Given that spiritual weapon does pretty much the same thing, but better, for clerics one spell level lower, why on earth is twilight weapon level 3? Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again? Why is this thing higher than 2nd level?
Well, it can gain a flanking bonus and do Sneak Attack damage, which the Spiritual Weapon cannot do.
Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again?
Yeah you are wrong on it.
The twilight knife specifically does flank and specifically gets its own sneak attack dice.
Also: It doesn't need redirecting.
It's great if you plan to target a single creature with a bunch of spells.
Given that spiritual weapon does pretty much the same thing, but better, for clerics one spell level lower, why on earth is twilight weapon level 3? Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again? Why is this thing higher than 2nd level?
Maybe because
1) This is a wizard spell and not a cleric spell.
2) If the target is denied a dex bonus to AC or the knife flanks the target, the knife can make sneak attacks as a rogue, inflicting an extra 1d6 points of force damage per four caster levels. ((So base damage is 1d4 damage, 19-20/x2 crit range, +1d6 Sneak attack damage per 4 level of caster))
3) The knife only attack the target you do... but this also means the Knife is also getting & giveing a flanking bonus. Any time you attack that target you get and give a flanking bonus to the knife also. This alone should make the spell at very least 3rd level.
4) Maybe to make sure that a Rogue has to take (5 level or Wizard/Witch) or (6 level of sorcerer) before giving himself and AUTOMATIC flanking.
Link to spell:
Twilight Knife
Maybe because
1) This is a wizard spell and not a cleric spell.
Wizards tend to be better at damage, while clerics are better at buffing - particularly at lower levels. Twilight knife is a level above spiritual weapon, yet is clearly inferior to it in all ways.
2) If the target is denied a dex bonus to AC or the knife flanks the target, the knife can make sneak attacks as a rogue, inflicting an extra 1d6 points of force damage per four caster levels. ((So base damage is 1d4 damage, 19-20/x2 crit range, +1d6 Sneak attack damage per 4 level of caster))
Ah, so if a) your caster is suicidal enough to stand in melee range of the big nasty thing and try to cast defensively at point-blank range, or b) worse yet, slash at it with his dagger, the twilight knife might do some meager damage. A meager chance to do an additional 1d4 + (1 or 2)d6 while letting the ogre pound me into jelly, instead of standing well back and letting a ranged spell do my damage for me? Thank you, no.
3) The knife only attack the target you do... but this also means the Knife is also getting & giveing a flanking bonus. Any time you attack that target you get and give a flanking bonus to the knife also. This alone should make the spell at very least 3rd level.
Wow, a whole +2 to hit. On a regular attack roll. Instead of a touch attack roll. With my meager wizardly BaB. Again, thank you, no. I'll take my fireball/stinking cloud/deep slumber/ray of exhaustion.
4) Maybe to make sure that a Rogue has to take (5 level or Wizard/Witch) or (6 level of sorcerer) before giving himself and AUTOMATIC flanking.
Right, because the rogue's teammates are selfish and non-team-players and don't ever stand in for flank positions -- or, for that matter, the rogue doesn't maneuver around behind the big bad that the fighter is engaging to stab it in the kidneys.
None of your reasons have any resemblence to reality for most actual spellcasters -- you know, the guys who stand in the back and tell the universe to obey, rather than the ones who tend to get pulped in the front lines.
I've seen some posters saying that it works well in swarms, but really, why on earth would I spend multiple 3rd level spells on such a low-duration spell that is so utterly conditional? Any time a party's going up against a single, powerful opponent, this spell is so underwhelming as to be outclassed by virtually everything in the same spell level. Any time a party's going up against multiple (presumably weaker) opponents, the spell's so finicky as to zing one while the other five are charging in to grapple/power attack/disembowel the caster.
1. The knife doesn't have to flank with you -- it takes flank if available regardless of who provides the flank.
2. You don't have to melee -- heck you don't even have to make an attack roll.
Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to Channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
So you can keep doing your normal thing and so long as you single target you get the bonus of the knife attacking.
