Gol Zayvian's page

On a related note, how do you feel about spell ranges and crossing planar boundaries? I had planned for his hiding space to be on the demiplane of shadows in an area that overlaps his lair on the prime material plane. Since in the cosmology of the world, the plane of shadow is much like the ethereal plane which overlaps and exists in the same space/time with the prime, do you think it will break the range, and if so, what tricks do you think I might need to prepare so that the dragon can pull it off?

Being that it is My group, and I am GM, ultimately adjudication falls to me. since its not a PFS game, I think I'll be going for it. I just wanted to get a feel for what others thought. It should be a beastly fun encounter.

Unfortunately, no. You can not use magic jar to take the body of an incorporeal creature. From the Paizo PRD:

Quote:

Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

(Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)

I am planning an encounter for my party with a great wyrm umbral dragon.I had the idea that it would be super cool if he could use Magic Jar to possess his undead minions (which are shadows), and use their bodies to attack the party and cast spells at them while he remains safely hidden in a secret chamber of his lair. So does this work?

So if illusory fire can cause burning sensations, what is the point of the higher level illusion spells that include tactile sensation?

Isn't a feeling of burning not a tactile sensation, one that major image doesn't, or shouldn't, duplicate?

Nope, the difference is with major image i can create heat your body will respond naturally to that heat and creates the tactile sensation for me. Not the same thing for example as using Mirage Arcana to create a table and chairs you can sit on.

If we were to bring real world science into it (i am normally the last person to do so) thermal effects alone would be enough to cause damage, because it isn't the flame itself that causes damage in a fireball, it is the exposure to sudden and extremely intense heat. It's the heat of the chemical reaction that produces flame which is what burns you not the flame itself.
Basic physiology of the human body will tell you that exposure to high heat (i.e. thermal effects) will cause pain and blistering. With the exception of some very extreme cases of humans with way above average mental discipline, these bodily reactions are largely involuntary and will happen at temperatures much lower than those needed to turn air into plasma.

However, since the spell cannot deal damage, we're left with merely simulating it, and I posit that the spell description provides enough information that an intelligent wizard could effectively do so well enough for a DM to hand out damage which didn't really happen so that he can fool his players.

I also submit that many players would be awed and entertained by an illusionist foe that skilled. so cases of butt hurt should be few.

So for you nay sayers, The illusion can generate thermal effects, and heat absolutely does cause pain, so fake heat would also induce pain, and if your illusion doesn't end with the detonation of the fireball, but continues with scorch marks and blistering and the ongoing effects of being burned appearing on the body, then a failed save absolutely could cause them to feel as though they were struck by a real fireball. a well crafted illusion would even include blisters that broke open and felt like more burning heat when characters moved or touched effected appendages. At that point the only interaction that would allow you a second save would be not dying when HP dropped too low.

Could you not include the sensation of pain and burning into the illusion? then as the DM tell them they took x damage and write that number down? If the players failed their save, i think its reasonable that they believe whole heartedly that they took a fireball and it hurt like hell. They wouldn't realy figure it out until their total damage was reduced to 0 and they didn't lose consciousness. I think that sort of encounter would be super cool.

This is how I adjudicate Wishes in my group:

PC is caster of wish: If it is within the spells pervue, the magic interprets his intent and he gets the most favourable possible result.
If the spell is granted by an inanimate object, the wish is intepreted as literally and neutrally as possible.
If it is an Evil caster (ifreets come to mind), then the wish is twisted in a way that has negative consequence to the caster but still follows the letter of the wish.
A Good caster will be largely the same as the PC excepting that it will refuse wishes that can have dangerous consequences.
The other thing I will do, is have the PC make an intelligence check to see how close the wish comes. because maybe the character is smarter than the player.

Gol Zayvian wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

Bolded for clarity

Gol Zayvian wrote:

for clarity:
Step 1. roll dice
Step 2. Group Dice
Step 3. Select group and sum
Step 4. Add Sum to any [b]1[/i] d20 roll during spell duration.

