Post/Author/DateTime	Post
turtlemonkey 01-31-06, 10:52 PM	What do yall think about arcane stirke? off hand +1 ar and 1d4 dmg per spell lvl seems quite powerful. Sure the mage would have some low hp/low bab, but if they planned ahead theyd be fine and PrC into more powerful classes... spell sword pops into my head at the moment but im sure there are others. is it too powerful a feat? was it mostly meant for those with lower spell casting levels (IE ranger and what not). Also what about a divine version of it? just kinda curious as to your opinions on it
scott644 01-31-06, 11:35 PM	Where's the 1d4 damage per spell level from? In Complete Warrior, it's +1 to attack and damage per level. Now what I LOVE about this however, is you can sacrifice a level 0 spell to make your attacks magical - thus getting around DR X/magic. Don't know about a Divine equivalent.
eternalwelcome 02-01-06, 12:06 AM	it is a very strong feat. but not overpowered i'd say. if you are looking for some balancing or such try making the feat take up the characters quickened spell for the round, or have it require a move equivlant action (these are just suggestions, which are not neccassarily good ones'.). w/ a spellblade style build yes this feat can help up damage, i have a swashbuckler, warmage multiclass guy in my game that is picking up the feat next level, his saving grace being that his spell level progression is slow due to multiclass, so i'm not too stressed over it. you could try changing the prereq's, or lower, change the bonuses it grants. shrug. i mean a tenth level sorcerer w/ the feat who did not have time to buff before an encounter is only being granted enough bonuses to make him a viable melee person, by no means on par w/ fighter or the like. so shrug.
Pandaemoni 02-01-06, 12:12 AM	Where's the 1d4 damage per spell level from? In Complete Warrior, it's +1 to attack and damage per level. Now what I LOVE about this however, is you can sacrifice a level 0 spell to make your attacks magical - thus getting around DR X/magic. Don't know about a Divine equivalent. My copy of the Complete Warrior, pg 96, says: [Y]ou gain a bonus on 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. Even the example they give has Yarren the Bladesinger getting an extra 4d4 damage on his attack.
ressurrector 02-01-06, 12:16 AM	I don't think it's overpowered, it allows a mage to spontaneously turn a spell into a weapon enhancement for one round as a free action. The fact that most spells deal far more than 1d4/lvl and to multiple targets/autohit/etc... usually balances this as far as I'm concerned. On the bright side, it means that a caster going up in melee against an enemy isn't totally boned, and with the anti-mage feats detailed in complete arcane this is highly beneficial.
turtlemonkey 02-01-06, 12:26 AM	its +1 per spell level used to ar and then it says 1d4 * spell lvl in damage.. so it might not be 1d4 per spell lvl.. escentally its same range.. but not as much of a bell curve... IE waste a lvl 5 spell its +5 ar, and not 5d4 dmg (as i said) but 1d4*5 i was mostly asking cus i was making a fighter cleric, and asked if i could make a divine version of the feat... dm said no (not because clerics are usually consdiered more powerful than wizards) but because divine magic was mostly support, and arcane was more blasting which i thought was kinda crap.. i mean if he thought it was too powerful then reduce the feat.. but the idea that, thats just how divine is i thought was kinda bs... granted cleric has alot of support, and when givine the idea this spell was supporting me, and that spells lke divine favor, rightmous might increases my bab, and dmg (through str) he said well its not increasing dmg directly...
ressurrector 02-01-06, 12:37 AM	its +1 per spell level used to ar and then it says 1d4 * spell lvl in damage.. so it might not be 1d4 per spell lvl.. escentally its same range.. but not as much of a bell curve... IE waste a lvl 5 spell its +5 ar, and not 5d4 dmg (as i said) but 1d4*5 Well, the example says 4d4, and also when you multiply dice for a critical hit, you roll 2x as many dice, not multiply damage by 2. i was mostly asking cus i was making a fighter cleric, and asked if i could make a divine version of the feat... dm said no (not because clerics are usually consdiered more powerful than wizards) but because divine magic was mostly support, and arcane was more blasting which i thought was kinda crap.. i mean if he thought it was too powerful then reduce the feat.. but the idea that, thats just how divine is i thought was kinda bs... granted cleric has alot of support, and when givine the idea this spell was supporting me, and that spells lke divine favor, rightmous might increases my bab, and dmg (through str) he said well its not increasing dmg directly... Start using all those fun cleric blasting spells, searing light, flame strike, etc... Clerics can blast just as well as arcane casters, and are much stronger in melee combat, a cleric who can only do support isn't trying hard enough. Personally I'd give divine characters the possibility to use the feat, modified thusly: 1d4 x spell level to evil outsiders, 1d6 x spell level to undead. Or change it to good outsiders, and something else for evil clerics.