Now granted that base attack bonus part stinks, however if you go EK then it's not so bad, and you can get multiple hits in a round (a straight wizard probably isn't going to get much from that though).
All that said it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see this one reduced in level especially since its range is less.
Maybe because
1) This is a wizard spell and not a cleric spell.
Wizards tend to be better at damage, while clerics are better at buffing - particularly at lower levels. Twilight knife is a level above spiritual weapon, yet is clearly inferior to it in all ways.
And yet you quickly tried to compare this spell to a cleric spell. One which in many ways is pattered off a cleric spell. Usually when you do this, the spell goes up +1 or +2 levels.
2) If the target is denied a dex bonus to AC or the knife flanks the target, the knife can make sneak attacks as a rogue, inflicting an extra 1d6 points of force damage per four caster levels. ((So base damage is 1d4 damage, 19-20/x2 crit range, +1d6 Sneak attack damage per 4 level of caster))
Ah, so if a) your caster is suicidal enough to stand in melee range of the big nasty thing and try to cast defensively at point-blank range, or b) worse yet, slash at it with his dagger, the twilight knife might do some meager damage. A meager chance to do an additional 1d4 + (1 or 2)d6 while letting the ogre pound me into jelly, instead of standing well back and letting a ranged spell do my damage for me? Thank you, no.
Just because a wizard has to be in range, does not mean that wizard do not sometimes get forced into range. When someone jumps the wizard, in close quarter this is not a bad spell to have. (not all spells are best at all times).
Also that is +1d6 per 4 levels = So twilight weapon does.
4th = 1d4+1d6
8th = 1d4+2d6
12th= 1d4+3d6
16th= 1d4+4d6
20th= 1d4+5d6 damage
Compared to Spiritual Weapon
1st = 1d8
3rd = 1d8+1
6th = 1d8+2
9th = 1d8+3
12th= 1d8+4
15th= 1d8+5 damge Max
Dont know about you, but to me that is a very big damage difference.
Given that spiritual weapon does pretty much the same thing, but better, for clerics one spell level lower, why on earth is twilight weapon level 3? Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again? Why is this thing higher than 2nd level?
From what I understand, Twilight Knife does not need a move action to redirect. That means that a level 8 sorcerer can cast Twilight Knife 4 times before battle, then use a crossbow to do 4d4 + 8d6 with twilight knife each round for the next 4 rounds (the knives will flank for each other). Throw in some extend spells for fun.
3) The knife only attack the target you do... but this also means the Knife is also getting & giveing a flanking bonus. Any time you attack that target you get and give a flanking bonus to the knife also. This alone should make the spell at very least 3rd level.
Wow, a whole +2 to hit. On a regular attack roll. Instead of a touch attack roll. With my meager wizardly BaB. Again, thank you, no. I'll take my fireball/stinking cloud/deep slumber/ray of exhaustion.
+2 to hit for you. +2 to hit for the knife And if it hits it does sneak attack damage (if you or another party member is flanking).
Also that is +1d6 per 4 levels = So twilight weapon does.
4th = 1d4+1d6
8th = 1d4+2d6
12th= 1d4+3d6
16th= 1d4+4d6
20th= 1d4+5d6 damage
AND, the knife is doing this on its own. So as long as you attack just one creater that round (say with spells:Flesh to stone, Disintegrate, Polar Ray, Energy Drain, Ghoul Touch, etc), and you are in range (close 25ft + 5ft/2 level); then your doing 1d4 damage + Sneak attack damage (if you or another party member is flanking).
This is a great spell, at level 3.
Right, because the rogue's teammates are selfish and non-team-players and don't ever stand in for flank positions -- or, for that matter, the rogue doesn't maneuver around behind the big bad that the fighter is engaging to stab it in the kidneys.
None of your reasons have any resemblence to reality for most actual spellcasters -- you know, the guys who stand in the back and tell the universe to obey, rather than the ones who tend to get pulped in the front lines.