"You can apply this bonus to a number of rolls equal to the number of dice in the group."

Oops I missed that last paragraph when i read the spell earlier.

In light of it, I stand by my reading, but agree that its WAY too powerful for a second level spell.

When there are two ways to read a spell, one of which is clearly outside RAI, why would you intepret it that way?

It's not like you can't just as easily parse that sentence to mean the sum on the dice.

You really can't though. It's close, but a real straight forward reading of the RAW is as I describe it. It's exactly for this reason that people ask for FAQ's and clarification. I for one don't think it's too much to ask that rules be clearly stated in unequivocal language.

Bolded for clarity

Gol Zayvian wrote:

for clarity:
Step 1. roll dice
Step 2. Group Dice
Step 3. Select group and sum
Step 4. Add Sum to any [b]1[/i] d20 roll during spell duration.

"You can apply this bonus to a number of rolls equal to the number of dice in the group."

Oops I missed that last paragraph when i read the spell earlier.

In light of it, I stand by my reading, but agree that its WAY too powerful for a second level spell and probably not the RAI.

I would argue that you DO add the dice.

Quote:

Group the dice by like results, and choose one of the groups. For the duration of cleromancy, you can apply a luck bonus equal to the result of the selected dice to any d20 roll.

You didn't select a single die, you selected a single group, and you're adding a luck bonus equal to their result. That's why I think, if he picked the group of two 4's, he'd get 2 uses of +8.

However, that seems far too powerful, so I have to question if the spell was worded correctly. Then again, "dice" is singular while "die" is plural, and the word "dice" was used.

So actually, I reverse my opinion mid-post. You don't add the numbers together, the groups are just to give you your selections.

And that, kids, is how my brain works.

I have to say, I would agree, this seems to indicate that you pick a group, sum the dice in it, and then once during the duration you can add that sum to a d20 roll.

for clarity:
Step 1. roll dice
Step 2. Group Dice
Step 3. Select group and sum
Step 4. Add Sum to a number of d20 rolls during spell duration = to number of dice in selected group.

[Edited]

As I stated in another thread, Vampiric Touch should remain unchanged. The damage should not have a type because it is not a negative energy effect, it is a transfer of HP from target to caster which results in loss of HP for the target (ergo damage).

Vampiric Touch is Not affected by Deathward.

If it helps to have a rational explanation why, here it is:
The damage is untyped because (if you read between the lines) it's not really damage at all, but a transfer of hp from target to caster.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Emphasis Mine. You absolutely can make an unarmed strike with Spiked Gauntlets to deliver a touch spell for which you're holding the charge.

While i would love for that to be true, I am not so certain from a RAW reading that it is. By its description, a spiked gauntlet for example is a light melee weapon, and not listed under the unarmed strikes section. that combined with this:

Light: [b]A light weapon is used in one hand.[b] It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

Leads me to believe that at the very least a spiked gauntlet does not count as having a free hand.

So my question is this, When wearing gauntlets or spiked gauntlets (assume either both hands are so equipped, or one is and the other is wielding a weapon or shield etc...), do you still count as having the free hand necessary to perform somatic spell components?

I have personally worn hand crafted forged iron gauntlets and found that while they are heavy, they did not restrict my manual dexterity any more so then a pair of thick gloves.

I will be starting a new thread...

You have to use either a touch attack or an unarmed strike to deliver the touch spell. See the "Holding the Charge" section of "Touch Spells in Combat"

'Holding the Charge' wrote:

Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

However, I don't think this can be done as your "free" touch attack as part of casting the spell, since it can only be done while holding a charge.

You're correct, you don't get the free touch this way, because in order to trigger the stored spell, you need to have the gauntlet deal damage (which requires an unarmed strike). So you hold until the following round and then punch delivering both at once.

