Okay, so if mystic bolt does not count as a weapon for the purposes of arcane strike does that mean you can use mystic bolt and still have a free hand to reload a weapon? This ruling could also be important for feats that require a free off hand such as fencing grace.
Is your magic bolt hand free (and thus not a held "weapon" for the purpose of arcane strike) or does mystic bolt get the worst of all worlds?
As it stands, I think mystic bolt is an interesting class ability but may be too weak to really be a particularly meaningful addition to damage in a fight if it is limited to one attack per round per 8 BAB. Mystic bolt well circumvents the classic 3/4 BAB problem by making an attack against touch rather than AC, but the damage is still pretty small.
Maybe TWF+sword is okay, but I suspect that this will start looking pretty lame at later levels when that sword starts missing a ton. Perhaps a gun (pumped with arcane strike) would do a good job doling out damage, though?
I dunno. has this ruling been made yet? Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the descriptions of the visuals I've heard from Logan, it seems to me that the hand would likely be empty, allowing you to reload with that hand. This is not an official ruling on the ability though.
Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Chester and Mark said, the bolt exists only when you're attacking with it. So if you reload or whatever, once you're done you can still stick out a pew-pew laser finger to shoot a mystic bolt that round. It should work kind of like doing the somatic component of a spell (for the purposes of having a hand free). Though the bolt appears only when you're using it, you do still threaten with a mystic bolt. Assume there's some little nimbus of energy around your boltin' hand to indicate you're armed.
As Chester and Mark said, the bolt exists only when you're attacking with it. So if you reload or whatever, once you're done you can still stick out a pew-pew laser finger to shoot a mystic bolt that round. It should work kind of like doing the somatic component of a spell (for the purposes of having a hand free). Though the bolt appears only when you're using it, you do still threaten with a mystic bolt. Assume there's some little nimbus of energy around your boltin' hand to indicate you're armed.
The bolded part answered a question I had, but of course that just opens up a few others. :)
1. Does Mystic Bolt threaten regardless of whether you use it in melee or ranged mode that round?
2. Does Mystic Bolt threaten if I am ready to use it, but don't actually make an attack that round? Like just holding a dagger ready would threaten.
3. Does the threat continue after your round? That is, can you use it for AoO's?
Also, your description above suggests to me that you could use Mystic Bolts and use a two-handed weapon. For example, I attack once with a longspear,. Then take one hand off the weapon and use a Mystic Bolt in the same way that I could cast a spell. Then I return that hand to my spear and take another swing. Would that work? And if so, would I threaten adjacent squares with the Bolt?
From what Logan told me before he left (he just left). These may not be right, but I think they are:
1) It threatens in melee mode only unless your character has a way to make ranged attacks threaten.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
For the Two-handed TWF thing, that wouldn't work for the same reason you can't TWF with a longspear and something like a cestus or spiked gauntlet.
From what Logan told me before he left (he just left). These may not be right, but I think they are:
1) It threatens in melee mode only unless your character has a way to make ranged attacks threaten.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
For the Two-handed TWF thing, that wouldn't work for the same reason you can't TWF with a longspear and something like a cestus or spiked gauntlet.
On #1, if you ranged attack, can you change to melee after you attack? I'm thinking the same as the free action used to switch grips. Or are you 'set' on ranged until your next attack?
On #1, if you ranged attack, can you change to melee after you attack? I'm thinking the same as the free action used to switch grips. Or are you 'set' on ranged until your next attack?From what Logan told me before he left (he just left). These may not be right, but I think they are:
1) It threatens in melee mode only unless your character has a way to make ranged attacks threaten.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
For the Two-handed TWF thing, that wouldn't work for the same reason you can't TWF with a longspear and something like a cestus or spiked gauntlet.
My guess is yes (and that similarly, you could with a full attack start by using a melee mystic bole on the enemy next to you with your first attack, dropping it, thus not having to worry about AoOs any more so you fire a ranged mystic bolt with your iterative).
|
Are mystic bolts a part of any fighter weapon group?
Do Mystic Bolts benefit from Inspire Courage?
How about Divine Favor?
How about Unchained Barbarian Rage?
On an unrelated note, it also seems like a pair of deliquescent gloves are a must have for a melee Mystic Bolt user. And Eldritch Heritage or VMC Aberrant looks very attractive.
With NOTHING official past the two ray FAQ's, this is the most relevant info.