I've seen some posters saying that it works well in swarms, but really, why on earth would I spend multiple 3rd level spells on such a low-duration spell that is so utterly conditional? Any time a party's going up against a single, powerful opponent, this spell is so underwhelming as to be outclassed by virtually everything in the same spell level. Any time a party's going up against multiple (presumably weaker) opponents, the spell's so finicky as to zing one while the other five are charging in to grapple/power attack/disembowel the caster.
So any way to play a class except the way you envision it isn't realistic? No casters ever multi-class nor do situations arise where they end up in the thick of things...
]4) Maybe to make sure that a Rogue has to take (5 level or Wizard/Witch) or (6 level of sorcerer) before giving himself and AUTOMATIC flanking.
Right, because the rogue's teammates are selfish and non-team-players and don't ever stand in for flank positions -- or, for that matter, the rogue doesn't maneuver around behind the big bad that the fighter is engaging to stab it in the kidneys.None of your reasons have any resemblence to reality for most actual spellcasters -- you know, the guys who stand in the back and tell the universe to obey, rather than the ones who tend to get pulped in the front lines.
I've seen some posters saying that it works well in swarms, but really, why on earth would I spend multiple 3rd level spells on such a low-duration spell that is so utterly conditional? Any time a party's going up against a single, powerful opponent, this spell is so underwhelming as to be outclassed by virtually everything in the same spell level. Any time a party's going up against multiple (presumably weaker) opponents, the spell's so finicky as to zing one while the other five are charging in to grapple/power attack/disembowel the caster.
Well rogue are required to have flanking, which requires another people.
Rogue/Fighter, Rogue/Rogue, Rogue/target asleep.This spell lets the person with this spell be able to flank on their own.
This spell will let rogues do this when it gets added to magic items.
I have nothing against the rogue, just pointing out why this spell is a level higher than the cleric Spirtial Hammer spell
To be honest, i think this spell should be a 4th level spell. While it is not always a good spell to use, because it is close range, when you are in range, it is a nice spell to have going.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Given that spiritual weapon does pretty much the same thing, but better, for clerics one spell level lower, why on earth is twilight weapon level 3? Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again? Why is this thing higher than 2nd level?From what I understand, Twilight Knife does not need a move action to redirect. That means that a level 8 sorcerer can cast Twilight Knife 4 times before battle, then use a crossbow to do 4d4 + 8d6 with twilight knife each round for the next 4 rounds (the knives will flank for each other). Throw in some extend spells for fun.
Call to Daggers
Anyone know any rule why this would not work ??????????
Otherwise you are going to make a lot of Arcane Trickster Happy !! ..hehe
Given that spiritual weapon does pretty much the same thing, but better, for clerics one spell level lower, why on earth is twilight weapon level 3? Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again? Why is this thing higher than 2nd level?From what I understand, Twilight Knife does not need a move action to redirect. That means that a level 8 sorcerer can cast Twilight Knife 4 times before battle, then use a crossbow to do 4d4 + 8d6 with twilight knife each round for the next 4 rounds (the knives will flank for each other). Throw in some extend spells for fun.Call to Daggers
Anyone know any rule why this would not work ??????????
Otherwise you are going to make a lot of Arcane Trickster Happy !! ..hehe
Personally, I've limited it to 1 out at a time, just to prevent any potential abuse. This may be a knee-jerk reaction against nova damage though, and people are welcome to convince me otherwise.
+2 to hit for you. +2 to hit for the knife And if it hits it does sneak attack damage (if you or another party member is flanking).
Also that is +1d6 per 4 levels = So twilight weapon does.
4th = 1d4+1d6
8th = 1d4+2d6
12th= 1d4+3d6
16th= 1d4+4d6
20th= 1d4+5d6 damageAND, the knife is doing this on its own. So as long as you attack just one creature that round (say with spells:Flesh to stone, Disintegrate, Polar Ray, Energy Drain, Ghoul Touch, etc), and you are in range (close 25ft + 5ft/2 level); then your doing 1d4 damage + Sneak attack damage (if you or another party member is flanking).
This is a great spell, at level 3.
I'm smothering laughter right now.
1d4+5d6, against a level 20 opponent? Assuming you hit?
