This ability should be clarified please. We noticed potential abuse in our playtest by a mage carrying a large size greatsword just for this ability. The description should explicitly state that the hand can draw a one-handed weapon of a size useable by the caster, or draw a weapon with which the caster is proficient. Also should the casters intelligence bonus be added to damage? We felt it made sense to add intelligence modifier for attack rolls, but not for damage.
Has anyone else noticed how powerful this can be at lower levels?
|
It already says so for most of that. "You can summons a ghostly hand" and "The hand does not threaten" and "You must concentrate on the hand."
It's a single hand, which means 2 handed weapons are out.
As for the wizard not being proficient with the weapon. Humans are proficient with anything. Elves, longswords and rapiers. I can go on but there's not much point. The wizard will likely be proficient with whatever weapon it is. But if he's not.. there's more still..
Finally, Hand of the Apprentice still has Mage Hand's 5 lb limit. So I'm not going to calculate the weight of a LARGE weapon, but if a Great Sword weighs 8 lbs.. well you should be able to figure out what I'm saying.
It already says so for most of that. "You can summons a ghostly hand" and "The hand does not threaten" and "You must concentrate on the hand."
It's a single hand, which means 2 handed weapons are out.
As for the wizard not being proficient with the weapon. Humans are proficient with anything. Elves, longswords and rapiers. I can go on but there's not much point. The wizard will likely be proficient with whatever weapon it is. But if he's not.. there's more still..
Finally, Hand of the Apprentice still has Mage Hand's 5 lb limit. So I'm not going to calculate the weight of a LARGE weapon, but if a Great Sword weighs 8 lbs.. well you should be able to figure out what I'm saying.
Thanks, I should have looked up mage hand as it takes care of using large weapons. Any thoughts on the intelligence modifier to damage?
Another limitation to keep in mind:
One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.
And, if memory serves, you add your Int. and BAB to Attack and Damage. Not just Int. This can be pretty powerful (my level 3 wizard had a +5 to hit and did 1d8+5 damage with a longsword).
Some issues though... Mage Hand takes a move action to move the object 15'. Not sure if this applies to the Hand of the Apprentice, or if you can move it 30' as a move action. Then there's the attack - assuming standard action but I don't really know. So if you keep track of where the sword is, where it is moving to, and charge the caster for the actions, I think the effectiveness can be reduced.
Keep the victim more than 30 feet away... the Wizard takes a move action to move closer, then a move action to move the sword, then can't attack.
|
|
Thanks, I should have looked up mage hand as it takes care of using large weapons. Any thoughts on the intelligence modifier to damage?
It's not just large weapons, battle axes don't work for dwarf wizards and there's more.
Intelligence bonus is fine by me. You have to remember, all the other level 1 school abilities are +1 per 2 levels or something like that. So Hand of the Apprenice starts out better but only keeps up with the others IF the Wizard continues increasing his Intelligence. The others are also touch attacks, Hand of the Apprentice has to bypass full armor.
Thanks, I should have looked up mage hand as it takes care of using large weapons. Any thoughts on the intelligence modifier to damage?It's not just large weapons, battle axes don't work for dwarf wizards and there's more.
Intelligence bonus is fine by me. You have to remember, all the other level 1 school abilities are +1 per 2 levels or something like that. So Hand of the Apprenice starts out better but only keeps up with the others IF the Wizard continues increasing his Intelligence. The others are also touch attacks, Hand of the Apprentice has to bypass full armor.
The hit and damage do increase beyond just the Int. increase though.
The hand can be directed to make a single attack against a foe within 30 feet, using your base attack bonus plus your
Intelligence modifier for both attack and damage.
Granted, a Wizard's BAB doesn't increase all that fast... but between the two the increase might be along the same lines as the increase of +1 per 2 levels of other abilities.
I am curious if the non-magical weapon was an intentional restriction, or if it was overlooked in Alpha 1. Otherwise, that'd be a good way to increase the usefulness of this ability over time (particularly if then gambling with one's bonded sword).
|
|
Granted, a Wizard's BAB doesn't increase all that fast... but between the two the increase might be along the same lines as the increase of +1 per 2 levels of other abilities.
Not really. The others get the bonus of being touch spells, meaning you're going to be lowering the AC of monsters much more then you can ever increase your Intelligence modifier.
But use the same BAB, so that's not a factor.
The +1 per 2 levels applies to the other powers damage. Again, your Intelligence modifier isn't going to increase that fast.
