The wording in arcane strike is a little nonspecific, the prereq is the ability to cast arcane spells but the description reads
"For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level"
and makes no reference to arcane spellcasting levels. so the way this reads, if im 1 level wizard and 10 levels of cleric, i am caster level 11 for the use of this feat, or if I'm 3 levels wizard, 3 levels cleric and 10 levels of Mystic Theuge I'm caster level 26 for use of the feat. Has this wording been officially clarified or is there an errata?
The wording in arcane strike is a little nonspecific, the prereq is the ability to cast arcane spells but the description reads
"For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level"
and makes no reference to arcane spellcasting levels. so the way this reads, if im 1 level wizard and 10 levels of cleric, i am caster level 11 for the use of this feat, or if I'm 3 levels wizard, 3 levels cleric and 10 levels of Mystic Theuge I'm caster level 26 for use of the feat. Has this wording been officially clarified or is there an errata?
Since the feat is called ARCANE Strike and you must be able to cast ARCANE spells as a prerequisite, it follows that the bonus is determined by your ARCANE caster level. It never once mentions divine magic, so I think it's safe to say that divine and arcane caster levels don't stack.
Since the feat is called ARCANE Strike and you must be able to cast ARCANE spells as a prerequisite, it follows that the bonus is determined by your ARCANE caster level. It never once mentions divine magic, so I think it's safe to say that divine and arcane caster levels don't stack.The wording in arcane strike is a little nonspecific, the prereq is the ability to cast arcane spells but the description reads
"For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level"
and makes no reference to arcane spellcasting levels. so the way this reads, if im 1 level wizard and 10 levels of cleric, i am caster level 11 for the use of this feat, or if I'm 3 levels wizard, 3 levels cleric and 10 levels of Mystic Theuge I'm caster level 26 for use of the feat. Has this wording been officially clarified or is there an errata?
Yes I agree that it would makes sense to be arcane only, but my experience as a game playtester in the past has taught me to never assume a feat/spell/ability has anything to do with it's title since often times in Beta it could have an effect that made more sense to the original name but was changed at the last minute right before publishing.
In this case the original feat that it modeled from the "complete warrior" also had the requisite of casting arcane spells but did not specify on whether the spell you had to sacrifice was arcane or divine.
I hope I don't seem too dumb for asking but I'd still like to see if anyone has read elsewhere about an official ruling?
If I were posed with something like this, I would award a player with the ability to use Divine Caster levels for the purpose of this feat (they are already spending at least 1 level on arcane casting to qualify). However, I would only allow caster level from a single class to qualify for the bonus. I wouldn't allow the caster levels to be added together in such a fashion, that isn't done anywhere else under any circumstances...
So by the previous example, a Level 1 Wizard / 10 Cleric would be considered to have a CL 10 (the highest CL among the classes), not 11 for the purpose of this feat. I believe that while this is not the <i>literal</i> translation of the feat's text, I think it was written that way for brevity and simplicity.
Most times, feats and abilities are written without taking into account how people might try to abuse them for some purposes. Sometimes people use these faults in the text to "power game" and make themselves more powerful than the average PC should be.
Just my 2cp.
This is an obvious Eldritch Knight/Duskblade feat...
It has it's uses for Sorcerers and Wizards also: Bow/Crossbow, Whirling Blade Spell, and technically Ranged Touch Spells and Melee Touch Spells which are considered weapons per Weapon Focus. ("imbue your weapons" / Swift Action)
|
It has it's uses for Sorcerers and Wizards also: Bow/Crossbow, Whirling Blade Spell, and technically Ranged Touch Spells and Melee Touch Spells which are considered weapons per Weapon Focus. ("imbue your weapons" / Swift Action)
Weapon Focus specifically mentions rays and unarmed strikes. Arcane Strike does not, which leads some people to say that Arcane Strike does not apply to spells (check this thread)
Weapon Focus specifically mentions rays and unarmed strikes. Arcane Strike does not, which leads some people to say that Arcane Strike does not apply to spells (check this thread)
It has it's uses for Sorcerers and Wizards also: Bow/Crossbow, Whirling Blade Spell, and technically Ranged Touch Spells and Melee Touch Spells which are considered weapons per Weapon Focus. ("imbue your weapons" / Swift Action)
I'd agree with this.