Let me see... 20th level wizard, straight, BaB of +10, with (let's be generous) INT/CHA of 34, for another +12, and let's be optimistic and say it has someone to flank with, another +2. OK. You've got +24 to hit with your twilight knife.
Against, hypothetically, a CR20 pit fiend. AC 38. You miss 70% of the time. Oh, and you need to get past that spell resistance, which makes your spell fail 50% of the time. Thus, 85% of the time, you've wasted a 3rd level spell -- and why, exactly, would a CR20 opponent stand there and allow you to spam twilight knives? Or, for that matter, any opponent allow you to do so?
They get Perception checks to hear you casting, unless you feel like dropping a Silent metamagic on top of the already over-level spell. Unless, of course, you're casting from far enough away that even getting into range where the knife will be useful you'll have burned a part of the very limited duration.
A wizard has better things to do than waste a 3rd level slot on this drek.
And what on earth is Call to Daggers?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
snip
Would you please respond to all the points that have been made and not just those that you think support your argument?
It might be more pleasant if you didn't laugh at other people's ideas.
Please remember that this is a place to discuss, not argue, you don't have to win to have a debate.
What on earth is 'drek'?
I look forward to your response to references to multiple castings at level 8 and multi-class casters. I would also remind you that one of the loveliest things to read on the internet is: "Oh, yeah, I didn't think of that. thanks." Whilst one of the least charming is: "I laugh at you and your stupid ideas!"
You included a question mark in your thread title: was that sincere, or should it have been a full-stop?
and why, exactly, would a CR20 opponent stand there and allow you to spam twilight knives? Or, for that matter, any opponent allow you to do so?
Because you've just cast Time Stop. Not that this is the best use of it. Or you've got them temporarily out of commission with Maze or Forcecage or...
Generally speaking, I think this spell is probably aimed at parties with rogues in them, and it's level is set appropriately for that. If that's not your party, or if your rogue doesn't need any more help flanking, pick another spell. That's why there's more than one.
Your usual wizard will probably pass that spell over.
Doesn't mean the spell is useless. It might be useless (or nearly so) to the basic wizard. That's why the spell's in the Advanced Player's Guide.
All those arcanists who like to go toe-to-toe with enemies will probably like that spell:
What I don't like about spells like this one, is that they can't attack in the same round you cast it. Effectively, you will always waste the first round.
What I don't like about spells like this one, is that they can't attack in the same round you cast it. Effectively, you will always waste the first round.
True.
On the other hand, once cast. It is a nice orbiting dagger, what works on its own, while you cast other spell. To be honest, how many damage spells do you know that work this way, that are not location based.
I also see it as a nice spell due to one thing many people overlook. Magic Items: There are going to be lots of rogues (or other that use flanking) wanting a magic item based off this spell.
Example: Fighter, Rogue, and wizard. In group. Fighter is up front, wizard in back, Rogue up front and to the side of Fighter using flanking. 2 creatures attack the fighter, and one gets off a paralyze. The rogue just lost his ability to flank and all that flanking damage. With a ring enchanted with Twilight Knife, the rogue (-1 standard action), is now back up with flanking bonus. The round lost vs the damage lost (without flanking) is well worth it on the next round (with flanking).
To: Kurukami = I am sorry you do not want a spell that works this way, at this level. Not all spell will work with all play styles, but to be honest, after looking at this spell. I do believe that at the very least it should be level 3 (which is what it is listed at), and possible level 4.
The spell is a close range spell, but combined with prestige classes that are already going to be up close, like a Dragon bloodline Sorcerer, it should be a great spell for some builds (but not all).
(((Lastly the "Call to Dagger" was a joke, kind of like Call to Arms, a rallying cry. In other words, i wanted other people to give feedback about why or why not this spell would work as listed in his post. While i will give my opinion on how i think things work by RAW, i also ask question to learn how things work also)))
Some people find it really difficult to think outside the box.
Twilight knife made me sit up and take notice for multiple reasons.
1. It's perfect for helping out other party members, particularly any rogues in your party. In fact it doesn't even need to be hitting a target to help.
2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).