Granted, a Wizard's BAB doesn't increase all that fast... but between the two the increase might be along the same lines as the increase of +1 per 2 levels of other abilities.Not really. The others get the bonus of being touch spells, meaning you're going to be lowering the AC of monsters much more then you can ever increase your Intelligence modifier.
But use the same BAB, so that's not a factor.
The +1 per 2 levels applies to the other powers damage. Again, your Intelligence modifier isn't going to increase that fast.
Think you're missing my point. +1 damage per 2 levels means +10 at level 20.
BAB of a Wizard is 10 at level 20. Thus, the Hand of the Apprentice does Int + 10 damage at level 20. If your Int starts at 18 and you increase it by 5 over 20 levels, add another 6 from an enhancement and +1 from a wish... so an Int of 30, for +10. So, Hand of the Apprentice at level 20 does weapon damage + 20.
That's a bit more than those other abilities. but, as you say, it's going against normal AC, not touch AC... but, then again, why would a 20th level Wizard be using either of these abilities over a spell?
I had some similar ideas and concerns HERE.
I was also wondering about the ability to function outside a resiliant sphere or on the opposite side of a wall of force... that kind of thing.
Could you barrier yourself with a wall of force and then beat the crap out of something with your hand of the apprentice?
It specifically says that the wizard needs to concentrate each round. standard action.wizard, moves closer, takes a standard action to move the hand up to 30 feet and then it can attack. 1 round.
Well... let's look at the rules...
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): As a standard action, you can summon a ghostly hand to do your bidding. This functions like mage hand with the following changes. When summoned, the hand can draw a weapon on your person as a free action. The hand can be directed to make a single attack against a foe within 30 feet,...
Standard action to summon; free action to draw a weapon, with a movement of 30'. Otherwise, just like Mage Hand. The Rules don't say whether moving the Hand 15' or 30' is a move action or if that is part of the standard action. Not the portion dealing with directing the Mage Hand to move 30' and attack is separate from the description of what happens when the sword is summoned - thus not necessarily within that first standard action. Since there is nothing there stating that the Hand of the Apprentice moves as part of the standard action, it is not changed from Mage Hand (not a listed change).
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.
So from Mage Hand we know that it is a Move Action to move the Mage Hand, and from the SRD we know it is a standard action to maintain concentration on it.
Let's say you attack Target. Target is 30' from the Wizard. On Target's turn, it moves 10' back from the Wizard. Wizard's turn, he spends a Move Action to move forward 10' to be within range of the Target. He then spends a Standard Action to concentrate (attack), but there is no Target adjacent to the sword. There's no move action left to move the sword to the Target.
So, Round 2, Wizard moves the sword up to 30' (per Alpha) as a move action, and attacks (standard action). Unless the Target moves to be more than 30' from the Wizard again.
I had some similar ideas and concerns HERE.
I was also wondering about the ability to function outside a resiliant sphere or on the opposite side of a wall of force... that kind of thing.
Could you barrier yourself with a wall of force and then beat the crap out of something with your hand of the apprentice?
Standard Action to maintain the Hand of the Apprentice... so you'd have to spend the Standard action to draw the sword, a move action to move the sword, and then a swift action to cast the Wall of Force.
So, yes, I guess you could with a rod of Quicken spell or the Quicken spell feat. Either way, that'd be a high level trick.
You're still dealing with using a non-magical weapon though. At that level, a non-magical weapon may not go through DR of whatever it is you're attacking.
I had some similar ideas and concerns HERE.
I was also wondering about the ability to function outside a resiliant sphere or on the opposite side of a wall of force... that kind of thing.
Could you barrier yourself with a wall of force and then beat the crap out of something with your hand of the apprentice?
Standard Action to maintain the Hand of the Apprentice... so you'd have to spend the Standard action to draw the sword, a move action to move the sword, and then a swift action to cast the Wall of Force.
So, yes, I guess you could with a rod of Quicken spell or the Quicken spell feat. Either way, that'd be a high level trick.
You're still dealing with using a non-magical weapon though. At that level, a non-magical weapon may not go through DR of whatever it is you're attacking.
Is it non-magical only?
I wasn't sure, since that wording wasn't in the new release.
Is it non-magical only?
I wasn't sure, since that wording wasn't in the new release.
Well, there's no version of Mage Hand in the Alpha Rules... so going back to the SRD, it says 1 nonmagical object of 5lbs or less. Nothing in Hand of the Apprentice changes it, so that restriction is still in place.
I'm not sure that by the time you can afford magical weapons that Hand of the Apprentice as an attack action is your best option as a wizard... so this might be intentional since it is an ability expected to see less and less use over time.