Yes, correct.Ok... so since this is something I have to be able to point to from you Sean or the PDT FAQ in order to use it in PFS, as some GMs have been applying the penalty for firing into melee, but not allowing us to get the bonus to damage for things like point blank shot, Inspire courage, etc.
------------------
If a spell or ability requires an attack or ranged attack roll, even if it is not necessarily a ray, it takes the normal ranged attack penalties for firing into melee/cover, and also recieves any bonuses to damage that would apply (only applicable to hit point damage, not spells like enervation etc).
-------------------
Correct?
Going by this barbarian rage adds and rapid shot works (the only reason it doesn't normally work for a ray is the need for a full attack). I'd also think arcane strike should work.
So I'm clueless why it's been said rapid shot or arcane strike don't work as they seem to work with rays. It must be special rules for Mystic Bolts.
No fighter group, though that's be a cool add to have weapon like spells as a group.
An at-will 1d6+level ranged touch attack that you can full-attack sounds pretty darn good to me.
An at-will 1d6+level ranged touch attack that you can full-attack sounds pretty darn good to me.
Yeah, it looks pretty sweet. It'd look even better if I knew for sure what feats worked with it. ;)
You're right Extra Anchovies. I was thinking of the urban barbarian I guess. Seems very odd that a melee ability requires you to a cast defensively for every attack. That seems to be a flaw in it's being spell like.
Seems very odd that a melee ability requires you to a cast defensively for every attack. That seems to be a flaw in it's being spell like.
Mystic bolt melee attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunity though?
Seems very odd that a melee ability requires you to a cast defensively for every attack. That seems to be a flaw in it's being spell like.Mystic bolt melee attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunity though?
Yes, that's the point. Does it still require any concentration then if it doesn't take concentration in combat? And why have a spell like ability that doesn't provoke instead of making it a supernatural power that has that build in.
Don't Spell like abilities provoke?
so i think they do always provoke no?
They need to be supernatural to not provoke
The only reason melee mystic bolt doesn't provoke is because it specifically says "A melee mystic bolt requires a melee touch attack that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity," otherwise... a full-attack with a melee mystic bolt would be suicidal.
The only reason melee mystic bolt doesn't provoke is because it specifically says "A melee mystic bolt requires a melee touch attack that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity," otherwise... a full-attack with a melee mystic bolt would be suicidal.Don't Spell like abilities provoke?
so i think they do always provoke no?
They need to be supernatural to not provoke
I think the point is why waste word count pointing out that they don't provoke when you could make them supernatural and that's already built in.
From what Logan told me before he left (he just left). These may not be right, but I think they are:
1) It threatens in melee mode only unless your character has a way to make ranged attacks threaten.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
For the Two-handed TWF thing, that wouldn't work for the same reason you can't TWF with a longspear and something like a cestus or spiked gauntlet.
Thank you for the response! That was the way that I thought it worked, but it is great to have confirmation. You know, the more that I learn about Mystic Bolts, the more this seems like the essential Warlock ability. Even more than spells. It's like Spell Combat+Spellstrike for Warlocks. At this point I can't imagine a Warlock forgoing it.
On an unrelated note, it also seems like a pair of deliquescent gloves are a must have for a melee Mystic Bolt user.
That would be a good choice. I was hoping to use Gloves of Arcane Striking, but now we know that Arcane Strike won't work with Mystic Bolt. Deliquescent Gloves wouldn't stack with Mystic Bolt (acid) would they?
|
|
On an unrelated note, it also seems like a pair of deliquescent gloves are a must have for a melee Mystic Bolt user.That would be a good choice. I was hoping to use Gloves of Arcane Striking, but now we know that Arcane Strike won't work with Mystic Bolt. Deliquescent Gloves wouldn't stack with Mystic Bolt (acid) would they?
I don't see why not. They add 1d6 acid to any melee touch attack. If the attack already does acid damage it would stack with it. It's not like acid damage is a source.
An at-will 1d6+level ranged touch attack that you can full-attack sounds pretty darn good to me.
I am not sure how accurate that 2nd or 3rd bolt is when you are not fighting big clunky dragons or whatever give the warlock's MAD problem (besides dex for mystic bolt accuracy, you need int for spells and cha for your social shenanigans).