You can imbue a weapon with magic, but it doesn't seem plausible that you could imbue magic with more magic, although it would be awesome.I'm currently playing a sorcerer and I use A.S. with my crossbow. It would be sweet if I could also apply that to my elemental ray, but then again, how can you imbue an elemental ray with more magic? Doesn't make sense.
In this case the original feat that it modeled from the "complete warrior" also had the requisite of casting arcane spells but did not specify on whether the spell you had to sacrifice was arcane or divine.
Woah, hold up...we have to sacrifice a spell each time the feat is used?
I don't remember reading about that...I thought it was just a mere swift action.
(scampers off to double check the rulebook)
Taking Arcane Strike for a crossbow is sub-optimal, to say at least.
Maybe I enjoy sub-optimal. I like a challenge. :P
It's a dex based Sorcerer that concentrates on crossbow abilities, like multishot, crossbow mastery, etc and the arcane strike just adds some additional flavor. I'll throw in some spells now and again to mix things up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case the original feat that it modeled from the "complete warrior" also had the requisite of casting arcane spells but did not specify on whether the spell you had to sacrifice was arcane or divine.
Woah, hold up...we have to sacrifice a spell each time the feat is used?
I don't remember reading about that...
I thought it was just a mere swift action.
(scampers off to double check the rulebook)
I was referring to the "Complete Warrior" version of the feat (the original version of the feat) not the current Pathfinder version. "Complete Warrior" is a DnD book printed in December of 2003. It required you to sacrifice a spell and gave you + to hit = the spell level and + to damage = to 1d4 times spell level sacrificed.
Logic dictates that the Caster level they refer to is the arcane caster level.
However, by not specifying in the feat description, I think the loophole becomes technically legal.
I wouldn't even take that one to my DM though ;)
I was referring to the "Complete Warrior" version of the feat
Yeah, that's a cool book.
Taking Arcane Strike for a crossbow is sub-optimal, to say at least.
Nah. Crossbows can be quite useful for arcane casters - you can ignore your strength penalty. With a feat or two, you can reload them without any effort. Great for bards.
Oh, and this is Arcane Strike. Not Divine Strike. The wording might not be perfect, but the GM still has the last word on... well, everything. Including whether it's possible or likely that frozen cows from space fall on your character's head and kill him. Just saying.
Want to find loopholes? Moo.
Oh, and this is Arcane Strike. Not Divine Strike. The wording might not be perfect, but the GM still has the last word on... well, everything. Including whether it's possible or likely that frozen cows from space fall on your character's head and kill him. Just saying.
Want to find loopholes? Moo.
Moo.
So are most of us here agreed that levels from two different arcane classes would stack? My Evoker character in Rise of the Runelords took a single level of bard, for the extra class skills, Bardic Knowledge, and having Sleep and Charm Person in spite of taking enchantment as a prohibited school. (And also because he loves music and rhyme, and has a serious crush on the NPC bard Ameiko Kaijitsu, from whom he learned his bardic abilities.) I looked up this thread because the feat doesn't make it clear whether bard and wizard levels would stack, although I think that "arcane" in the feat name combined with "caster level" in the description implies that they would.
|
|
So are most of us here agreed that levels from two different arcane classes would stack? My Evoker character in Rise of the Runelords took a single level of bard, for the extra class skills, Bardic Knowledge, and having Sleep and Charm Person in spite of taking enchantment as a prohibited school. (And also because he loves music and rhyme, and has a serious crush on the NPC bard Ameiko Kaijitsu, from whom he learned his bardic abilities.) I looked up this thread because the feat doesn't make it clear whether bard and wizard levels would stack, although I think that "arcane" in the feat name combined with "caster level" in the description implies that they would.