Gotcha. I see what you are saying. Agreed. Wording is unclear... I would err on the side of caution then and agree with you. However, I have a work around for that. Use a ranged weapon. We have been thinking inside the box.
Ah... interesting idea. Spears weigh 6lbs though. A Light Crossbow is 4lbs, but then it's a 1 shot deal. Interesting idea though. And this would seem to give you more than the 30' range.
*edit* I see where you are getting the non-magical bit, but I would assume that you can use a magical weapon.
Why do you assume that?
I don't know.
I thought that the 30' range was supposed to be a limit on the magical connection between you and the magical floating weapon of choice. So, if the weapon has reach or range, I don't see why that wouldn't work, RAW. But, then again, I didn't make up the ability.
The other question is could you use Mage hand to pick up a non-magical item that contains a magical item? For instance, if you had a bag full of magic wands (all under 5lbs)... could it lift the bag and carry it to you? If so, then I what you're proposing would work. If not, then the crossbow shouldn't be able to be moved with the thundering bolt.
Considering that the purpose of the Hand of the Apprentice (or so I thought) was to get away from Wizards using crossbows... I find it amusing that we're now discussing ways of using Hand of the Apprentice to operate crossbows.
Things to carry in the Hand of the Apprentice
A Hand full of caltrops
A Fireball Gem
A Lantern
Isn't a fireball gem magical?
And you'd need to put the caltrops in a bag so it's 1 item I would think.
As for the lantern... think I'd rather use Mage Hand to have it a bit further ahead than 6 squares.
To be clear, I think I am going to add a provision to this ability to allow it to pick up magical items.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That would certainly make it more useful at higher levels... such as when the wizard gets disarmed of his bonded staff.
Out of idle curiosity... is the timing of this right? I mean, standard action to concentrate and attack; move action to move the Hand of the apprentice up to 30'. Or was it intended that you can move and attack as part of the concentration/standard action?
To be clear, I think I am going to add a provision to this ability to allow it to pick up magical items.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingThat would certainly make it more useful at higher levels... such as when the wizard gets disarmed of his bonded staff.
Out of idle curiosity... is the timing of this right? I mean, standard action to concentrate and attack; move action to move the Hand of the apprentice up to 30'. Or was it intended that you can move and attack as part of the concentration/standard action?
Just a guess, but I think the hand movement is part of the concentration effect.
It says in the ability description that you can make a single attack against a foe, but is that only a damage-causing swing, or can you do any of the other things that can be done in lieu of a standard action attack, like a disarm or trip? And if you can use your rapier in your apprentice hand to make a disarm attempt, could you make a disarm attempt with nothing in the hand? Presumably the movement of the hand limitations would prevent you from using the hand for bullrush or overrun attempts (which I really don't see as being an intended use of the hand, but I thought I'd mention it).
A more important question than before: can you use the Hand of the Apprentice to point at an enemy and say, "You're fired!"?
A more important question than before: can you use the Hand of the Apprentice to point at an enemy and say, "You're fired!"?
No one will ever Trump that.
+1 damage per 2 levels means +10 at level 20.
BAB of a Wizard is 10 at level 20. Thus, the Hand of the Apprentice does Int + 10 damage at level 20. If your Int starts at 18 and you increase it by 5 over 20 levels, add another 6 from an enhancement and +1 from a wish... so an Int of 30, for +10. So, Hand of the Apprentice at level 20 does weapon damage + 20.
The hand can be directed to make a single attack against a foe within 30 feet, using your base attack bonus plus your Intelligence modifier for both attack and damage.
Hmmm...
Are they saying you add BAB to your damage roll, or that as part of your attack you add Intelligence to both attack and damage. That sentence can be approached either way, and I can see DMs and Players arguing over it when it comes down to the 1 or 2 damage that kills something important.
Maybe some clarification on this particular sentence is in order.
No-one, EVER, IN ANY CLASS, gets to add their BAB to damage rolls, unless using POWER ATTACK by the old rules. And even then, they had to subtract it from the attack roll... Hand of the Apprentice, no matter how unclearly worded, does not let you add your BAB to damage... Weapon damage + INT bonus only... As a DM, I find this clear as day... Remember, if it's your game, it's YOUR game... You adjudicate any discrepancies that your players might come up with... I think it's a great way to keep the mage in the game after his spells are used up...
No-one, EVER, IN ANY CLASS, gets to add their BAB to damage rolls, unless using POWER ATTACK by the old rules. And even then, they had to subtract it from the attack roll... Hand of the Apprentice, no matter how unclearly worded, does not let you add your BAB to damage... Weapon damage + INT bonus only... As a DM, I find this clear as day... Remember, if it's your game, it's YOUR game... You adjudicate any discrepancies that your players might come up with... I think it's a great way to keep the mage in the game after his spells are used up...
