Hello there, I just wonder if a rogue with Rogue Talent : Minor Magic can use the Arcane strike feat? If he can, would he be considering his rogue level as caster level?
No. The magic feats are spell-like abilities, not actual spells. The rogue is not a true arcane spellcaster, so the arcane strike feat doesn't work for him.
No. The magic feats are spell-like abilities, not actual spells. The rogue is not a true arcane spellcaster, so the arcane strike feat doesn't work for him.
+1
Ok :) Since the only prerequisite was Ability to cast arcane spells and the Minor Magic Talent explained that "A rogue with this talent gains the hability to cast 0 level spell from the sorcery / wizard spell list" I really though it was possible :) I won't be able to make my GM cry, then ^^ Thanks for the answer anyway!
Was that the "official" ruling? When did that happen? I've been waiting to see an answer to this one crop up for a long time.
|
Hello there, I just wonder if a rogue with Rogue Talent : Minor Magic can use the Arcane strike feat? If he can, would he be considering his rogue level as caster level?
I would allow it based on the fact that you're spending a feat to get the ability to add a tiny bonus to damage and overcome magic damage reduction for using your swift action. That's not even worth wasting my time over. And yes, rogue level is your caster level by the Minor Magic talent feature.
Even if it were the Complete Warrior version, at best the rogue would get a +1 to hit and +1d4 damage, once per day. Not even a concern to me.
I could probably be talked into allowing it, since, as you say, it costs a feat slot for a relatively minor benefit. You "draw upon your arcane power" to use it. The magic feats simulate arcane spells only, so you could argue that it's an arcane spell-like ability, and not a divine one.
Spell-like abiiities don't make you a caster, really, but in this case, I might let it slide. A gnome of any class would qualify for it, but it still costs you a feat.
Spell-like Abilities are neither arcane nor divine. They cannot be used to power any ability that require either arcane or divine spells.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane strike requires the ability to cast arcane spells as a prerequisite. Spell-like abilities are not arcane spells, despite similarities.
A rogue would have to multiclass into wizard, bard, or sorcerer (or another arcanist class) in order to gain the benefit of Arcane Strike.
It's a better feat for bards than rogues as a result.
|
|
I just don't see it as a minor/trival benefit. Its a scaling untyped damage bonus, with unlimited uses. What feats do you consider significant if +1-5 damage per attack is trival.
Its better than Weapon Specialization which while not on the top of feat power list is generally considered a respectable choice. At 15th level its equal to Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization combined.
Yes it does cost you your swift action. But if you aren't quickening your spells your swift action generally goes to waste anyhow so its a pretty insigificant loss.
Non-spellcasters NEED more options for their swift actions. If all they have is one good one, that's all they use. Having multiple options increases strategy beyond 'auto-attack'. And they need more GOOD options. Arcane Strike is a waste of a feat. All it does is tack on a bit of damage, and overcome magic DR. And that only matters when you can't cast Magic Weapon or happen to have one, so only from 1st to 5th level or so.
Weapon Specialization and the like are TERRIBLE feats. Feats are a very limited resource, and that makes them valuable. They should be worth more than the 'cantrips' they are. They should not be 'make you better at X', where X is all you do. They should be 'let you do Y' where Y is some completely different option. They should expand your options, not improve your limited options.
+5 damage means nothing when you get it. +1 damage is only relevant to the first couple levels. Rogues do ridiculous damage already, adding some more is irrelevant.
Weapon Specialization and the like are TERRIBLE feats.
+5 damage means nothing when you get it.
Both false (or I guess I should say, misguided, since "terrible" is an opinion).
|
|
Both false (or I guess I should say, misguided, since "terrible" is an opinion).Weapon Specialization and the like are TERRIBLE feats.
+5 damage means nothing when you get it.
What can I say, hyperbole is fun!
But let me clarify. You don't get the +5 to damage until 20th level. The last level before epic, which most people don't play. You have to burn a swift action at the point where you have access to the most swift action uses in the game you ever will. You do get it on every attack, but the enemies have the most HP they ever will. That +5 on each attack is helpful for those who actually work with direct damage. In case you haven't noticed, that's melee types, like the rogue. Who have Sneak Attack to deal ridiculous damage. Letting them have that +5 damage is not over powered in the slightest.
I think I've already explained my beef with Weapon Specialization. It's '+n to X' instead of 'doing Y'. You're welcome to argue back again Zurai, but I doubt we'll get anything more accomplished than any other time.
I do so enjoy a good argument.
I would allow it based on the flavor of the guy i like the idea of it and it fits well with that whole Talent tree as well as binning a good feat for a low lvl guy with out binning over powered later or becoming useless all so it can only be arcane so ya putting that out there
You have to burn a swift action at the point where you have access to the most swift action uses in the game you ever will.
Which, for a rogue, is zero, as far as I know. Having to burn an action you have no use for outside of Arcane Strike isn't a cost.
That +5 on each attack is helpful for those who actually work with direct damage. In case you haven't noticed, that's melee types, like the rogue.
Thank you for agreeing with me?
Who have Sneak Attack to deal ridiculous damage.