For quick reference let us compare a few attack options at level 11 (so I don't gotta explain things in functions). The n in the brackets is the baseline ranged attack bonus of a 3/4 character :
Warlock w/ Mystic Bolt:
[n/n-5] D=1d6+11; E(D)=14.5
Alchemist w/ Bombs:
[n] D=6d6+int; E(D)=21+int+(AOE splash) (if int is 5, one bomb is usually worth more than 2 rays given that the second attack is a -5)
Kineticist w/ Maximized Touch Composite Blasts [prelim]:
[n] D=36+1/2con; E(D)=36+1/2con (you get to make this for free as a full round action if you are mitigating burn well; this is better than the warlock if both hit)
Wizard with Scorching Rays:
[n-4/n-4/n-4] D=4d6; E(D)=14 (this will generally be more total damage than mystic bolt, but is also only a standard action)
Of these abilities, the Kineticist's is the most comparable (since it has "at will" use), and that beats the Warlock soundly. Perhaps that is okay given that at-will energy blasts are pretty much that class's schtick, but I think it is hard to argue that a Warlock can play a role as a major damage dealer in battle on mystic bolt alone.
You need my mean two-fisted lazer cowboy build to do that.
You really don't need CHA as a warlock. You can use a trait to switch a CHA skill to Int and your bonuses can overcome a 10 easily. Dex/Int is fine.
That is true enough, but then you will either be bad at intimidate (the vigilante bonus) or diplomacy/bluff (the more useful social persona bonus). Also, I have actually never played in a game that actually uses traits. I had to look it up to see if you were right.
You certainly don't want an 8 or 10 in cha though, yeah?
A -1 or a 0 isn't a big deal if you have bonuses to something. If I have a -1 instead of a +2 it's only a three point difference, less than the bonus you get to intimidate so you're still better at it than others.but I have a lot of points to use for other stats.
A -1 or a 0 isn't a big deal if you have bonuses to something. If I have a -1 instead of a +2 it's only a three point difference, less than the bonus you get to intimidate so you're still better at it than others.but I have a lot of points to use for other stats.
"Better at it than others" does not really impress me too much. The intimidate bonuses are good in combat because the big boost makes intimidation tactics (such as dazzling display builds) more viable for the vigilante than other classes. Letting cha fall behind sort of removes that advantage of the class.
Then again, maybe that ship has already sailed if you are building warlock and the warlock should be balanced around gaining little to no benefit from the vigilante's core abilities.
A -1 or a 0 isn't a big deal if you have bonuses to something. If I have a -1 instead of a +2 it's only a three point difference, less than the bonus you get to intimidate so you're still better at it than others.but I have a lot of points to use for other stats."Better at it than others" does not really impress me too much. The intimidate bonuses are good in combat because the big boost makes intimidation tactics (such as dazzling display builds) more viable for the vigilante than other classes. Letting cha fall behind sort of removes that advantage of the class.
Then again, maybe that ship has already sailed if you are building warlock and the warlock should be balanced around gaining little to no benefit from the vigilante's core abilities.
If you want to really focus on intimidate, especially for combat, then yeah a 12 charisma is better than an 8. But if you're just want to be good at it, then you don't need to invest a ton of stats. Just putting ranks into something that is a class skill makes you pretty good at it.
If you want to really focus on intimidate, especially for combat, then yeah a 12 charisma is better than an 8. But if you're just want to be good at it, then you don't need to invest a ton of stats. Just putting ranks into something that is a class skill makes you pretty good at it.A -1 or a 0 isn't a big deal if you have bonuses to something. If I have a -1 instead of a +2 it's only a three point difference, less than the bonus you get to intimidate so you're still better at it than others.but I have a lot of points to use for other stats."Better at it than others" does not really impress me too much. The intimidate bonuses are good in combat because the big boost makes intimidation tactics (such as dazzling display builds) more viable for the vigilante than other classes. Letting cha fall behind sort of removes that advantage of the class.
Then again, maybe that ship has already sailed if you are building warlock and the warlock should be balanced around gaining little to no benefit from the vigilante's core abilities.
I am not sure how well acquainted you are with the rules for intimidating larger enemies (it gets hard to do reliably) or intimidation in general. It is not just success/failure like much of the game. "Degree of success" matters for the duration of your scare tactics.
Also you could apply your same argument to dex or int. It is like you are telling me you don't really "need" those stats because you are going to get bonuses attack rolls and spell saves otherwise.