turtlemonkey 02-01-06, 12:51 AM	good point.. yeah i forgot to read the description.. but was orginally under the impression i was 1d4 per spell lvl... reread it and the * confused me... yeah, i argued that clerics blasted just as good as wizards, and that wizards did indeed have more blasting/harming spells than clerics, but they also had more utility spells than clerics too... i forgot to bring up the fact bards are support chars and arcane too... i wasnt so much not letting me pick up the feat, but the reason behind it.. but yeah i got to pick it up but modifed as 1/2 the bonus as normal for divine on dmg.. IE 1d4 per 2 lvls, and 1 ar per lvl... also scott your wrong.. you have to use a spell lvl of at least 1 to use it. so no 1d4 dmg or 1 ar, or anything for sacrificing a 0 lvl spell
Vaelan 02-01-06, 04:58 AM	Start using all those fun cleric blasting spells, searing light, flame strike, etc... Clerics can blast just as well as arcane casters I think you'll need to explain this to me. Searing Light is worse than Scorching Ray. Scorching Ray can deal 12d6 damage, for an average of 42 damage, which is quite close to Searing Light's 45 average damage. Scorching Ray is a second-level spell while Searing Light is a third-level spell. Also, Searing Light only deals 45 average damage against a very small number of creatures. Against other targets it deals substantially less than Scorching Ray. Flame Strike is fifth-level spell. It deals damage comparable to Cone of Cold, but has a smaller area of effect. The only advantage it holds over an Empowered Fireball or a Cone of Cold is that half of the damage is unresistable, which is irrelevant unless you're fighting something with 20 or more resistance and is overshadowed by the superior area of effect that these spells hold. The only way a divine spellcaster can rival an arcane spellcaster in damage dealing is to use ridiculously broken noncore spells, of which there are many, or spells like Call Lightning (Storm) and Fire Storm which are capable of dealing immense amounts of damage under certain rare conditions. However, the rarity of these conditions more than outweighs the impressive damage these spells are capable of. I don't see how Clerics are just as good at dealing damage as Wizards. They have neither the raw power nor the options that a Wizard does, except for in very specific circumstances which are not part of the dungeon crawling/small scale combat paradigm.
Dex 02-01-06, 05:21 AM	It's not that they blast as good as wizards, really. It's that they blast some things a lot better than wizards (undead, outsiders), while they tank in melee. Anyway, back to the thread, sacrificing a 4th level spell for only a +4 to attack and 4d4 damage? Why not just chuck an enlarged (2x range) fireball from far out of melee range? It's not too powerful in my opinion, considering a fireball (or energy subbed fireball, or lighting bolt) doesn't require an attack roll, affects a large area, does at least 5d6 damage, probably more if you're talking someone who can cast 4th level spells, and there's so many more useful 4th level or lower spells I'd rather keep for use at the right moment than use on a +4 attack and +4d4 to melee or ranged damage. And besides, if i had 7 levels in wizard, and whatever else I needed to get the feat, chances are I still might miss with such a poor BAB.
