It just ain't right-+5 damage at level 20? Monsters laugh that off. At the very least, it needs to be +1 damage per two caster levels. I'd go so far as to change each +1 to +1d6 (for a total of +5d6 damage).
It just ain't right-+5 damage at level 20? Monsters laugh that off. At the very least, it needs to be +1 damage per two caster levels. I'd go so far as to change each +1 to +1d6 (for a total of +5d6 damage).
I think that is reasonable.
Director of Game Design
|
This feat is not designed to compensate for power discrepancies. It is designed to give some flair to lower level arcane spellcasters who focus on melee in some shape or form, allowing them to have a magic weapon when they need it with a bit of extra damage.
Not every feat has to scale up perfectly to high levels. This one originally was the first in a chain, but the chain went away. I think it stands fine on its own without being 5 times better than weapon spec.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My apologies. I didn't realize that purposely creating sub-par choices was a design goal of the Pathfinder developers. I also didn't realize that we were using Weapon Specialization as a baseline--but if that's the case, I think we can agree that Skill Focus is overpowered and deserves a nerf.
I didn't realise we were trying to be sensible or mature either, PR. That's clearly both of our losses.
Never! Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are clearly overpowered choices! Surely they are worth at least seven feats, not a paltry four!
And any respectability of this thread just died.
|
And any respectability of this thread just died.
wasn't what I was going for. I'm just honestly of the belief that weapon focus and spec both need a limited amount of scaling and that arcane strike needs a boost. I've already created a thread for focus, and I'll probably create one for spec later on.
This feat is not designed to compensate for power discrepancies. It is designed to give some flair to lower level arcane spellcasters who focus on melee in some shape or form, allowing them to have a magic weapon when they need it with a bit of extra damage.
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your
weapons.
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.
Now the reason I posted the actual Feat was "due to clarification" of the Feat and statement posted by Jason. I recently made a 'Ranged-Attack' Celestial Sorcerer and he plans on taking this Feat for use with his M.W. Composite Longbow (Mighty +2) and whatever else he has available. However... the statement says FOCUS ON MELEE.
*RANT WARNING* If the Feat IS specifically designed to work with MELEE ONLY, then I am going agree that the Feat is underpowered and quite honestly useless after 5-8th level as spellcasters shouldn't be in MELEE anymore. They DO NOT have the HP or AC to stand their ground or the BAB to actually connect an attack. Sure some buff spells fix these problems, meanwhile the fight is over. Our Cleric has better things to do with his Healing, like keeping the 'Tank' alive.
The mere fact that activating Arcane Strike takes away your swift action is enough to make it a terrible choice, as it prevents the use of Quickened spells.
Also, arcanists are in need of to-hit bonuses if anything, due to their low BAB, not small damage bumps.
-Matt
Never! Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are clearly overpowered choices! Surely they are worth at least seven feats, not a paltry four!
I think there's a difference of opinion. It looks like Pathfinder believes that feats should have a modest effect. And it looks like you believe that feats should be awesome. Either is a legitimate interpretation; the only real requirement is that feats should be vaguely equal in power (whether that's weak or powerful).
For what it's worth, I'm considering taking Arcane Strike for my sorcerer/monk/dragon disciple (built using Pathfinder + Psionic SRD + Eberron Campaign Setting). Not because it's an awesome feat, but because the number of ways for a monk to improve his chance of hitting with a "flurry of misses" are few and far between.
I guess I am in the minority but while I wouldn't mind more Arcane Strike as written is a good feat for a Bard or Elridth Knight. It gives an edge to the swashbuckling Bard that he/she could not get anywhere else. It tracks fairly well weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization.
Jason,
In the campaign I am running a PF Bard in it was my first feat and has made a difference for me since I did not want to play the singing archer.
Doug
For what it's worth, I'm considering taking Arcane Strike for my sorcerer/monk/dragon disciple (built using Pathfinder + Psionic SRD + Eberron Campaign Setting). Not because it's an awesome feat, but because the number of ways for a monk to improve his chance of hitting with a "flurry of misses" are few and far between.