3. It's a force effect which means it overcomes damage reduction and energy resistances. What's better is that the sneak attack damage is also a force effect, which actually makes it a great spell to use against high level foes.
4. As for Kurikami's rant about pit fiends, let's think about some other 3rd level spells being used against it. Fireball? The pit fiend is immune to fire so that spell's useless. Lightning bolt? The pit fiend has a fantastic Reflex save and resistance 10, so we can assume the spell won't do a lot of damage. Stinking cloud? The pit fiend is immune to poison so that doesn't work.
Comparing most 3rd level spells against a pit fiend is useless, since you really should be focusing on all those 5th-9th level spells you should have.
2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).
That isn't true. The weapon goes to flank something you are fighting, it gains flank as you threaten the creature. The knife does not threaten anything so you do not gain flank.
2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).That isn't true. The weapon goes to flank something you are fighting, it gains flank as you threaten the creature. The knife does not threaten anything so you do not gain flank.
Both mages sword and spiritual weapon specifically state that they do not provide flanking bonuses, while this spell is strangely silent on the matter. Was that simply an oversight or an intentional omission? Seems strange considering the dagger can clearly flank an opponent.
Are we getting into RAW and RAI again?
|
Really, this spell is for the arcane trickster or a rogue to UMD one up for themselves. It's one level lower then the other rogues getting sneak attack when they have no flanking partner which is improved invis...and this spell is better since see invis won't ruin this one. My groups rogue is having a blast with a wand of twilight knife.
2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).That isn't true. The weapon goes to flank something you are fighting, it gains flank as you threaten the creature. The knife does not threaten anything so you do not gain flank.
Good Catch. Thinking you right about this.
I was thinking that if the dagger was flanking, then the caster would get flanking. But after looking closer at the flanking page, it say Character or Creature. Does not say spell effects count as flanking. So unless there has been some update i do not know about, then the spell does not give flanking.
2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).That isn't true. The weapon goes to flank something you are fighting, it gains flank as you threaten the creature. The knife does not threaten anything so you do not gain flank.
Both mages sword and spiritual weapon specifically state that they do not provide flanking bonuses, while this spell is strangely silent on the matter. Was that simply an oversight or an intentional omission? Seems strange considering the dagger can clearly flank an opponent.
Are we getting into RAW and RAI again?
Getting into a flanking position isn't the same as flanking someone. The position gives you a bonus but there are other criteria to provide the bonus to another creature. We're getting into "it doesn't say so, so it happens" which is a bad bad place as nothing sane ever comes from it.
To be more exact those spells say the do not gain nor provide flanking bonuses. If you want to say the 3rd level spell can provide flanking when the 7th level doesn't well... I'll stop taking you seriously at that point. The spell very specifically states that if used on a creature when it is in a flanking position or that creature is denied it's dex, it gains the ability to make sneak attacks. It also states it only attacks creatures who you single target attack as well, so it doesn't really move so much as flit around attacking whatever you do in the range of the spell (it doesn't say anything about the dagger effect provoking AoO's). If you don't attack anything (or AoE) it doesn't do anything that round.
Generally speaking in order for something to threaten it must be able to reach the target and be "threatening." A spell effect that attacks only when you do and may or may not be behind an opponent at any given time (switching targets, AoE'ing, willing it to not be flanking) while bad for the target, isn't what the typical "threat" is described as.
If you want to take it further (I don't want to but will, for posterity's sake), a tiny creature has no reach and is incapable of threatening adjacent squares at all. Technically they have to enter a square and provoke an AoO to even hit the target. This is avoided by stating it cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks.
Again for posterity's sake, I'd intentionally read into it and say this spell is meant for the melee caster types and a possible "intent" was for it to attack every time the caster made an attack action on a target. Basically doubling up the attacks the caster had with a tiny dagger attempting to sneak attack at the appropriate bonus for each attack in a full attack action. I'm not saying that is the spell, just that it could be "reasoned" that it could happen all because it doesn't say it can't.
