|
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.By all accounts, using an arcane mark as a touch attack is an attack according to the rules. In fact, there are reasons to do so from a combat perspective. For one, you are tagging an opponent, which allows you to later scry on them if they escape, and cannot be dispelled except via an erase spell, which means most monsters like demons who can dispel magic cannot erase your mark to keep you from tracking them. If placed upon a creature, you can use detect magic which causes the mark itself to glow and become visible, revealing any enemy who decided to become invisible, and puts a magic aura on them as well.
Arguing that arcane mark, when used as an attack, is not an attack, is like arguing that casting solid fog into a group of enemies is not an attack, or using dimensional anchor is not an attack. Arcane mark can in fact be used offensively, and with good reason to do so.
How can anyone be so narrow minded?
It is not about "it is an attack" but "it is an armed attack"?
Delivering a touch spell that is not an armed attack against a opponent provoke an attack of opportunity.
Arcane mark is not one of the spells designed as armed attacks.
But when used by a magus with spellstrike it is delivered by a weapon.
.....
That make it a armed attack?
Yes, no, why?
If yes in which other situations the same logic can be applied? For example if a wizard take improved unarmed combat he could deliver Arcane mark upon a enemy without provoking an attack of opportunity?
|
|
LOL
Your turn to like into a mirror, James.I'm simply looking at the rules without an objective in mind.
This distinguishes me from others who started from the premise 'I don't like this and thus demand that it cannot work'.
You've claimed that arcane mark is not a touch attack spell, but rather a spell with range touch that needs a touch attack to deliver to an unwilling target. Is that right? Or can you automatically touch an unwilling enemy with this spell in your mind?
Is cure light wounds a touch attack spell? Or to hurt undead with it is it automatic and just a will save for half damage?
As I mentioned your light example is wrong as you didn't notice the target entry.
-James
No, you are misconstruing it.
As I again explained above, the point of the last posts is if it is a armed attack when used by a magus. I.e. if it will provoke when delivered or not.
Shocking Grasp is a armed attack and don't provoke.
Invisibility is a touch spell but it is not a armed attack, so trying to deliver it upon a enemy (for whatever reason) will provoke an attack of opportunity.
Arcane mark is not an armed touch attack. But it is delivered by a weapon.
You see the problem now?
Note:
Just for the record, what is and what isn't a armed touch attack when referred to spells is ill defined.
No James I mean attack to mean something that is a threat as in something that would deal damage not that you get to run around touching things all willy nilly.
How much damage does touch of fatigue do?
Straight up it does 0 damage, but for most things being fatigued (on a failed save) is worse than the 1d3 damage that a close range ray of frost would deal. Frankly this is the wrong criteria.
Again it's contortions. You don't like it, my suggestion remove it from the spell list as a house rule. Or if you want to agree with the designers you can swap it out for another touch attack cantrip that doesn't offend you personally.
To the others, arcane mark is a touch attack spell. So is, for that matter, cure light wounds. Are you going to claim that when trying to hurt undead with this that it's not a touch attack spell?
Now light is not, as you'll notice you cannot target a creature with it. But if you still could, it certainly would be a touch attack spell to cast on an unwilling target. Any thief PC or NPC certainly would object to lighting up like a christmas tree!
The contortions that people go through to avoid something weak from being allowable. It's fairly silly.
-James
Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.
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.By all accounts, using an arcane mark as a touch attack is an attack according to the rules. In fact, there are reasons to do so from a combat perspective. For one, you are tagging an opponent, which allows you to later scry on them if they escape, and cannot be dispelled except via an erase spell, which means most monsters like demons who can dispel magic cannot erase your mark to keep you from tracking them. If placed upon a creature, you can use detect magic which causes the mark itself to glow and become visible, revealing any enemy who decided to become invisible, and puts a magic aura on them as well.
Arguing that arcane mark, when used as an attack, is not an attack, is like arguing that casting solid fog into a group of enemies is not an attack, or using dimensional anchor is not an attack. Arcane mark can in fact be used offensively, and with good reason to do so.
How can anyone be so narrow minded?
Finding a way to use a spell in a way that it was not intended does not allow you to change its initial function.