I would think not. Caster levels between classes do not stack as a general rule. Nothing is said that this is the exception, so I would say no/
I would think not. Caster levels between classes do not stack as a general rule. Nothing is said that this is the exception, so I would say no.
How "general" can the rule be? I can't think of many other situations where the question would arise. Not for spells, of course, because when the wizard/bard casts a spell, he's casting it either as a wizard or as a bard. The save DC's are different, too, because they're derived from two different stats (Int. and Cha., respectively). Is it written in the rulebook anywhere that they don't stack for determining feat effects -- or, for that matter, feat eligibility for things like item creation? I'd love to have the page number for a specific ruling, one way or the other, or, failing that, a ruling here from one of the designers.
Just to make sure I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that it might be possible for two spellcasting classes, using the same type of magic (arcane or divine), and having the same casting stat, to stack their caster levels to determine effects/eligibility? For example, a Paladin 8/Ranger 8 could stack their caster levels to be a CL 8? Forgive me if I got that CL wrong, don't have the PRPG book in front of me and am going off memory of how their CL was determined.
Not for spells, only for feats whose effects or prerequisites depend on caster level, such as Arcane Strike or item creation feats. I think the case is better for Arcane Strike, as it seems to derive from arcane power in a very general way, whereas item creation seems more related to mastery of a particular magical art, which would be better expressed as class level in one arcane class than as total arcane caster level.
Confusing, ain't it? :-)
It's clear to me that the feat is just for arcane classes. In the case of the bard/evoker, I'd allow the levels to stack. Tying the feat to either his bard or evoker level seems punitive. Divine caster levels simply wouldn't count. A mystic theurge or eldritch knight would max out at +4, since they'll never hit 20th caster level.
It's not that great a feat in the first place, so why nerf it? +5 weapon damage at 20th level? Hardly overpowered, but ok for flavor. It's good for a "combat bard," since any weapon he uses is considered magical at first level. He can wait a while on the +1 sword.
As someone said before, it's good for gish builds and some bards, or even a crossbow-happy sorcerer, if you're not into optimized builds and just want to play something different.
Hmm, a crossbow sorcerer... How would you make that?
|
|
It's not that great a feat in the first place, so why nerf it? +5 weapon damage at 20th level? Hardly overpowered, but ok for flavor. It's good for a "combat bard," since any weapon he uses is considered magical at first level. He can wait a while on the +1 sword.
It's pretty useful at low levels for overcoming DR/magic, and the extra damage really helps. Lookin' at you, gricks! :)
My bard is a skirmish guy (longsword or light crossbow) and his arcane strike +2 and inspire courage +2 gave him a nice little combat edge. I've surprised the DM a few times by dropping foes that didn't see me as a threat (kobold with a sword? puh-leese).
|
I'm currently playing a sorcerer and I use A.S. with my crossbow. It would be sweet if I could also apply that to my elemental ray, but then again, how can you imbue an elemental ray with more magic? Doesn't make sense.
Just found this thread.
As to imbuing magic with magic, well, people with metamagic feats do it all the time.
It's pretty useful at low levels for overcoming DR/magic, and the extra damage really helps. Lookin' at you, gricks! :)My bard is a skirmish guy (longsword or light crossbow) and his arcane strike +2 and inspire courage +2 gave him a nice little combat edge. I've surprised the DM a few times by dropping foes that didn't see me as a threat (kobold with a sword? puh-leese).
Yes, it's nice for a lower-level guy. Any masterwork weapon in your bard's hands is effectively a +1 magic weapon, minimum, and the damage slowly gets better as he levels. Great for dropping mooks and saving your magic for the bigger challenges.
|
|
Yes, it's nice for a lower-level guy. Any masterwork weapon in your bard's hands is effectively a +1 magic weapon, minimum, and the damage slowly gets better as he levels. Great for dropping mooks and saving your magic for the bigger challenges.
We're at level 9 right now and I've just built up the crossbow to axiomatic and taken vital strike as a feat, so he's become a fairly effective archer against our main enemies (drow and demons).
PF showed the bard some love!