I agree with you on the "it's your game, your rules" thing... you're certainly welcome to houserule whatever you want.
However, for purposes of playtesting, shouldn't we play the game as written?
And how is this ability written?
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): As a standard action, you can summon a ghostly hand to do your bidding. This functions like mage hand with the following changes. When summoned, the hand can draw a weapon on your person as a free action. The hand can be directed to make a single attack against a foe within 30 feet, using your base attack bonus plus your Intelligence modifier for both attack and damage.
(emphasis added).
I don't hold a degree in english grammer by any stretch... but I feel fairly comfortable with my grasp of certain basic ideas.
First, plus means adding (yay First grade math). So... we know that we add the Int. modifier and base attack. That's step 1.
Step two, we use that number (Int. mod. + BAB) for "both" - Both means "one and the other" or "two together" (check dictionary.com if you like). Well, what two things use that Int. Mod + BAB? The sentence continues and tells use we use it for attack (no dispute on this one) "and" damage.
Now, this is the part that confuses me. The word both is not vague. The word "and" is not vague. The word "plus" is not vague. Clearly, the Int. Mod + BAB is applied to both attack and damage. This is only vague because it goes against the general rule (outside of power attack). But, it is a clearly written exception to that rule.
As I said, DMs are free to house rule this all they want, but I don't think we do Pathfinder any services by not playtesting the rules they've proposed.
Ah... interesting idea. Spears weigh 6lbs though. A Light Crossbow is 4lbs, but then it's a 1 shot deal. Interesting idea though. And this would seem to give you more than the 30' range.
Well, a light crossbow or hand crossbow, with quick-loading ability included into it (100 bolts, self loading), could be quite the trick for a mage wanting a ranged weapon.
It would be nice if Jason could let us know if the damage modifier was going to be +Int, or +Int and BAB.
As well, would the modifiers work with ranged weapons like a crossbow?
Doug, you can easily add a comma in that sentence and it would no longer add BAB to damage.
Hence why a call for clarification would be good.
Doug, you can easily add a comma in that sentence and it would no longer add BAB to damage.
Hence why a call for clarification would be good.
Uh... I don't see how adding a comma anywhere in that sentence would change the meaning.
You'd have to remove the word "both" to change the meaning. I presume (maybe incorrectly) that when Jason used the word "both" he did so intentionally and knowing that it was giving the wizard a slight boost in damage (keep in mind a Wizard's BAB progression is the most pathetic in the game, but it keeps up with the +1 / 2 CL of other first level at will abilities for other wizards).
You guys are funny.
And something positive has come from this discussion after all!
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): As a standard action, you can summon a ghostly hand to do your bidding. This functions like mage hand with the following changes. When summoned, the hand can draw a weapon on your person as a free action. The hand can be directed to make a single attack against a foe within 30 feet, using your base attack bonus plus your Intelligence modifier for both attack and damage.(emphasis added).
I don't hold a degree in english grammer by any stretch... but I feel fairly comfortable with my grasp of certain basic ideas.
First, plus means adding (yay First grade math). So... we know that we add the Int. modifier and base attack. That's step 1.
Step two, we use that number (Int. mod. + BAB) for "both" - Both means "one and the other" or "two together" (check dictionary.com if you like). Well, what two things use that Int. Mod + BAB? The sentence continues and tells use we use it for attack (no dispute on this one) "and" damage.
Now, this is the part that confuses me. The word both is not vague. The word "and" is not vague. The word "plus" is not vague. Clearly, the Int. Mod + BAB is applied to both attack and damage. ...
Actually, speaking as someone who does have a degree in this, I can tell you that language professors would be arguing over this sentence just as much as those of us on this thread. :)
The word both is part of the prepositional phrase, "for both attack and damage", thus is attached to only what the preposition for is attached to, and that is probably only attached to modifier. The general rule for prepositional modifiers is that they modify only what they are directly beside; however, as with anything in English, there are exceptions. The word plus is the vague part. If it were an and, your interpretation would be right. As it is, it is probably not intended to mean that you add BAB to damage. But it might mean that. Clearer wording is definitely needed.
I presume (maybe incorrectly) that when Jason used the word "both" he did so intentionally and knowing that it was giving the wizard a slight boost in damage (keep in mind a Wizard's BAB progression is the most pathetic in the game, but it keeps up with the +1 / 2 CL of other first level at will abilities for other wizards).