Yes, however you have to deliver the punch the round after you cast the vamp touch because an unarmed strike does not count as the free touch granted by the spell, and using touch to deliver the spell means the gauntlet isn't dealing the damage necessary to trigger the stored spell. But it's a nice move to cast vamp touch and hold the charge round one while you move to close the distance to your enemy.

You could look for things like pervading evil in the area causing food stores to wilt or decay rapidly, or become infested with insects. it will only take a few fortitude saves from eating infected maggots before the party willingly starts to go hungry. but make it a puzzle they can solve or something they can do to purify the area as one of their quest objectives. then it becomes a race, can they find and purify before starvation sets in.

So as a frontline spontaneous caster, don't forget meta magic. If the idea is to stand there and take it, you'll be able to 5'step out of most threat ranges and use a full rd to cast metamagically enhance spells. Vamp touch gets pretty mean when you start slapping max/emp/intensified spell onto it. also don't rule out the power of spell penetration to bypass SR.
And then there is Spiked Gauntlets of Spell Storing:

Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

You can cast vamp touch and punch to deliver 2 of them at the same time, (one of them stored in your gauntlet) and the one you just cast.

If you have anyway of adding sneak attack, the extra damage dealt will add to your temporary HP from vampiric touch. Since The spell is the source of the sneak attack damage.

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) wrote:

The sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kvtr?Rules-Clarification#6

The sneak attack damage type is the same as the base attack, so if the base attack doesn't have a damage type, you can't use that attack to do sneak attacks.

This is why sneak attack with vampiric touch is so good, since the sneak attack damage is sourced by the spell, you get the extra dice of HP back too ;).

It's really the only 3rd level spell worth sneak attacking with, no idea why anyone even asks about fireball other than the fact that the rules need to be rewritten.

To be fair, the other reason i do it is because it entertains me to no end.

Physics/acceleration are Red Herrings.

Beautifully put sir. This is the reason why when physics is brought up i turn to enormously ridiculous hyperbole to illustrate why they shouldn't be. ;)

Dallium, you're operating on assumptions not present in the text. You're equating the max distance the effect can move the object in a round as some how being a function of speed. That is an inference but not defined as such in the text. If I move the object at 30 quintillion times the speed of sound and then suddenly halt it's forward momentum when it achieves a distance of 15', that is well within the bounds of what is described in the spell. The text only says you can propel it no further than 15' per round. it doesn't specify how fast it does this, only that by round end it may not be further from point a than 15'. The problem with your assumption is that you imagine the object being lifted and moved at a steady rate of acceleration from point a to point b, because this image makes the most logical common sense (which I agree with btw) however by a strict reading of the text, that isn't the only way you can imagine the event unfolding.

Gol Zayvian wrote:

Master of Shadows wrote:

What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.

This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.

Using an alias to agree with your own post is really, really lame.

HAHAHA It's just that important to me. ;)

By the way, another question on the topic : can you include yourself in the Area created by the spell ?

sure can, place it's starting point at the back corner of your square so that it's line of effect passes through it and you could definately shock yourself.

ryric wrote:

If you really want to house rule that mage hand can attack, I suggest including improvised weapon penalties and giving the spell a strength score of 1. -9 to hit and -5 damage seems about right if you were to allow this at all.

From this perspective, I think it's worthwhile to point out that there are attack cantrips - ray of frost and acid splash. These do 1d3 damage on a ranged touch attack. It doesn't seem unbalanced to allow mage hand to assault someone with a weapon weighing 5 lbs. or less, as long as it does 1d3 damage. Since a physical weapon would be a regular attack instead of a touch attack, I would probably say it's safe to bring it up to 1d4 damage.

Honestly from a balance perspective it would be fair for the weapon to do a ranged attack (applying normay proficiency rules) and do flat weapon damage with no bonus or penalty on damage since most characters with access will be on the low end of the BAB spectrum, and the attack will be against full AC. After about 2nd level such an attack would be laughable at best.

But either way, I'm done with this thread. The OP had been answered and now I'm arguing about physics with people who don't know basic physics equations. I wish you all the best of luck with your peasant rail guns and vorpal butter knives.