You spotted that Pathfinder Arcane Strike doesn't increase your to-hit roll, right?
-Matt
---
As I see it, the feat can be used for any weapon used for the qualified arcane user.
In this regard I am in agreement with Daniel Moyer.
Ranged weapons and touch attacks (weapon focus applicable) are well within its considerations for the feat.
Kinda reads like a good entry feat for the Arcane Archer as well.
For me, it seems like a modest but good feat for the arcanist; a little extra boost for the arcanist weapon use. Enough to allow some magic flavour to the arcane class which generally uses other effects and means to main combat, but also a little edge (bypass as magic) to classes who use just a touch of magic to enhance themselves.
I don't see arcane strike being used to boost damage but as a means of getting pass DR with magic (because of study or talent for the arcane forces).
---
For what it's worth, I'm considering taking Arcane Strike for my sorcerer/monk/dragon disciple (built using Pathfinder + Psionic SRD + Eberron Campaign Setting). Not because it's an awesome feat, but because the number of ways for a monk to improve his chance of hitting with a "flurry of misses" are few and far between.You spotted that Pathfinder Arcane Strike doesn't increase your to-hit roll, right?
-Matt
...never mind. :-/
That's pretty bad.
Not every feat has to scale up perfectly to high levels.
This isn't a dig at Jason's design decisions, rather a general dismay over the design process of 3.5e.
3.5e takes a LOT of game mastery, moreso than other editions did. This was an admitted design decision by the creators of 3e.
The problem is you run into situations where some feats, depending on the requirements to use, are good enough at low levels, and then terrible choices to have had at later levels.
Characters built and played from level 1, are not nearly as optimized as a character built starting play at say 12th level or higher.
Beginning players can make poor choices when making their character, thinking that each feat they choose makes sense for the character, but then they find out later that they are dead weight or rarely/never used.
Then you have the problem of having a class who is built entirely around these feats. So you have the problem that everyone else is using these feats as a secondary bonus to their class abilities, while one class is using AS his class abilities.
Designers don't want to overshadow class abilities with feats, feats were supposed to be something to tack on to give your character a bit of differentiation. And since there's only one Fighter, and like 10 other classes, designers look at feats as "don't go overboard".
.
This is why I think that "Fighter Only" feats are a good idea. Other classes that want a little something extra can burn their feats on things like Arcane Strike.
Anything listed as Fighter Only... don't hold back. These things should be as powerful as a class ability at the appropriate level. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization should be looked at as Class Abilities, not just as Feats.
The mere fact that activating Arcane Strike takes away your swift action is enough to make it a terrible choice, as it prevents the use of Quickened spells.
Also, arcanists are in need of to-hit bonuses if anything, due to their low BAB, not small damage bumps.
-Matt
Personally I'm not overly concerned by the need of a swift action (or whatever it's called in Non-OGL land) as I rarely use Metamagice that doesn't come off of a Rod. Consider it an option for those not interested in Metamagic I suppose.
I believe the Feat, despite Jason's statement hinting toward 'clawed sorcerers' is actually a step in the right direction for the 'Arcane Warrior' character class everyone wants to see created. It doesn't use higher spell slots or absorb spell castings per day with each use. It would work VERY nicely for a Melee/Arcane multi-class character. (ex: Fighter/Wizard, Rogue/Sorcerer, Monk/Sorcerer) BAB issues are still going to whoop you in the long run, short of buying a magic weapon.
An increase in "To-Hit" would be more beneificial for a staright arcane caster or a multi-class arcanist, but the damage & magical nature has their uses as long as you can keep you BAB above water.
AND... unless errata'd otherwise I will be using this Feat for anything remotely described as a weapon, as that is how it reads. Melee, Ranged, Ranged Spell, Touch Spell or otherwise.
I had a question on this feat myself:
What type of bonus is the damage?