Tytalus 02-01-06, 05:30 AM	Just a few things to think about: The only advantage it holds over an Empowered Fireball or a Cone of Cold is that half of the damage is unresistable, which is irrelevant Given the abundance of opponents with fire resistance/immunity at the levels where these spells become available (and it gets worse in higher levels), that seems to be a subjective statement at best. The only way a divine spellcaster can rival an arcane spellcaster in damage dealing is to use ridiculously broken noncore spells, of which there are many You do realize that with the implicit assumption in this sentence makes it's impossible to consider [i]any[/] (even non-broken) non-core counter-examples? Aside from the fact that declaring all non-core divine spells that offer a damage output comparable to arcane spells "broken" is ridiculous, this is not a very mature way to approach the topic. The standard core example for excellent damage dealing divine spells is Fire Seeds (Holly Berry Bombs), by the way. ... or spells like Call Lightning (Storm) and Fire Storm which are capable of dealing immense amounts of damage under certain rare conditions. However, the rarity of these conditions more than outweighs the impressive damage these spells are capable of. Firestorm is not restricted in any way by "rare conditions". Lightning Storm is also not restricted, just deals even more damge under certain conditions.
Tytalus 02-01-06, 05:39 AM	On topic: No, it's not that great a feat, as Dex pointed out. Even if you can maximize your attacks per round and manage to hit with most of them, spells are generally better, especially higher level ones. When facing multiple opponents, an area-of-effect spell is more effective, and vs. a single opponent you are almost always better off with a save-or-die spell cast from far away. What's nice about the feat is that is allows some flexibility. If you are facing the BBEG for the big showdown and all the spell you have left are Knock and Prying Eyes, then you are better off burning them for some extra damage. Not at all a good choice for pure casters (you don't want to get in melee range), but works fine with gish (fighter/mage) builds.
scott644 02-01-06, 08:26 AM	also scott your wrong.. you have to use a spell lvl of at least 1 to use it. so no 1d4 dmg or 1 ar, or anything for sacrificing a 0 lvl spell Yeah. It had been a while since I read it, and I remembered incorrectly. A level 1 or higher spell, +1 to hit per spell level, and +1d4 damage per spell level, to attacks for 1 round. Anyway, back to the thread, sacrificing a 4th level spell for only a +4 to attack and 4d4 damage? Why not just chuck an enlarged (2x range) fireball from far out of melee range? Multiple reasons. One is you're not always conveniently given enemies at range, and the other is this feat *really* helps the arcane/combat classess (Eldritch Knight and the like).
Missing Minds 02-01-06, 09:58 AM	Where's the 1d4 damage per spell level from? In Complete Warrior, it's +1 to attack and damage per level. Now what I LOVE about this however, is you can sacrifice a level 0 spell to make your attacks magical - thus getting around DR X/magic. Don't know about a Divine equivalent. Sounds like you are mixing Arcane Strike (which was as the OP posted) and Astetic Mage, that mixes monk and arcane casters. This is a great feat for gestalt of crossing monk and wiz/sorcs. However, its also great for bards. I can't remmeber if its melee only or not. If its not, its also wonderful for arcane archers.
Feeb 02-01-06, 10:56 AM	If you have a player with a solid gish character who gets 3+ attacks per round, than the feat can seem powerful. The trick is to balance the number of encounters you through at the party against the "power" of the party. Some parties are more than capable of handling several encounters above and beyond the "4 encounter per day" rule. Back to the gish thing, the bonus to hit and damage are applied to all attacks. If you feel this is too much, house-rule it so that the bonus applies to only the first attack in the round, but up the damage to d6's.
ressurrector 02-02-06, 03:42 AM	Back to the gish thing, the bonus to hit and damage are applied to all attacks. If you feel this is too much, house-rule it so that the bonus applies to only the first attack in the round, but up the damage to d6's. But only for one weapon, so you can't go crazy with TWF using gish builds. Personally I prefer the usefulness of Razing strike, from CV. Take a look, it's very handy, for rogue/casters.
Pandaemoni 02-02-06, 04:03 AM	What's nice about the feat is that is allows some flexibility. If you are facing the BBEG for the big showdown and all the spell you have left are Knock and Prying Eyes, then you are better off burning them for some extra damage. Not at all a good choice for pure casters (you don't want to get in melee range), but works fine with gish (fighter/mage) builds. I agree. I think it is a good feat for wizards, who might not have damage spells memorized. For sorcerers, it's a far less useful feat (unless your sorcerer has an unusual dearth of damage spells from which to choose). For wizards, it allows them to convert that unused "Hold Person" they thought they'd need into raw damage useful against any target.