I'm sorry if you feel i've defecated on your cheerios, but I do understand basic physics quite well, and I also understand that the results of any equation are inconclusive when you can't replace all the variables with real numbers. there is simply not enough data provided to make such calculations. Additionally there is really no need to.

There are other ways to run survival Horror. I ran a campaign where the entire thing took place over the course of a single night of game time. although it was 2 or three sessions of real world time. This allows you to pack many encounters into one day there by placing great strain on player resources and placing a premium on time to rest and recoup. add to this limited access to healing like wands and potions of cure light wounds, and an ever increasing escalation of number of encounters and things get really exciting. Mine was an overnight zombie infestation of a small hamlet. at one point players were forced to do battle against a zombie bull that was charging the door of the house they were barracaded into and later a stealthy Zombie housecat. Additionally I used infection rules where even the tiniest scratch was potentially very dangerous.

You say I'm wrong, yet I am actually agreeing with you. Here is what I said:

Quote:

We actually can't determine a specific force for each use because the rule abstraction for move actions and turns doesn't give us that kind of precision.

and

Quote:

Again, this type of analysis is kind of pointless and is most certainly futile.

Here is what you said:

Quote:

and because of this it is impossible to determine the force of its movement and that within the confines of the game rules all of it is 100% irrelevant

My Apologies, I corrected myself.

Stacking works like this:

Stacking

No, you're wrong, the spell is ambiguous, all we know is that the concentration necessary to move the object takes a move action, but we do not know with absolute certainty that the object begins moving when we begin concentrating. we only know that in 1 round it can travel no farther than 15 feet. it could conceivably from the way the spell is written travel 15' at light speed and stop, then the next round travel another 15' at light speed. I am not saying that it does, only that it is 100% impossible based on the RAW text to determine the rate of acceleration. and because of this it is impossible to determine the force of its movement and that within the confines of the game rules all of it is 100% irrelevant because no character in any GM's game will survive the attempt to whip out their abacus and calculate the exact force in order to justify whether a weapon wielded by Mage Hand can or cannot make an attack.

[Edited: this really only needed to be directed at CampinCarl9127]

Still Impossible to calculate acceleration because we have no way of knowing from the spell when the object begins and ends its movement, or if it's speed to destination is consistent. All we know is that it doesn't teleport the object, that doesn't tell us if it takes 1 second, 3 seconds, 6 second, or 1/10th nanosecond to travel from point A to Point B or even if the speed it moves at is steady or if it can start and stop along the way.

I've looked at the lines before, and they're the messiest of the areas of effect for some reason.

Simplest to me seems the following:
1) Pick a grid intersection bordering your square and call it A.
2) Pick a grid intersection with range of A, and call it B.
3) Draw a line between A and B.
4) Any square that the line travels through is affected. Squares it merely passes next to are not affected.

So to draw a straight lightning bolt "north", you'd draw a line from your northwestern corner to a square 60ft north of your northeastern corner.

this would be true if the line were a one dimensional series of connected points going from A to B. The problem is that the Life effect, at least in the case of lightning bolt and many others has a defined width of 5' making it a 2 dimensional plane. Therefore, any square that your one dimensional line would pass next 2 would be overlapped by the 2 dimensional 5'wide plane and thus be subject to the spell effect.

The real question here is this: Should the Line Area of effect be allowed to violate the boundaries of normal grid lines, or must it always "Snap to Grid"?

My Personal opinion (and I am the first to point out that opinion =/= Rules), is that all area effects should not be required to "snap to Grid".

Next time I'm asked this question and an explanation is wanted, I will simply say "No, because magic."

Hmm, some one said this before, who was it...

Oh yeah me:

And arguments consisting of "Because Physics" are invalid because magic.

This is why force is not a factor (even though [Force] may be a descriptor). The spell makes no mention what so ever of the amount of force that can be exerted upon the object.