It would require GM adjudication to make it into a touch attack since the spell does not call for one. If the GM has to go outside of the rules to call for a touch attack then the spell is not a touch attack spell.
D.Rossi thanks for the explanation. I think you may have put it better than I did.
|
|
Here I have started a thread in the Rules section about what is an armed or not armed touch attack when delivering a touch spell.
If you think it is a valid question hit the FAQ button there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.
There is NO LANGUAGE in CLW that says it requires a touch attack. At all. Even when used to harm undead. Just like Arcane Mark.
|
|
There is NO LANGUAGE in CLW that says it requires a touch attack. At all. Even when used to harm undead. Just like Arcane Mark.
Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.
And what you mean with that?
Are you implying that you touch automatically the target?
Good catch. I guess we can go to DR's link and hit the FAQ button since I still think the intent was not for all touch spells to be "touch attack" spells.
There is NO LANGUAGE in CLW that says it requires a touch attack. At all. Even when used to harm undead. Just like Arcane Mark.
Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.
And what you mean with that?
Are you implying that you touch automatically the target?
/boggle
No, that's what YOU'RE implying. By saying that not all touch spells are touch attack spells then you are saying that some spells with a range of touch will NOT require an attack roll.The interpretation, to me, is clear. A spell with a range of touch against a target that doesn't want to be touched for whatever reason, requires a touch attack, whether he doesn't want to be Harm-ed or doesn't want Bull Strength or doesn't want Arcane Mark.
There are some spells that are ONLY offensive in nature and have a range of touch, for example Shocking Grasp or Touch of Fatigue. Those spells additionally call out in the spell text that they require a touch attack. Spells that are only helpful have no such text. However it is telling that a spell that could be both helpful and harmful, Cure Light Wounds, also has no such text.
Therefore, not all touch attack spells specifically call out for an attack roll in the spell text.
Therefore we cannot conclude from the absence of such language in Arcane Mark that it is not meant to be used offensively.
That's all. Clear with my logic now?
If the spell don't specifically state that it requires a touch attack, it doesn't, even if it's range is touch. You can see the difference between inflict light wound and touch of fatigue.
|
If the spell don't specifically state that it requires a touch attack, it doesn't, even if it's range is touch. You can see the difference between inflict light wound and touch of fatigue.
That's not how it works.
To paraphrase the CRB combat section (page 185 if you want to check yourself), touching a friend or ally with a touch spell requires no roll, but to touch an opponent you must succeed on an attack roll. Furthermore, a touch spell on an opponent is always considered an armed attack. The argument that only some spells are touch attacks is pretty poor.
Are you saying no touch attack is needed for inflict light wounds? I do agree that it does not call for one, but I don't think that is RAI.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mergy's got it right. Says it pretty explicitly right here (Bolded for Emphasis):
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
If you're trying to touch an opponent, you have to roll an attack. This attack is considered an armed attack.
|
|
There is NO LANGUAGE in CLW that says it requires a touch attack. At all. Even when used to harm undead. Just like Arcane Mark.
Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.
And what you mean with that?
Are you implying that you touch automatically the target?/boggle
No, that's what YOU'RE implying. By saying that not all touch spells are touch attack spells then you are saying that some spells with a range of touch will NOT require an attack roll.The interpretation, to me, is clear. A spell with a range of touch against a target that doesn't want to be touched for whatever reason, requires a touch attack, whether he doesn't want to be Harm-ed or doesn't want Bull Strength or doesn't want Arcane Mark.
There are some spells that are ONLY offensive in nature and have a range of touch, for example Shocking Grasp or Touch of Fatigue. Those spells additionally call out in the spell text that they require a touch attack. Spells that are only helpful have no such text. However it is telling that a spell that could be both helpful and harmful, Cure Light Wounds, also has no such text.
Therefore, not all touch attack spells specifically call out for an attack roll in the spell text.
Therefore we cannot conclude from the absence of such language in Arcane Mark that it is not meant to be used offensively.
That's all. Clear with my logic now?
Yes, but I has how many times one should bold the word:
armedbefore someone did notice it.
By rules say an unarmed attack is different from an unarmed attack and provoke an attack of opportunity.