If you want to really focus on intimidate, especially for combat, then yeah a 12 charisma is better than an 8. But if you're just want to be good at it, then you don't need to invest a ton of stats. Just putting ranks into something that is a class skill makes you pretty good at it.A -1 or a 0 isn't a big deal if you have bonuses to something. If I have a -1 instead of a +2 it's only a three point difference, less than the bonus you get to intimidate so you're still better at it than others.but I have a lot of points to use for other stats."Better at it than others" does not really impress me too much. The intimidate bonuses are good in combat because the big boost makes intimidation tactics (such as dazzling display builds) more viable for the vigilante than other classes. Letting cha fall behind sort of removes that advantage of the class.
Then again, maybe that ship has already sailed if you are building warlock and the warlock should be balanced around gaining little to no benefit from the vigilante's core abilities.
I am not sure how well acquainted you are with the rules for intimidating larger enemies (it gets hard to do reliably) or intimidation in general. It is not just success/failure like much of the game. "Degree of success" matters for the duration of your scare tactics.
Also you could apply your same argument to dex or int. It is like you are telling me you don't really "need" those stats because you are going to get bonuses attack rolls and spell saves otherwise.
If you're trying to intimidate in combat then you have to worry about larger enemies and how long they are shaken for. If it's for out of combat then it's just used to make them give you info and you don't really need a huge score. But the large is a -4 regardless of how much smaller you are, the hit die is the bigger problem as those are often much higher than your CR. Thus why I said if you're wanting to use it in combat and do your whole build around it than you'd want a higher charisma. And unless you base your build around it it's not really a good thing to use in combat. So other than combat focus you just need one good enough to do some out of combat stuff.
Also if you're wanting to intimidate then there are other classes that get better, the Rake Rogue is probably the best.
If you want to really focus on intimidate, especially for combat, then yeah a 12 charisma is better than an 8. But if you're just want to be good at it, then you don't need to invest a ton of stats. Just putting ranks into something that is a class skill makes you pretty good at it.A -1 or a 0 isn't a big deal if you have bonuses to something. If I have a -1 instead of a +2 it's only a three point difference, less than the bonus you get to intimidate so you're still better at it than others.but I have a lot of points to use for other stats."Better at it than others" does not really impress me too much. The intimidate bonuses are good in combat because the big boost makes intimidation tactics (such as dazzling display builds) more viable for the vigilante than other classes. Letting cha fall behind sort of removes that advantage of the class.
Then again, maybe that ship has already sailed if you are building warlock and the warlock should be balanced around gaining little to no benefit from the vigilante's core abilities.
I am not sure how well acquainted you are with the rules for intimidating larger enemies (it gets hard to do reliably) or intimidation in general. It is not just success/failure like much of the game. "Degree of success" matters for the duration of your scare tactics.
Also you could apply your same argument to dex or int. It is like you are telling me you don't really "need" those stats because you are going to get bonuses attack rolls and spell saves otherwise.
Also yes about the stats, if you're not focusing on something then you don't need high stats. Combat casters need just enough of their casting stat to cast their spells, like starting a cleric with a 14 wisdom, since you need to get combat stats. If you're a caster cleric then you want the highest wis you can get to make your spells work. If I'm a melee guy then I need like a 12 or 14 dex for AC, and rely on BAB and other things for my ranged backup bow.
I am still seeing a desire for at least a 12 cha here to use intimidate and your social persona. Check your watch, buddy: it is MAD o'clock (certainly more so than the wizard, kinetecist, and alchemist with whom I am drawing comparisons).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still seeing a desire for at least a 12 cha here to use intimidate and your social persona. Check your watch, buddy: it is MAD o'clock (certainly more so than the wizard, kinetecist, and alchemist with whom I am drawing comparisons).
Nope. With Bruising Intellect or Clever Wordplay, you do not need CHA to have focus in Intimidate.
8/14/14/16+2/10/12 hardly mad. This stat array looks good for a bomb Alchemist or a ray attacking wizard.
and again, it's only if you're wanting to be the very best at those charisma skills. If you're not putting intimidate into combat effective zone then you're needing to scare some low HD guards or something. I've seen barbs pull of intimidate with a 7 charisma. Arcanists have exploits that are based off of charisma and yet you can make a great arcanist with a 7 charisma.
8/14/14/16+2/10/12 hardly mad. This stat array looks good for a bomb Alchemist or a ray attacking wizard.
and again, it's only if you're wanting to be the very best at those charisma skills. If you're not putting intimidate into combat effective zone then you're needing to scare some low HD guards or something. I've seen barbs pull of intimidate with a 7 charisma. Arcanists have exploits that are based off of charisma and yet you can make a great arcanist with a 7 charisma.
