Shillelagh doesn't work with magical weapons, but since Arcane Strike says it only counts as magic for damage reduction purposes, theoretically it should still work, right?
Having reviewed Shillelagh and Arcane Strike, it looks OK to me.
Note that since Arcane Strike's duration is only one round, you will probably have to cast Shillelagh as a standard action and then use a swift to Arcane Strike it up on rounds when you're actually going to attack.
Having reviewed Shillelagh and Arcane Strike, it looks OK to me.
Note that since Arcane Strike's duration is only one round, you will probably have to cast Shillelagh as a standard action and then use a swift to Arcane Strike it up on rounds when you're actually going to attack.
Yep! That's the plan! Thanks for the quick response!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit of a niche interaction. Shillelagh is druid only, Arcane Strike requires Arcane casting ability. If you're a multiclass wizard/druid or something, yeah, it works.
The new Nature-Bonded Magus gets to add some Druid spells to their spell list. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the reason for this thread.
You're good to go with that combo
A bit of a niche interaction. Shillelagh is druid only, Arcane Strike requires Arcane casting ability. If you're a multiclass wizard/druid or something, yeah, it works.
Arcane Strike requires an arcane casting class to acquire, but is not tied to arcane caster level while using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit of a niche interaction. Shillelagh is druid only, Arcane Strike requires Arcane casting ability. If you're a multiclass wizard/druid or something, yeah, it works.
It also works for a Voice of the Wild Bard, which is arcane, but can take spells from either the Druid or Ranger spell list every few levels! Funnily enough, VotW can actually make for a better fire dancer than the actual Flame Dancer archetype, given how Druids get access to a bunch of fire spells, like say Produce Flame or Flame Strike! Not to mention Blessing of the Salamander!
Arcane Strike requires an arcane casting class to acquire, but is not tied to arcane caster level while using.
I do not believe that that is the case.
Arcane Strike requires an arcane casting class to acquire, but is not tied to arcane caster level while using.I do not believe that that is the case.
All you have to do to prove your point is quote the RAW where it states the caster level used for bonus calculation must be arcane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All you have to do to prove your point is quote the RAW where it states the caster level used for bonus calculation must be arcane.
Proof is for math.
The evidence is the feat ARCANE strike says it draws on your ARCANE power. As a DM I'd wouldn't allow the divine caster levels to count, as a player I'd avoid it.
All you have to do to prove your point is quote the RAW where it states the caster level used for bonus calculation must be arcane.Proof is for math.
Provide RAW backing your position or it is a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Provide RAW backing your position or it is a houserule.All you have to do to prove your point is quote the RAW where it states the caster level used for bonus calculation must be arcane.Proof is for math.
Every wizard spell description that refers to "caster level" does not refer to "arcane caster level." By your specious reasoning, it would be a houserule to say that someone with 1 level in wizard and 10 levels in cleric casts magic missile at 10th level, because the spell doesn't explicitly say "arcane caster level."
Provide RAW backing that a wiz1/clr10 doesn't use their divine caster level when determining magic missile damage, or it is a houserule.
Provide RAW backing that a wiz1/clr10 doesn't use their divine caster level when determining magic missile damage, or it is a houserule.
I will concede your point and agree that I can use my cleric level to calculate wizard spell damage.
A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she’s using to cast the spell.
Similar language does not exist for the Arcane Strike feat.
Provide RAW backing that a wiz1/clr10 doesn't use their divine caster level when determining magic missile damage, or it is a houserule.A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
TriOmegaZero - I like that answer, however, since that line is not reprinted in every single spell description, I'm afraid that any effort to interpolate it using Volkard's criteria that if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the immediate text it isn't RAW, puts us into houserule territory.
TriOmegaZero - I like that answer, however, since that line is not reprinted in every single spell description, I'm afraid that any effort to interpolate it using Volkard's criteria that if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the immediate text puts us into houserule territory.Provide RAW backing that a wiz1/clr10 doesn't use their divine caster level when determining magic missile damage, or it is a houserule.A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
For any spell lacking specific rules for resolving caster level, the general rule is applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the prerequisite is 'Cast Arcane Spells' it is basic reading comprehension that the caster level in question is referring to that prerequisite and thus has to be an arcane caster level.
Saying something isn't RAW (or is RAW) because the rule book isn't written with the meticulousness of a contract developed by a high powered law firm is a misuse of the term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the prerequisite is 'Cast Arcane Spells' it is basic reading comprehension that the caster level in question is referring to that prerequisite and thus has to be an arcane caster level.
There are many feats in the game whose usage has little or nothing to do with the requisites for obtaining the feat. This has been the case since Core.
Saying something isn't RAW (or is RAW) because the rule book isn't written with the meticulousness of a contract developed by a high powered law firm is a misuse of the term.
And yet, the development team themselves are inconsistent in this regard. Sometimes FAQs use very pedantic interpretation of RAW, sometimes they use a more informal interpretation based solely in RAI, sometimes they errata the RAW.
In this case, what is actually written is not subject to debate. The caster level used is not specified as "arcane."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Provide RAW backing your position or it is a houserule.
No.
RAI is a thing. Absolute, uncompromising inane raw has a terrible track record of getting the right answer. Why on earth would you use it, much less insist that it's the only right way to read the rules?
Declaring your side de facto right and requiring absolute mathematical proof is not a genuine way to have a rules conversation. Its loading the dice before you roll. Its bad faith and worse rules interpretation.