The point about spells has been made moot by Grick in the other thread as he has pointed out that "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity ".
But if a attack count as an armed or an unarmed attack has nothing to do with it hitting automatically.
Where did I get the idea that a melee touch attack spell was needed? I can't even find the post now, not that it matters since spell strike only calls for a melee range of touch.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. .
Sounds like that meets the criteria for Spellstrike to me.
It works RAW. I still think the intent was to use a spell intended to harm the opponent.
|
|
It work RAW.
I still think the idea was using the spellstrike ability with limited resources (level 1+ spells) and not unlimited use cantrips, but that is another argument.
Sometime the unlimited use cantrips are a bit too unlimited, like the idea of a cleric casting Create water 12 hours every day to cover the needs of a small village.
The cantrips are a resource that should not be depleted by normal usage but 7.200 castings in one day are a bit excessive.
The simple data that every touch ranged spell count as an armed touch attack when used on an unwilling target make most of my doubts unfounded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to instead believe that the developers intentionally made it possible with the inclusion of not only a spellstrike ability with the only requirement being using a spell with a range of “touch”, but the inclusion of cantrips that match that precise requirement AND an arcanna that allows one of the cantrips included on the Magus spell list to apply by allowing it's "ranged touch" status to apply as a "touch" spell.
That would be an awful lot of coincidence for me to believe otherwise. Well, unless a dev comes on here and says otherwise.
It work RAW.
I still think the idea was using the spellstrike ability with limited resources (level 1+ spells) and not unlimited use cantrips, but that is another argument.
It's generally only worth it with higher level spells, specifically those that do damage or inflict a status effect. However using Arcane Mark is a way for a Magus, who can't use 2h weapons or 1h weapons 2h-ed, to have an additional trick in their arsenal at very low levels when those spells are at a premium. It's in no way game breaking or overpowered, so why not allow it? Effectively it's a crappy version of TWF where you need to succeed in a Concentration check to pull it off. Big whoop.
It works RAW. I still think the intent was to use a spell intended to harm the opponent.Arcane mark doesn't seem like it would be a spell that I would have otherwise picked to be on the magus spell list, would you?
I think the placement on the spell list was exactly for this reason. It's just not normally as useful as touch of fatigue or even a close arcana ray of frost.
To check the importance of having Arcane Mark on the magus spell list, I looked at the low-level sorcerer/wizard touch spells that were left off the magus's spell list.
At zeroth level, Resistance and Touch of Fatigue from the CRB were left off the magus list.
At first level, we can skip over Adundant Ammunition, Fabricate Bullets, Ki Arrow, Magic Aura, Decompose Corpse, Restore Corpse, and Sculpt Corpse because those touch spells affect only objects or corpses. That leaves Endure Elements, Mage Armor, and Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law from the CRB, Ant Haul, Touch of Gracelessness, and Touch of the Sea from the APG, Anticipate Peril, Interrogation, and Youthful Appearance from UM, and Air Bubble from UC.
I see three trends.
First, the first-level magus's spell list avoids shareable defensive magic: Resistance, Mage Armor, Protection from Evil, and Anticipate Peril. Second, the list avoids shareable utility touch spells: Air Bubble, Ant Haul, Endure Elements, Touch of the Sea, and Youthful Appearance. I see an obvious explanation for these two trends. The motif of the magus is to combine spells and weapons in combat. Buffing the party at first level goes against that motif, so the poor magus gets personal buffs, such as Shield, but was shorted on shareable buffs such as Mage Armor. His only shareable buffs at first level are Enlarge Person, Jump, and Magic Weapon.
The remaining trend is avoiding hostile touch spells that do not deal damage: Touch of Fatigue, Touch of Gracelessness, and Interrogation.
This thread seems to have reached the consensus that by RAW Spellstrike can be used with Arcane Mark, but that many GMs will want to houserule that away. The recommended house rules are either (1) no cantrips with Spellstrike, or (2) only spells that are touch attacks, distiguished from touch non-attacks by using the phrase "melee touch attack" in their text. The third trend suggests a third possible house rule: (3) only spells that deal damage may be combined with Spellstrike.