The thing is, BAB also goes up when taking levels in other classes, so a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 would do massive damage with hand of the apprentice. This doesn't happen with using caster level.
Also why use a completely unprecedented method of adding BAB to damage when all the other abilities use the standard caster level?
While I DO think this is just bad wording, if BAB would be going to damage as well, then this already crappy ability would be even crappier.
I know many of you actually like this ability, but I hate it!
I actually hate it even more than Unnatural Beauty (And I never ever dreamt that this would happen)
Univeralist Wizards fighting with floating sword, club, staffs or whatever.
This is just the dumbest idea they ever had! Really!
Jason and the other do a great job, but making this a CLASS ABILITY(!) and not a SPELL is just... ARRRGH!!
Sorry but I had to let this out.
|
|
Jason and the other do a great job, but making this a CLASS ABILITY(!) and not a SPELL is just... ARRRGH!!
This ability already exists in atleast 2 forms from Wizards of the Coast though. There's a 3.0 Forgotten Realms version of it and then a 3.5 Spell Compendium version of it. I'm sure there's third party versions similiar to it.
Most versions the Wizard doesn't have to concentrate on it, the weapon just keeps attacking until told to do something else. I like this a lot.
Only because some b+~&+#+# was done several times doesn't make it less b@#$!+%@. Sorry.
Actually I dig it alot.
I would also like to see an updated sexual harassment policy @ paizo based on the existence of this "hand" and exactly what constitutes inappropriate contact for HR purposes.
The general rule for prepositional modifiers is that they modify only what they are directly beside; however, as with anything in English, there are exceptions. The word plus is the vague part. If it were an and, your interpretation would be right.
Hold on here... plus is not a vague word. It's just not used as a conjunction in grammar. As we are dealing with a numbers based rpg, math terms are used frequently. In math, "plus" has a specific meaning. And since we are talking about adding two numbers together, "plus" is likely a more technically correct word to use than "and".
As it is, it is probably not intended to mean that you add BAB to damage. But it might mean that. Clearer...
So how do you reach the conclusion that it was not intended that you add the BAB to damage? Unless Jason has commented on this, all we can do is work with what was written (and compare it to other similar spells). If you look at the Persistent Blade spell in the Spell Compendium, it lists the attack bonus and then discusses damage separately. Seems to me that if the intent was to separate these two, it could have been done fairly easily. Instead, it was written to add BAB and Int. Mod to both attack and damage.
Hold on here... plus is not a vague word. It's just not used as a conjunction in grammar. As we are dealing with a numbers based rpg, math terms are used frequently. In math, "plus" has a specific meaning. And since we are talking about adding two numbers together, "plus" is likely a more technically correct word to use than "and".
Plus is used as a conjunction in grammar quite frequently. But going strictly mathematical, the sentence is still not clear. The fact that people are disagreeing on its meaning is proof enough of that.
So how do you reach the conclusion that it was not intended that you add the BAB to damage? Unless Jason has commented on this, all we can do is work with what was written (and compare it to other similar spells). If you look at the Persistent Blade spell in the Spell Compendium, it lists the attack bonus and then discusses damage separately. Seems to me that if the intent was to separate these two, it could have been done fairly easily. Instead, it was written to add BAB and Int. Mod to both attack and damage.
I reach the conclusion based on previous precedent and personal bias, which makes it an unreliable conclusion, I agree. But my point is that no conclusion is truly reliable. You might be right. I might be right. Without clearer wording, we can't really reach a definite conclusion.
I reach the conclusion based on previous precedent and personal bias, which makes it an unreliable conclusion, I agree. But my point is that no conclusion is truly reliable. You might be right. I might be right. Without clearer wording, we can't really reach a definite conclusion.
(emphasis added).
I think the basis of the disagreement here is entirely based upon those two things, not the language used. You want the conclusion to be no BAB to damage, therefore you read it that way and stretch to avoid the obvious meaning of the words used.
I reach the conclusion based on previous precedent and personal bias, which makes it an unreliable conclusion, I agree. But my point is that no conclusion is truly reliable. You might be right. I might be right. Without clearer wording, we can't really reach a definite conclusion.(emphasis added).
I think the basis of the disagreement here is entirely based upon those two things, not the language used. You want the conclusion to be no BAB to damage, therefore you read it that way and stretch to avoid the obvious meaning of the words used.
Which is exactly what you're doing as well. You're ignoring meanings of words based on your own bias. But I will bow out here. This conversation is going nowhere.
Hm.
Just houseruled this as INT not INT + BAB. Because it seemed a bit overpowerful if INT+BAB is correct.
Clarification in Alpha 3 FTW, please.