells that are way better that Lightining Bolt. Like Mass Charm Monster, Greater Shout, or Moment of Prescience and those are just from the PHB.
bitznarf 06-28-07, 05:57 PM	Vamroc, have you read the whole thread? If not I suggest you go back and do so.
Vamroc 06-28-07, 10:25 PM	Either way you look at "player X" and his +100d4 he's talking out of his butt-hole. The charactor would be a bad build and you would have to focus on making it a one trick pony. Which if you miss would be make a new charactor time every time the guy walked in to combat.
bitznarf 06-28-07, 10:28 PM	Either way you look at "player X" and his +100d4 he's talking out of his butt-hole. The charactor would be a bad build and you would have to focus on making it a one trick pony. Which if you miss would be make a new charactor time every time the guy walked in to combat. Yes, he is wrong in many peoples opinion. No, even if he was right this would not be a one trick pony, this would be a desperation tactic 'kill it or we die type' thing. And no, you don't need to only prep one spell in all slots; assuming you could actually nova your entire prepped spells into this like he was contending.