That portion of the discussion is a conjecture brought into play be the Physics majors among us. the only thing really stipulated by the spell is Max weight to be lifted, and Max Distance it can be moved.

If you want to bring real world physics into it, then you also must bring in all sorts of considerations. For example, because the spell specifies weight and not mass, then you need to know things like altitude, because as you change altitude the amount of gravity exerted upon an object changes and therefore so does its weight.

Why oh why do people have to make this more complicated than it needs to be?

It's because nerds have so much pent up rage. ;)

Especially nerds who feel the need to have their characters be more amazing than everyone else's character and get shot down.

What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.

This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.

Honestly, I think it's the diagrams that are bad, replacing them with templates of equal shape and size that can be placed any where on the board with no need to be concerned with having them line up perfectly with the grid squares would be far cleaner and more representative of real world mechanics. For example, a RAW reading of the Line Are Effect (ignoring the diagrams)absolutely would be able to be drawn down the line between squares, and hit all creatures on both sides because a lightning bolt's line is 5' wide and begins at the corner the casters square, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that 2.5' of the bolt passes through squares on either side of the dividing line.

The Easiest way to figure it out is to take you full base attack line and add one off hand attack with the same bonus at each step for each TWF feat you have, then add you primary and off hand penalties afterward based on the relevant weapon sizes.

So you end up with something like this:
Standard BAB Attacks 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
TWF Off Hand Attacks TWF*|ITWF|GTWF | PTWF+

*Two weapon fighting is not actually necessary fo a single offhand attack, but it drastically reduces penalties, and is a prerequisite for subsequent feats that are required to add iterative attacks.

+Perfect Two weapon fighting, I don't recall if this is actually available in PF, it was an epic feat in 3.5.

1st question, No, you get 2 new spells, those spells can be from any level you can cast. if it were the way you were suggesting it would read like this:

At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of every spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook.

For your second question, you're exactly right, each spell level you get 1 free slot for spells of your specialty school.

Gol Zayvian, you show a textbook example of how reading strictly RAW without applying common sense can lead to absolute hilarity. It reminds me of the peasant railgun.

This was intended, there is nothing quite as fun as a well placed hyperbole.

Note:

reading Gol Zayvian without applying common sense can lead to absolute hilarity.

Artistic license mine.

Spoiler:

Dallium wrote:

I'm not trying to be rude, but almost everything you've just said is nonsense. Point by point:

Gol Zayvian wrote:

There is absolutely nothing in the spell which indicates any quantity of force which can or cannot be exerted on the object simply that you can only lift or move an object weighing no greater than 5 pounds.

The spell gives a magnitude and a maximum speed, and the rules tell us how long a round is. That's all you need to calculate force.

Gol Zayvian wrote:

It is at there very least within the purview of this spell to lift a 5lb object over an enemies head and then drop it causing whatever falling damage might apply to the object to be inflicted both on the object and the target. assuming a successful ranged attack with whatever circumstance bonuses or penalties a fair GM wants to impose.

Yes you could do this.

Gol Zayvian wrote:

By Raw, since there is no mention of velocity, there is nothing preventing me from moving the object 15 feet at speeds great enough to turn the surrounding air into plasma from friction. Go Mage Hand lightning bolt!

Firstly, that isn't "by RAW." Nothing in the RAW says anything like that. You might have a leg to stand on if you said because the rules are silent it has infinite acceleration. Because magic.

Secondly, the reason the object can't move more than 15 ft in a round is because you can't make it go any faster. If you could move it faster, it could go farther. That's the entire basis of speed in PF (and real life, but real life isn't necessarily relevant right now). If your speed is 30, you can go 30 ft in a single move action because that's as fast as you can go in 3 seconds and still take a standard action.

And because the spell uses the word "propel," we know it physically moves through the intervening space.

Gol Zayvian wrote:

Additionally if you want to make the argument be about the quantity of force (which is totally 100% irrelevent to the question), the amount of force exerted on

...

I will respond in kind:

2.