I had talked of imagery in an earlier comment, pointing out the contradiction that the second-level magus can cast a spell once and attack twice in a full-round action but cannot simply attack twice. Here is an explanation for that. The spell's effect, such as the freezing cold from Chill Touch or the eletricity from Shocking Grasp wraps around the magus's blade and aids his swing. With such magical aid, the magus can strike fast enough to make an extra attack. Thus, Spellstrike would need a spell that attacks, a spell that wants to jump on the opponent and hurt him. I don't see Arcane Mark as that kind of spell. Nor Interrogation. Maybe Touch of Fatigue. Definitely Chill Touch, Corrosive Touch, Frostbite, and Shocking Grasp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works RAW. I still think the intent was to use a spell intended to harm the opponent.Arcane mark doesn't seem like it would be a spell that I would have otherwise picked to be on the magus spell list, would you?
I think the placement on the spell list was exactly for this reason. It's just not normally as useful as touch of fatigue or even a close arcana ray of frost.
Hey if nothing else it can educate some on how some of the spell mechanics works.
-James
I think the main reason Arcane Mark is on the Magus spell list is because it is usually used to mark ones spellbook, and the Magus uses a spellbook. IMO, thats pretty much as far as the thinking went on adding it to the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.By all accounts, using an arcane mark as a touch attack is an attack according to the rules. In fact, there are reasons to do so from a combat perspective. For one, you are tagging an opponent, which allows you to later scry on them if they escape, and cannot be dispelled except via an erase spell, which means most monsters like demons who can dispel magic cannot erase your mark to keep you from tracking them. If placed upon a creature, you can use detect magic which causes the mark itself to glow and become visible, revealing any enemy who decided to become invisible, and puts a magic aura on them as well.
Arguing that arcane mark, when used as an attack, is not an attack, is like arguing that casting solid fog into a group of enemies is not an attack, or using dimensional anchor is not an attack. Arcane mark can in fact be used offensively, and with good reason to do so.
How can anyone be so narrow minded?
It is not about "it is an attack" but "it is an armed attack"?
Delivering a touch spell that is not an armed attack against a opponent provoke an attack of opportunity.
Arcane mark is not one of the spells designed as armed attacks.
But when used by a magus with spellstrike it is delivered by a weapon.
.....
That make it a armed attack?
Yes, no, why?
If yes in which other situations the same logic can be applied? For example if a wizard take improved unarmed combat he could deliver Arcane mark upon a enemy without...
First off, all touch spells are considered armed.
You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
When you are delivering a spell as a touch-attack, you are considered armed. According to the definition of attacks under the Magic section, spells do not need to deal damage at all to be considered attacks. Anything that affects another creature is effectively an attack. Casting cure light wounds on someone is effectively an attack, and would more closely resemble a traditional attack if used on an undead creature (but in either case it is an attack, which you do not have to roll to hit a willing target).
Additionally, even if you weren't considered armed as part of the spell, you are already allowed to channel a touch spell through an unarmed strike as part of the rules, in which case you are treated as armed if you were already treated as armed (IE - Improved Unarmed Strike). In this case, the effect is essentially the same, and the Magus is delivering the attack through his sword (including having to hit their AC instead of touch AC, if I recall correctly).
The argument against using Arcane Mark is pretty stupid, because spells do not have to deal damage to be considered attacks. You could be invisible and start turning people's clothes different colors or making them smell like rotten eggs with prestidigitation and by the rules it would break invisibility because it is an attack. Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying, can be detecting by detect magic, and makes them more obvious in a crowd.
"Hey, did you see a guy with a big glowing X on his face come by here?" - "Yeah, he went that way. Everyone was staring."
...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.By all accounts, using an arcane mark as a touch attack is an attack according to the rules. In fact, there are reasons to do so from a combat perspective. For one, you are tagging an opponent, which allows you to later scry on them if they escape, and cannot be dispelled except via an erase spell, which means most monsters like demons who can dispel magic cannot erase your mark to keep you from tracking them. If placed upon a creature, you can use detect magic which causes the mark itself to glow and become visible, revealing any enemy who decided to become invisible, and puts a magic aura on them as well.