Really, this spell is for the arcane trickster or a rogue to UMD one up for themselves. It's one level lower then the other rogues getting sneak attack when they have no flanking partner which is improved invis...and this spell is better since see invis won't ruin this one. My groups rogue is having a blast with a wand of twilight knife.
Better at what? It is just another attack per round as it doesn't give flank to anyone and only attacks the one creature you attack. It just attempts to attack whoever you are attacking from the other side so it could get a SA bonus.
Would you please respond to all the points that have been made and not just those that you think support your argument?
It might be more pleasant if you didn't laugh at other people's ideas.
Please remember that this is a place to discuss, not argue, you don't have to win to have a debate.
What on earth is 'drek'?
That's a fair critique. (And, side note, a definition of drek. *grin* )
First, let me state that I think this spell should be no more than 2nd level. To accomplish that, perhaps the sneak attack damage should be adjusted slightly down -- 1d6 per 5 levels, perhaps. But to my eyes, it has no place among 3rd level spells. (Let alone 4th level -- gah! Compare confusion, enervation, phantasmal killer, wall of fire, black tentacles -- twilight knife just isn't even in the same power class.)
Given that arcane spells are typically better at directly hurting opponents than divine ones, the fact that clerics get a spell that effectively does much the same thing (minus the very conditional flank-and-sneak attack benefit) one level lower makes the entire spell unworthy of memorization to my eyes.
3rd level arcane spells are the first ones that mostly begin to depart from the single/limited-target paradigm of the lower-level spells. Those that don't are effectively save-or-suck (even though that has been notably decreased with Pathfinder, such as with the new versions of hold person). You have fireball, lightning bolt, stinking cloud, ray of exhaustion, slow -- most of which affect multiple targets and offer either substantial damage or other effects immediately, helping a wizard to win a combat directly and quickly.
Additionally, summon monster 3 is where the summons actually begin to become effective, particularly with the compliment of Augment Summoning.
By comparison, twilight knife requires that you spend a round getting it and and it doesn't do anything immediately. In fact, it's a spell that puts out something which requires you to do more in following rounds -- with no guarantee or even notable likelihood that it will actually directly affect an opponent at all.
It can't suck up attacks or block enemy progress, the way a summon can. The argument of "well, it flanks" would sit better in my mind if a summon couldn't do the exact same thing, but more effectively -- because a summon actually serves as a distraction, while the twilight knife just makes the wizard even more of a target than he was in the first place.
"Hmmm, that thing only attacks me when the wizard attacks. Well, I was going to save him for last, but now that he's annoying me with this plinking and not doing anything to directly intervene, I'd better kill him before he realizes how ineffective he is and hastes his compatriots/chokes us with stinking clouds/fireballs us."
The twilight knife doesn't even get attacks of opportunity the way a summon can, which in my mind might make it worthy of 3rd level status.
Moreover, it's my opinion that the twilight knife effectively requires a very MAD build -- something difficult to accomplish in a points-limited game. If you have a DM who allows for character generation in a generous way, either through a high point-buy or optimal rolling, then it's possible, but use of this spell seems to require that you build around the possibility of it from the start. To me, that's like splitting your focus even worse than building a monk. And as the twilight knife's attack is based on the wizard-BaB and the INT or CHA bonus, splitting character focus to not have your casting stat as high as possible means the spell will be even less effective.
Can it be useful in a melee-wizard type? Possibly. I intend to test that hypothesis with a villain I'm throwing at my PCs in the not-too-distant future. (A monk/wizard, building on the 3.5 Enlightened Fist PrC.) Frankly, though, I suspect that the answer will be no.
Finally, the reason I scoffed at Oliver McShade's posts has as much to do with his typos and lack or overabundance of punctuation as what I see as weaknesses in his arguments. I have little respect for those who can't articulate their claims clearly.
However, Phil L's arguments are quite well-reasoned.
1. It's perfect for helping out other party members, particularly any rogues in your party. In fact it doesn't even need to be hitting a target to help.
Yes, but this is nothing a summon can't do, and do better, because a summon actually draws enemy attention away from whoever's flanking with it.
2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).
See my above point about making the wizard MAD and thus less effective without very generous character-build options.