The name of the feat, the line about drawing on your arcane power both strongly suggest that it uses your arcane caster level. I believe that that has more weight than -they only repeated the word arcane 5 times in three sentences instead of 6...-
Provide RAW backing your position or it is a houserule.No.
RAI is a thing. Absolute, uncompromising inane raw has a terrible track record of getting the right answer. Why on earth would you use it, much less insist that it's the only right way to read the rules?
Declaring your side de facto right and requiring absolute mathematical proof is not a genuine way to have a rules conversation. Its loading the dice before you roll. Its bad faith and worse rules interpretation.
The name of the feat, the line about drawing on your arcane power both strongly suggest that it uses your arcane caster level. I believe that that has more weight than -they only repeated the word arcane 5 times in three sentences instead of 6...-
This is the rules forums, not the personal beliefs forum.
RAW, rules as written, take precedence over personal opinion regarding the way things should be.
If RAW was what you believe it should be, your position would be as easily proven as the comment on spell caster level was in the comments immediately preceding this one.
Without RAW backing your position, all you have left is house rules and personal belief. Material better suited for other sub-forums.
Since when a single user decides what is RAW and what is personal beliefs ? Public topics aren't a cockfighting arena where some bite each other to say I'm the loudest so I'm right.
Since RAW can be easily quoted from legitimate sources.
BigNorseWolf is well aware that RAW does not support his position and is clearly stating that RAW is irrelevant in this caste because his interpretation of RAI takes precedence.
What I see is a no-show of a link to the relevant rule. I'm not taking position so no verbal escalation will be valid. What I see is two egos invalidating each other rather than a constructive debate.
RAW does not specify the caster level used to calculate damage from Arcane Strike must be arcane.
In contrast
Spells do have a general rule that specifies which caster level is used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the rules forums, not the personal beliefs forum.
Is it the inane raw forum? The computer programming forum? The asmodean level of persnicket forum?
No. Its the rules forum. As the rules are written to be read with a modicum of common sense reading them as such is not a flaw. Nor does it make such readings "personal beliefs" that you can override with a raw is law view that is itself a personal belief about how the rules should be read.
RAW, rules as written, take precedence over personal opinion regarding the way things should be.
Citation required. Where is THIS rule written?
If RAW was what you believe it should be, your position would be as easily proven as the comment on spell caster level was in the comments immediately preceding this one.
If the rules were written that tightly that would be the case, but they're not. They're written with readability in mind.
Without RAW backing your position, all you have left is house rules and personal belief. Material better suited for other sub-forums.
and Common sense and reason and evidence and precedent and...
RAW can be read multiple ways.
RAW gets you some really weird results sometimes.
It gives you neither accuracy nor precision. Its an important tool but not the only one in the box
RAW, rules as written, take precedence over personal opinion regarding the way things should be.Citation required. Where is THIS rule written?
RAW is only objective constant.
If personal opinion takes precedence, my personal opinion is that your personal opinion is invalid due to lack of consistency with published material.
condensed from Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques,
by George McCoy Musgrave. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1957:5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
And there is your citation.
You have asserted that the caster level used must be arcane. You have yet to introduce RAW supporting this claim, relying instead on specious arguments as your sole source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I see is two egos invalidating each other rather than a positive debate.
Besides [WOPR]having a game of chess instead[WOPR], what would you recommend as a less "ego" centric approach?
I don't think you can suggest one. I'm pretty sure you're just going with people are fighting therefore they're both wrong.
[judge dread]RAW IS LAW![/judge dread] is not the only way to read the rules.
It doesn't provide accuracy (it has a terrible record of being right)
It doesn't provide precision. Some of the most diverging ideas about how the rules work will both come from trying to read the rules exactly as they're written and extrapolating from there like they're logical postulates.
I'm not denigrating a person. I have issues with an approach with a terrible track record being touted as the one true way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is only objective constant.
RAW is neither of these things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there is your citation.
... which doesn't remotely say what you're citing it as evidence for. At all. Quite the opposite. You really should listen to it.
. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince ---> something happens ----> RAW, rules as written, take precedence over personal opinion regarding the way things should be.
... there's no correlation there.
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
The feat is called arcane strike
The feat requires an arcane caster level.
The feat says that you are drawing on your arcane power.
That is evidence, but not proof, that it uses your arcane caster level. There are levels of evidence in between the "personal opinion" you deride and absolute Aristotelian proof. You are shifting the metadiscussion in an effort to discount that, violating the thing you're saying you're following.
And there is your citation.... which doesn't remotely say what you're citing it as evidence for. At all. Quite the opposite. You really should listen to it.
. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince ---> something happens ----> RAW, rules as written, take precedence over personal opinion regarding the way things should be.
... there's no correlation there.
You are making an assertion: Arcane Strike uses arcane caster level to calculate damage.
You have introduced nothing to support this position.
I am making a counter-assertion: RAW does not specify the caster level used to calculate damage must be arcane.
I have provided the relevant RAW backing my statement.
Per the rules of debate: assertions without support are invalid arguments.
Per your request, and the Rules of Debate, citation has been provided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have introduced nothing to support this position.
This is objectively false to the point that i can no longer even consider the pretense that you are discussing this in good faith.
If you need outright falsehoods to support your position, reconsider your position.
You have introduced nothing to support this position.
This is objectively false to the point that i can no longer even consider the pretense that you are discussing this in good faith.
If you need outright falsehoods to support your position, reconsider your position.
You have introduces specious argument.
You have not introduced Paizo published material (i.e. RAW) supporting your claim.