The spell gives a magnitude and a maximum speed, and the rules tell us how long a round is. That's all you need to calculate force.

It does not give speed, it gives maximum distance. Meaning, if the object starts at point A, then by the end of a 6 second period it can be no farther than point B 15' distant from A and no greater than max range from caster.

Yes you could do this.

Glad you agree. ;)

Firstly, that isn't "by RAW." Nothing in the RAW says anything like that. You might have a leg to stand on if you said because the rules are silent it has infinite acceleration. Because magic.

Secondly, the reason the object can't move more than 15 ft in a round is because you can't make it go any faster. If you could move it faster, it could go farther. That's the entire basis of speed in PF (and real life, but real life isn't necessarily relevant right now). If your speed is 30, you can go 30 ft in a single move action because that's as fast as you can go in 3 seconds and still take a standard action.

And because the spell uses the word "propel," we know it physically moves through the intervening space.

No where does it specify that it takes the entire 6 seconds to arrive at its destination, and in fact since concentrating to move it is a move action, it's reasonable to assume it takes less. I posit that for rules purposes it matters not at all whether it arrives at the 15' extent in 6 seconds or less than 1 nano second. It's a game and it's magic there fore real world physics plays no roll in it. And Mage Hand Lightning Bolt, is clearly a hyperbole used to illustrate that i think many of the arguments in this thread are ridiculous.

When posters say, "You can attack with this because you can move a weapon," it's completely relevant to say "Maybe, except you couldn't possibly hit or do damage because physics."

Every single vaild target for Mage Hand has the exact same acceleration curve. Mage Hand allows you to move n lbs at around 5ft/s, where n <= 5. If the object is 5 lbs, it moves at 5ft/s. If it's a gram, it still moves at 5ft/s. Which means the force behind it is directly proportional to it's mass. Which means the impulse on contact is significantly lower with the sewing needle than the 5lb weapon. To give a more accurate example of your sewing needle senario, hold the needle an inch (which is probably generous) above your skin and drop it. That you can try at home.

Would you rather be hit by a semi at 30 mph, or a butterfly at 30 mph?

The butterfly clearly. And arguments consisting of "Because Physics" are invalid because magic.

Which is why you burst it in the 5^3 20' above your target if you want to hit enemies on the air and on the ground. ;) it's also how you give your GM nightmares as suddenly your pathfinder game becomes one of 3d star trek chess.

Yes, it absolutely can Spells with a radius have spherical dimensions except in specific instances (such as flame strike being a pillar).

Mage Hand

School transmutation; Level bard 0, sorcerer/wizard 0

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lbs.

Duration concentration

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell's range.

There is absolutely nothing in the spell which indicates any quantity of force which can or cannot be exerted on the object simply that you can only lift or move an object weighing no greater than 5 pounds.

By Raw, since there is no mention of velocity, there is nothing preventing me from moving the object 15 feet at speeds great enough to turn the surrounding air into plasma from friction. Go Mage Hand lightning bolt!

Additionally if you want to make the argument be about the quantity of force (which is totally 100% irrelevent to the question), the amount of force exerted on one end of an object is not the same as the amount of force produced on the other end. Take for example sewing pin with a flat head, 5lbs of force on the back end will be amplified sufficiently at the point to drive it through a persons hand entirely. If you don't believe me, feel free to experiment at home, but i am not responsible for the results.

Wouldn't you simply take a non proficiency penalty on attack rolls and deal only strength*1 on the attack for one handing a greatsword? you should still be able to AoO.

Ah, but we had to many gnomes running around using arcane strike, that just can't be. No Gnomish Fighters!

I felt this statement had too many qualifiers, I have simplified it below:

No Gnomes!

Note that you still wouldn't be able to cast a spell from the spellstaff, as it isn't a scroll or anything. It's just a collection of arcane words used for you to prepare your spells.

Not entirely true ;)

If you are a Wizard, and if the staff is the subject of your arcane bond, then you most definitely can at least 1/day.

A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).