3. It's a force effect which means it overcomes damage reduction and energy resistances. What's better is that the sneak attack damage is also a force effect, which actually makes it a great spell to use against high level foes.
This is a good point... but the base-level force effect also exists with spiritual weapon. Within the rules as they stand, clerics are generally less effective with direct damage than arcane casters. Thus, clerics getting a very similar spell one level lower makes no sense to me.
4. As for Kurikami's rant about pit fiends, let's think about some other 3rd level spells being used against it. Fireball? The pit fiend is immune to fire so that spell's useless. Lightning bolt? The pit fiend has a fantastic Reflex save and resistance 10, so we can assume the spell won't do a lot of damage. Stinking cloud? The pit fiend is immune to poison so that doesn't work.
I quite agree with this. However, my rant about pit fiends was in direct reaction to Oliver McShade's statement about 1d4+5d6 sneak attack being impressive -- and it's anything but. The bit about summoning multiple twilight knives against a high-level opponent also struck me as irrelevant, because once you have these highly visible force-knives hovering in the air nearby any capable opponent will look to kill the wizard before he starts doing something which would directly defeat him.
The spell, on the whole, strikes me as so highly conditional and specific as to be of limited use in all but a few circumstances. It'd make a great mook-killer, I suppose, or under very unusual circumstances plink a boss for a few points of damage. Most of the time, though, it will serve as useless distraction (for the caster, not the opposition) and wasted spell slots that could have been useful for something less iffy.
Your usual wizard will probably pass that spell over.
Doesn't mean the spell is useless. It might be useless (or nearly so) to the basic wizard. That's why the spell's in the Advanced Player's Guide.
All those arcanists who like to go toe-to-toe with enemies will probably like that spell:
Eldritch knights
Arcane tricksters
Magi
...
I'll be very intrigued to see if the magus gets this on his spell list. He should, definitely, as it would be worthwhile for him.
Arcane tricksters, though able to benefit greatly from the sneak attack portion of the spell, are problematic to use in direct combat. They're squishy, on the whole, and staying in melee with something big for the use of this spell to be effective round-after-round (i.e., something that wouldn't die from one solid sneak attack hit in the first place) could result in a dead arcane trickster very quickly.
Eldritch knights... maybe. They suffer from lack of armor, and buffing oneself enough to have HP-endurance in melee combat (through mirror image, blur, or displacement, just to name a few) takes up more precious combat rounds. Still, the class's BaB could make the twilight knife's attack somewhat effective.
Does the twilight knife get iterative attacks if its effective BaB is high enough? The text doesn't support that, and spiritual weapon does have specific text for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not threaten => does not give you a flank.
If the knife doesn't threaten, then it cannot flank itself. Clearly that's a contradiction of the rules, the knife specifically can flank. You cannot flank without threatening, if you threaten, you provide a flanking bonus to your flanking companion.
I'm very surprised nobody has mentioned the very reason why I love this spell.
A Dragon Disciple based off of Sorcerer.
They have Charisma as their casting stat, decent BAB, and often designed to be in melee range with the Combat Casting feat.
Automatic flanking bonus (also cast Tactical Acumen to get a much better bonus from flanking) for the Dragon Disciple plus an additional 1d4+5d6 precision damage possibility that attacks alongside of your Claw, Claw, Bite, Wing, Wing, Tail attack progression (another Claw or Bite with Haste).
In my build I'm also tossing in a Quickened Intensified Empowered Shocking Grasp as a swift action.
Gotta' stack as many sources of damage as possible and a duration spell like this one that you can cast once for a whole fight can get a lot of mileage.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
If the knife doesn't threaten, then it cannot flank itself. Clearly that's a contradiction of the rules, the knife specifically can flank. You cannot flank without threatening, if you threaten, you provide a flanking bonus to your flanking companion.It does not threaten => does not give you a flank.