This is what we call anecdotal evidence in the sciences. Also, that stat array is assuming a pretty decent point buy.
I am still seeing a desire for at least a 12 cha here to use intimidate and your social persona. Check your watch, buddy: it is MAD o'clock (certainly more so than the wizard, kinetecist, and alchemist with whom I am drawing comparisons).Nope. With Bruising Intellect or Clever Wordplay, you do not need CHA to have focus in Intimidate.
True enough. Still, that gets into One True Build territory and you are still gonna suck as a social character.
The kineticist's is stronger, yes, but it also deals them 1 nonlethal (1 point of burn) per round at that level, since the Maximize metakinesis has a cost of 2. They can, however, use a move action to gather power and then attack with an Empowered Kinetic Blast at no burn cost, for an average of 31.5+0.75*Con. Still more than the Mystic Bolt's 29 damage (both touch attacks are going to hit in most cases), but Kinetic Blast is a core class feature of the Kineticist and Mystic Bolt is (nominally) an optional feature for the Warlock.Warlock w/ Mystic Bolt:
[n/n-5] D=1d6+11; E(D)=14.5
Alchemist w/ Bombs:
[n] D=6d6+int; E(D)=21+int+(AOE splash) (if int is 5, one bomb is usually worth more than 2 rays given that the second attack is a -5)
Kineticist w/ Maximized Touch Composite Blasts [prelim]:
[n] D=36+1/2con; E(D)=36+1/2con (you get to make this for free as a full round action if you are mitigating burn well; this is better than the warlock if both hit)
Wizard with Scorching Rays:
[n-4/n-4/n-4] D=4d6; E(D)=14 (this will generally be more total damage than mystic bolt, but is also only a standard action)Of these abilities, the Kineticist's is the most comparable (since it has "at will" use), and that beats the Warlock soundly. Perhaps that is okay given that at-will energy blasts are pretty much that class's schtick, but I think it is hard to argue that a Warlock can play a role as a major damage dealer in battle on mystic bolt alone.
I did note that the kineticist is doing that at-will with a full round action, but I was definitely misremembering what kinds of burn reductions you could actually get. And yeah: I did say that am okay with the Kineticist stepping on the the Warlock since the Vigilante ostensibly has other things going on for it. I will note that the Kineticist (and wizard and Alchemist) actually steps on him much harder when you consider all that you can do to enhance damage otherwise with that class using daily resources.
Perhaps there will be mystic bolt enhancing spells? I sort of doubt it given that it is an optional power, but that is life.
This is what we call anecdotal evidence in the sciences. Also, that stat array is assuming a pretty decent point buy.8/14/14/16+2/10/12 hardly mad. This stat array looks good for a bomb Alchemist or a ray attacking wizard.
and again, it's only if you're wanting to be the very best at those charisma skills. If you're not putting intimidate into combat effective zone then you're needing to scare some low HD guards or something. I've seen barbs pull of intimidate with a 7 charisma. Arcanists have exploits that are based off of charisma and yet you can make a great arcanist with a 7 charisma.
I'm just assuming the 20pt buy standard for PFS. What I'm saying is the class could hardly be considered a MAD class unless you want it to be. And that the class doesn't need charisma to be good at the charisma skills because of the class given bonuses.
It's been confirmed that the hand attacking with the bolts can be considered a free hand.
Can't you twf with a mystic bolt and thus also use say an Alchemists bombs as well? That's pretty powerful.Unfortunately, Vigilantes don't qualify for Fast Bombs, so it's a standard action for them to use a bomb. This prevents them from TWFing with a bomb and mystic bolt.
They need to change it in next playtest if they do two that you count as an alchemist for taking bomb discoveries.
They need to change it in next playtest if they do two that you count as an alchemist for taking bomb discoveries.Can't you twf with a mystic bolt and thus also use say an Alchemists bombs as well? That's pretty powerful.Unfortunately, Vigilantes don't qualify for Fast Bombs, so it's a standard action for them to use a bomb. This prevents them from TWFing with a bomb and mystic bolt.
You DO qualify for bomb discoveries, just damage ones with a '*'. So you can buff a siege weapon and create undead but you somehow can't figure out how to avoid hitting innocent bystanders or throwing them faster. The selection now makes little sense.