Rogues do less damage than Fighters. A level 20 Rogue's Sneak Attack does, on average, 35 damage. Add a +5 d6-sized weapon and +5 more from Strength and we have a total of 48.5 average damage per hit. Adding Arcane Strike would increase that to 53.5 per hit, an increase of 10.3%. That's a very large damage increase for a single feat and an action spent that you cannot spend in any other way.
Letting them have that +5 damage is not over powered in the slightest.
I never said it was. You claimed that it was, and I quote, "a waste of a feat". For a class whose primary combat role is to deal damage, but isn't already the best (or even vaguely close to the best, for that matter) at dealing damage, that means increasing it by 10.3% is probably not "a waste of a feat". You may disagree over what a feat should represent, but that has nothing to do with what feats DO represent. We're not living in TriOmegaFantasyWorld, we're living in the world where feats act as they say in the Core Rulebook. In that world, Arcane Strike is not a bad feat at all for the classes that can actually make use of it.
The problem is that the only classes that can really make use of it are Bards and Summoners (and Eldritch Knights). Rogues cannot, because even if you allow Spell-Like Abilities to substitute for spells, they still are explicitly not arcane spells, which Arcane Strike requires.
You may call me crazy but the major benefit of that trick was to get magical weapon with a "Thrower rogue", since it's said that all the weapons are considered magic after the swift action. The main problem of a rogue throwing knives is the damage reduction. But I'm pleased to see there's a debate cause the rule isn't really clear ;)
RAW...
arcane strike, Prerequisite: Ability to CAST arcane spells.Minor Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to CAST a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This spell can be CAST three times a day as a spell-like ability.Note that the Arcane Strike prereq does not specify a spell-casting class ability. And although the rogue talent provides a spell-like ability, that spell-like ability still requires that the spell be cast.
In other words, your honor, my client has followed the letter of the law.
No he hasn't unless you are willing to submit that he would need to take two standard actions and two AoO's to use the ability:
1. To activate his spell-like ability to cast the spell (standard action, provokes).
2. To cast the spell (standard action, provokes).
RAW...
arcane strike, Prerequisite: Ability to CAST arcane spells.Minor Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to CAST a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This spell can be CAST three times a day as a spell-like ability.Note that the Arcane Strike prereq does not specify a spell-casting class ability. And although the rogue talent provides a spell-like ability, that spell-like ability still requires that the spell be cast.
In other words, your honor, my client has followed the letter of the law.
Meh. It's a spell like ability, not the ability to cast arcane spells. If you want to get really persnickity Arcane Strike also says "spells" as in the plural and you can only "cast" one as in singular from the rogue talent.
Arcane Strike and Weapon Specialization are only decent feats for characters who rely on volume of attacks to do their direct damage. (Archer, or TWFer, for example) Adding 5 damage or so to each attack can add up quickly even at 10th level.
|
RAW...
arcane strike, Prerequisite: Ability to CAST arcane SPELLS.Minor Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to CAST a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This spell can be CAST three times a day as a SPELL-LIKE ABILITY.
Fixed that for ya.
Spell-like ability doesn't equal spell
Isn't there a trait somewhere that allows you to actually cast a 0 level spell once per day? If so that's a potential work around.
Isn't there a trait somewhere that allows you to actually cast a 0 level spell once per day? If so that's a potential work around.
Magical Talent: Either from inborn talent, whimsy
of the gods, or obsessive study of strange tomes, you havemastered the use of a cantrip. Choose a 0-level spell. You
may cast that spell once per day as a spell-like ability.
This spell-like ability is cast at your highest caster level
gained; if you have no caster level, it functions at CL 1st.
It's a neat little trait, but it doesn't make you a spellcaster.
Isn't there a trait somewhere that allows you to actually cast a 0 level spell once per day? If so that's a potential work around.Magical Talent: Either from inborn talent, whimsy
of the gods, or obsessive study of strange tomes, you have
mastered the use of a cantrip. Choose a 0-level spell. You
may cast that spell once per day as a spell-like ability.
This spell-like ability is cast at your highest caster level
gained; if you have no caster level, it functions at CL 1st.It's a neat little trait, but it doesn't make you a spellcaster.
ALright, not a loophole. Disregard.
Non-spellcasters NEED more options for their swift actions. If all they have is one good one, that's all they use. Having multiple options increases strategy beyond 'auto-attack'. And they need more GOOD options.
I couldn't agree more here. IMHO special moves and parries (as immediates) are a good way to go. Better as additional combat options.
It always stuck me that in a world full of magic meleers didn't "evolved" ways to get around spells. I remember in 3.0 our monk was able to deflect ranged touch spells. Couldn't this a good way to "improve" the monk spell resistance? a feat able to make him swicth it on and off as a free action, and activate a spell refelction as an immediate (X/day, or ki cost)?
What about a fighter able to reflect spells with their shield? I think mithology has some sort of similar case :).
What about parry a ranged spell? Perhaps high level options, but needed IMHO.
Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.
So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.
Except you must be able to cast an arcane spell -- spell like abilities are not arcane -- and are not spells.
Except you must be able to cast an arcane spell -- spell like abilities are not arcane -- and are not spells.Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.