Yeah, I don't see how it could possibly NOT provide flanking bonuses to other allies. This wording:
"Unless you specifically will it to do otherwise, or it proves impossible to do so, the knife always maneuvers itself so that it can flank your opponent before making the attack. The knife deals 1d4 points of force damage on a successful hit and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a normal dagger. In addition, if the target is denied a Dexterity bonus to AC or the knife flanks the target, the knife can make sneak attacks as a rogue, inflicting an extra 1d6 points of force damage per four caster levels on a successful attack."
states pretty obviously that the knife flanks the target. If it can flank the target, then it must provide the flanking bonus to an ally whom it is flanking with. The knife couldn't get the flanking bonus itself if it wasn't threatening the enemy, and so it must be able to threaten. Therefore, it can provide a flanking bonus. THAT IS WHY IT'S A 3-RD LEVEL SPELL.
If you cast this spell and the knife attacks and deals damage does it count as you dealing that damage?
So would the river rat trait apply to the twilight knife damage?
I've not read the spell description and so my observation is based solely on what people have posted in the thread:
would Twilight Knife be any good at neutralising the opposition's caster?
If you cast this spell and the knife attacks and deals damage does it count as you dealing that damage?
Yes, you are doing the damage.
So would the river rat trait apply to the twilight knife damage?
No, it is a spell and not technically a dagger that you are doing damage with. It may be magic shaped like a dagger and called Twilight Knife, but it's not really a dagger for all additional effects.
would Twilight Knife be any good at neutralising the opposition's caster?
Yeah kinda, but there are spells better suited to this task. If you are adding more versatility to the spell maybe because of a low level spontaneous caster, it can dual purpose for this if it needs to I guess.
I wouldn't call this method it's strong point.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
If you cast this spell and the knife attacks and deals damage does it count as you dealing that damage?
So would the river rat trait apply to the twilight knife damage?
The river rat trait would not apply, however any bonuses to damaging spells would apply, so for example the Orc bloodline arcana that gives you +1 damage per dice would apply to this. :-D
It is good at flanking, but limits the casters actions if they want to actually get some use out of it. I agree that it would have made a been better as a 2nd level spell.
Yeah, as I posted earlier with a build I've used, this spell is far too powerful to be level 2. Just because it is circumstantial or tailored for particular characters doesn't mean it should be a lower level slot. In fact, all spells are circumstantial, just some more so than others. The characters that this spell IS good for would benefit far too much for it being as low as level 2.
Also, I wouldn't say it LIMITS the caster's actions to get use out of it. I'd say it GIVES the caster extra damage if he chooses certain actions. If all it did was give automatic flanking, I'd agree that it would be a level 2 spell. But this also has the potential to spit out more than 5d6 damage a round. There's very few second level spells that can put out that damage as their only usage let alone as a secondary effect.
Since it is a force spell, you could also toss on Toppling Spell. It may not be worth the extra level, but a cheap metamagic rod with this and magic missile would make any melee in the party grin.
And for the spell resistance argument. If you pass once, it's in the clear for the rest of duration.
Wow. Nice catch! I like how that works.
|
|
Wow. Nice catch! I like how that works.Since it is a force spell, you could also toss on Toppling Spell. It may not be worth the extra level, but a cheap metamagic rod with this and magic missile would make any melee in the party grin.
And for the spell resistance argument. If you pass once, it's in the clear for the rest of duration.
Thanks. I still tend to like the mass trips from a high level Toppling Magic Missle. Especially if you're a one trick pony who takes Magical Lineage (Magic Missle) and Split Slot a few times.
The trip every round on a enemy, from Twilight Knife, would be nice though when you're casting other spells. And I don't think anyone has mentioned how force effects are one of the only things that do full damage to incorporeal creatures.
|
If you ask me, it doesn't grant flanking to the caster, nothing about it says in the spell, only that knife gains flanking bonus. There are cases when target can be flanked by one creature but not by other, they are just rare. Not to mention that knife is tiny and tiny creatures cannot threaten squares and it cannot even take attacks of opportunity. Entire spell is confusing really and it's the only weapon spell which mentions flanking.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
@Slank, the thread died seven years ago and most of the posters aren't around any more. Check dates, y'know?
I saw it. If you want a critique or suggestions on your build idea, start your own thread.