Does it stack with the enhancement bonus of a weapon (i.e. if I'm 12th level with a +3 long sword do I get a total of +6 damage)?
The feat doesn't state the type of bonus so right now it stacks would be how I read it. Wasn't certain if this was on purpose or not. If it does stack and is left to that way I would say the feat is fine as is. Otherwise... I'm not even sure it's nessecary.
1. Untyped.
2. Yes.
|
Not every feat has to scale up perfectly to high levels.This isn't a dig at Jason's design decisions, rather a general dismay over the design process of 3.5e.
3.5e takes a LOT of game mastery, moreso than other editions did. This was an admitted design decision by the creators of 3e.
The problem is you run into situations where some feats, depending on the requirements to use, are good enough at low levels, and then terrible choices to have had at later levels.
Characters built and played from level 1, are not nearly as optimized as a character built starting play at say 12th level or higher.
Beginning players can make poor choices when making their character, thinking that each feat they choose makes sense for the character, but then they find out later that they are dead weight or rarely/never used.Then you have the problem of having a class who is built entirely around these feats. So you have the problem that everyone else is using these feats as a secondary bonus to their class abilities, while one class is using AS his class abilities.
Designers don't want to overshadow class abilities with feats, feats were supposed to be something to tack on to give your character a bit of differentiation. And since there's only one Fighter, and like 10 other classes, designers look at feats as "don't go overboard".
.
This is why I think that "Fighter Only" feats are a good idea. Other classes that want a little something extra can burn their feats on things like Arcane Strike.
Anything listed as Fighter Only... don't hold back. These things should be as powerful as a class ability at the appropriate level. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization should be looked at as Class Abilities, not just as Feats.
Kaisoku,
This is well put. I very much like your rationale for differentiating general feats from "Fighter Only" feats. In my opinion, this line of thought suggests a way forward with regard to improving the viability of the fighter class, while preserving backwards compatibility. Well done, sir.
TtO
Never! Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are clearly overpowered choices! Surely they are worth at least seven feats, not a paltry four!I think there's a difference of opinion. It looks like Pathfinder believes that feats should have a modest effect. And it looks like you believe that feats should be awesome. Either is a legitimate interpretation; the only real requirement is that feats should be vaguely equal in power (whether that's weak or powerful).
Modest combat feats = auto-fail of all feat-dependent physical classes. I.e. of everyone but rogue in the core. And by auto-fail I mean both "cannot survive against whatever MM offers" and "cannot ever compete with spellcasters". Because their hardcoded class abilities <<<<< caster and monster abilities, you need good feats, that can make them charge for over 9000 and stuff (just to make up for their inabilitiy to move and fullattack and overall underpoweredness). That's why you absolutely needed non-core material in 3.5 to make melee viable (well, spiked chain tripmachine was possible with core material, but it did not work at high levels).
Modest combat feats = auto-fail of all feat-dependent physical classes. I.e. of everyone but rogue in the core. And by auto-fail I mean both "cannot survive against whatever MM offers" and "cannot ever compete with spellcasters".
I agree with you if you add the caveat "at mid- to high- levels". Melee classes do just fine at low levels.
But I think that adding super-mega-awesome feats is not really a good solution to the problem with high-level fighters. If you have a bunch of super-feats available, then clerics/druids/eldritch knights will take them and we're back to square one again with the fighter (relatively) sucking. Every class should have good class features, not just access to the same feats that everyone else has access to.
|
|
This feat is not designed to compensate for power discrepancies. It is designed to give some flair to lower level arcane spellcasters who focus on melee in some shape or form, allowing them to have a magic weapon when they need it with a bit of extra damage.
Not every feat has to scale up perfectly to high levels. This one originally was the first in a chain, but the chain went away. I think it stands fine on its own without being 5 times better than weapon spec.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
How would new players distinguish between lower level and upper level feats? Is it fair to make a 'roleplayer' feat that's in essence a 'lolnoob roleplayer' feat?