So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.
Almost, almost, but still not a good enough exclusion. The text: "A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Those wizardy spells are arcane.
Again, you forgot "as a spell-like ability". (Sp) are neither arcane or divine.
And you continue to shift the focus to the description or nature of how the spell is cast, rather than the mere casting itself.Again, you forgot "as a spell-like ability". (Sp) are neither arcane or divine.Except you must be able to cast an arcane spell -- spell like abilities are not arcane -- and are not spells.Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.
So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.
Almost, almost, but still not a good enough exclusion. The text: "A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Those wizardy spells are arcane.
This is turning into a terrible game of "who's on first."
to use Arcane Strike a character must be able to cast the spell and that spell must be arcane.
The rogue ability does not qualify as both.
Edit: SInce it's a Spell like ability it is not Arcane (or divine for that matter).
Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.
Gee I would think the creative director would count for that.
But beyond that a spell-like ability specifically is not a spell:
Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
Only spells are arcane or divine, as that is a function of being a spell.
|
|
And you continue to shift the focus to the description or nature of how the spell is cast, rather than the mere casting itself.Again, you forgot "as a spell-like ability". (Sp) are neither arcane or divine.Except you must be able to cast an arcane spell -- spell like abilities are not arcane -- and are not spells.Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.
So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.
Almost, almost, but still not a good enough exclusion. The text: "A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Those wizardy spells are arcane.
You are hung up on the word cast.
Its cast a spell, not cast a spell like ability.That's like asking for french fries and getting baked sweet-potatoes. Its different.
A spell like ability is not a spell. Its not arcane, it doesn't qualify
Also it doesn't have arcane spell failure like a spell would
And you continue to shift the focus to the description or nature of how the spell is cast, rather than the mere casting itself.
Except that it is not a spell -- you cast it as a spell like ability.
Spell like abilities are not spells. Since it is a cast as a spell like ability it never was a spell -- it is a spell like ability.
Spell like abilities specifically are not spells. They are cast though -- hence the 'action' name is the same but the ability is not.
You might as well state that because I cast spells I can cast arcane spells without arcane armor training because it can be done for divine spells and they are both casting.
|
|
... Oh shoot. The rogue talent further states, "The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level." Doesn't that also qualify?
Nevermind. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Until I see an official company ruling, I think it's allowed.
Casterlevel is irrelevant to this conversation.
Rouges can get a spell like ability.
Arcane strike says "spell" not "spell like ability"
The games developers have said it doesn't work.
Where ever you have your head, its too far up there to hear what anyone else is sayin.
You've made up your mind, and have fingers in your ears going "I can't hear you" so I'll bid you good day.
Thank you.You're right, of course. Such a wise man you are.Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.
... ALTHOUGH, I feel a responsibility to point out a loophole in your argument that others have missed so far. Note the following description of arcane strike:
for every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1
By your own assertions earlier, you maintained that this is not a class-depending casting prerequisite. And yet here's a very clear reference to class. The arcane striker must have levels of spell-casting ability; the rogue talent is not level-able.
Sorry. You lose.
DANG IT! You're correct.
I give up.
Dang, dang, dang...
... Oh shoot. The rogue talent further states, "The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level." Doesn't that also qualify?
Nevermind. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Until I see an official company ruling, I think it's allowed.
James Jacobs made a ruling upthread, and rogues don't case arcane spells. Being able to cast arcane spells is a requirement.
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells
All the rogue talent does is let you do SLA's which are not arcane in nature.
Having caster levels does not equal being able to cast spells. Many outsiders have caster levels equal to their HD, but they are not arcane or divine casters even if their SLA's simulate spells.Spells use slots. SLA's don't. There are are also feats which specifically affect SLA or spells. If SLA's and spells were the same all of these differences would not exist.
PRD=Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities function just like spells, but are granted through a special racial ability or by a specific class ability (as opposed to spells, which are gained by spellcasting classes as a character gains levels).
There you go. Now you have more proof that spells are not spell-like abilities.
The games developers have said it doesn't work.So point to the citation, please. Simple solution.
You can houserule it, but you can't use the rules to prove your point.
edit: when I am in the edit screen I see "[/url]", but the page shows "[/b] "when I am on the looking at the forum normally so I will delete the post and retype it.
edit 2: That was a strange bug.
|
|
Arcane strike requires the ability to cast arcane spells as a prerequisite. Spell-like abilities are not arcane spells, despite similarities.
A rogue would have to multiclass into wizard, bard, or sorcerer (or another arcanist class) in order to gain the benefit of Arcane Strike.
It's a better feat for bards than rogues as a result.
Geez. Someone get Zurai in here so he and I can argue over it again, while we're rehashing things.
You could have also typed James Jacobs into your browser since it is on the same page. Clicking this link will take you to it also.
Actually, don't search for James if you want "official" rules answers. In that link it seems he is speaking in an official capacity, but he often specifies that his answers on a variety of issues are not meant to be taken as "official".
Also, I cannot speak for James, but I have read enough of his response to know that he'd probably be just fine with your GM allowing the feat to be used in this manner.