Arguing that arcane mark, when used as an attack, is not an attack, is like arguing that casting solid fog into a group of enemies is not an attack, or using dimensional anchor is not an attack. Arcane mark can in fact be used offensively, and with good reason to do so.
How can anyone be so narrow minded?
It is not about "it is an attack" but "it is an armed attack"?
Delivering a touch spell that is not an armed attack against a opponent provoke an attack of opportunity.
Arcane mark is not one of the spells designed as armed attacks.
But when used by a magus with spellstrike it is delivered by a weapon.
.....
That make it a armed attack?
Yes, no, why?
If yes in which other situations the same logic can be applied? For example if a wizard take improved unarmed combat he could deliver Arcane mark upon
+1 and faved. (Seriously. I'm finding myself faving most of your posts I come across. What's wrong with you? :p)
As is, Arcane Mark does have it's combat uses. To quote a specific bit from Ashiel's post.
Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying, can be detecting by detect magic, and makes them more obvious in a crowd.
"Hey, did you see a guy with a big glowing X on his face come by here?" - "Yeah, he went that way. Everyone was staring."
Sure, it doesn't last for a while, but hell, this thing even, I think, override's the ninja's 20th level invisibility trick. TELL me that's not useful, much less considered an 'attack' by an opponent that does not want to be found.
|
|
It's generally only worth it with higher level spells, specifically those that do damage or inflict a status effect. However using Arcane Mark is a way for a Magus, who can't use 2h weapons or 1h weapons 2h-ed, to have an additional trick in their arsenal at very low levels when those spells are at a premium. It's in no way game breaking or overpowered, so why not allow it? Effectively it's a crappy version of TWF where you need to succeed in a Concentration check to pull it off. Big whoop.It work RAW.
I still think the idea was using the spellstrike ability with limited resources (level 1+ spells) and not unlimited use cantrips, but that is another argument.
Actually there is nothing prohibiting him from using a 1 h weapon with 2 hands, 2 weapons or a two handed weapon beside his interest in keeping a hand free to cast spells.
So if he is willing to pay the feat tax he can use 2 weapons (spiked gauntlet and 1 h weapon and he will still be capable to cast), use a bastard sword and switch his grip when it is convenient or grip a 1 h weapon in two hands for the extra damage if he has the strength to make that worthwhile.
|
|
Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying,
Nice list of things that Arcane mark don't do.
The rune is not glowing . It will glow if it is a invisible rune and you cast detect magic. As detect magic nice the caster the ability to see magic I suppose it will glow only for you, but the wording there is unclear.
Note that the mark should have made as an invisible mark. If the target has turned invisible and the mark was a visible one it will not glow.
Scrying is not affected in any way by arcane mark. The save modifier for that spell are very specific and "you have marked the spell target" is not one of them.
Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying,Nice list of things that Arcane mark don't do.
The rune is not glowing . It will glow if it is a invisible rune and you cast detect magic. As detect magic nice the caster the ability to see magic I suppose it will glow only for you, but the wording there is unclear.
Note that the mark should have made as an invisible mark. If the target has turned invisible and the mark was a visible one it will not glow.Scrying is not affected in any way by arcane mark. The save modifier for that spell are very specific and "you have marked the spell target" is not one of them.
This spell allows you to inscribe your personal rune or mark, which can consist of no more than six characters. The writing can be visible or invisible. An arcane mark spell enables you to etch the rune upon any substance without harm to the material upon which it is placed. If an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable.
You have marked your foe. Even if they become invisible, yes, you can make the mark glow. That was what I was referencing; so I apologize if there was confusion.
Likewise, you can use the arcane mark as a connection focus when scrying, as "they guy with this mark" should be enough to qualify as a likeness or picture, which sets a -2 penalty on their Will saves when you are trying to scry on them.
Using detect magic makes the mark glow. It doesn't mention that it glows only for the person casting detect magic, nor does it say that the glowing ends at any point after it begins glowing and becomes visible.
Again, putting a big mark on somebody to distinguish them or make them easier to find seems like a legitimately solid use for the spell. Likewise, it can make it more difficult for them to evade you. Ultimately, it doesn't even matter, because as long as you're using an attack to touch your opponent, it's considered an attack spell, even if you were using a spell that's beneficial.
+1 and faved. (Seriously. I'm finding myself faving most of your posts I come across. What's wrong with you? :p)
Thank you, I'm glad you found it helpful. I'm also glad you like my posts! Hopefully whatever is wrong with me won't become right anytime too soon. ^-^
|
|
It's rather amusing... but Arcane Mark doesn't have any of the properties that Ashiel ascribes to it. It's a Wizard's mark a signature, nothing more or less.
Where does it say it has to be a signature? It's a personal mark. It doesn't even say it has to be the same every time. My personal mark for today is an elephant. Tomorrow it's a rude word.
It's generally only worth it with higher level spells, specifically those that do damage or inflict a status effect. However using Arcane Mark is a way for a Magus, who can't use 2h weapons or 1h weapons 2h-ed, to have an additional trick in their arsenal at very low levels when those spells are at a premium. It's in no way game breaking or overpowered, so why not allow it? Effectively it's a crappy version of TWF where you need to succeed in a Concentration check to pull it off. Big whoop.It work RAW.
I still think the idea was using the spellstrike ability with limited resources (level 1+ spells) and not unlimited use cantrips, but that is another argument.
Actually there is nothing prohibiting him from using a 1 h weapon with 2 hands, 2 weapons or a two handed weapon beside his interest in keeping a hand free to cast spells.
So if he is willing to pay the feat tax he can use 2 weapons (spiked gauntlet and 1 h weapon and he will still be capable to cast), use a bastard sword and switch his grip when it is convenient or grip a 1 h weapon in two hands for the extra damage if he has the strength to make that worthwhile.
You totally didn't get what I was saying.
IF he uses Spellstrike and Spell Combat to cast Arcane Mark to "cheese" an extra attack, he cannot 2h his sword on that attack.
Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying,Nice list of things that Arcane mark don't do.
Well, if you want glow... use the Light cantrip. It's a touch spell. ;)
Well, if you want glow... use the Light cantrip. It's a touch spell. ;)Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying,Nice list of things that Arcane mark don't do.
As has been discussed, you cannot target a creature with that spell, only an object.
|
If that was truly the design intention than the cantrip list would have included a straight forward melee touch attack spell, a melee version of Ray of Frost. Arcane Mark is not such a spell.I prefer to instead believe that the developers intentionally made it possible with the inclusion of not only a spellstrike ability with the only requirement being using a spell with a range of “touch”, but the inclusion of cantrips that match that precise requirement AND an arcanna that allows one of the cantrips included on the Magus spell list to apply by allowing it's "ranged touch" status to apply as a "touch" spell.
That would be an awful lot of coincidence for me to believe otherwise. Well, unless a dev comes on here and says otherwise.
UM was going to have a bunch of cantrips in it but were cut for space and posted on a blog later. One of them was Jolt, a melee touch cantrip that dealt 1d3 electricity damage. I bet this was supposed to be on the magus' spell list before it was cut from the book.
As has been discussed, you cannot target a creature with that spell, only an object.
Ok, I'll concede that one. (Even if that is not a condition in the spellstrike description.)
It works RAW. I still think the intent was to use a spell intended to harm the opponent.Arcane mark doesn't seem like it would be a spell that I would have otherwise picked to be on the magus spell list, would you?
I think the placement on the spell list was exactly for this reason. It's just not normally as useful as touch of fatigue or even a close arcana ray of frost.
Hey if nothing else it can educate some on how some of the spell mechanics works.
-James
The magus is a combination fighter/wizard in essence. He is not just there to do DPR, so as someone trained in magic that is based on intelligence he should have arcane mark. IMHO the magus is more than just a fighter with spells, and if that were the case I would say no, he would have no reason to have arcane mark.
The devs said during the playtesting that no use of two-handed weapons is intended no matter what rules loopholes are found, and there were all kinds of methods though of to get around the intent.
At the end of the the GM can go with RAW or RAI that a dev has backed up.
RAI(backed up be devs and/or common sense) > RAW.
You don't want any dead people walking around do you?