Wow. A wand of that is EEEEEEEvil.
Using a improperly sized weapon? Would that qualify for the requirements?
Cause if so... REALLY big weapons suddenly become so much more viable of an option...
A wand of +1 to attack rolls for 1 minute?
It's not a bad buff, but it's not going to be wand of the year. You don't want to pay for it to be CL5.
Yeah, I came across this when looking at spells my Paladin might be able to take later and I was like "WOAH". Even at CL 1 it's decent, but at higher levels it gets ridonkulous.
By CL 20 you can Stunning Assault, Power Attack, Fight Defensively, and use Combat Expertise...all without taking a single -1 to-hit.
It'll be a must-have for Magi. A 1st level slot to, at CL 10, entirely negate the Spell Combat penalty? Gold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the spell does quite exactly what anyone (except Jaunt) thinks it does.
When you voluntarily use one or more actions or feats that apply penalties to attack rolls with your melee weapons (such as a charge, fighting defensively, or using the Power Attack feat), the spirit reduces the total penalty on affected attacks by 1 (to a minimum penalty of 0).
(it decreases "the total penalty" on the affected attacks by the given amount, not each penalty every time. So if you have CL 15 and are taking three -4 penalties, it reduces the total penalty to -8; it doesn't ignore all three of the penalties. It's still extremely powerful for its spell level at high caster level though, particularly for magus where it's 1st.)
Or put it on a Staff of some kind, possibly combined with true strike. Or a custom wondrous device.
It seems like a cheat spell. Those penalties exist for a reason. They're a consequence to a choice you make. It seems like a very mechanical, almost cynical, effect, and not really magical or wondrous or spiritual.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Missed that bit. Still, nice way to negate Power Attack or TWFing penalties, and to make Fighting Defensively more worthwhile for those classes.
I'm a bit baffled as to why it's on the Sorcerer/Wizard list though...and very disappointed, actually. It would have made an incredible Inquisitor spell instead.
Or put it on a Staff of some kind, possibly combined with true strike. Or a custom wondrous device.
It seems like a cheat spell. Those penalties exist for a reason. They're a consequence to a choice you make. It seems like a very mechanical, almost cynical, effect, and not really magical or wondrous or spiritual.
And you are expending a resource to negate those penalties for a short time. One might say "the effects of gravity exist for a reason" and thus Fly is a "cheat spell" and that would make just as much sense.
And really, it's no different than a buff spell of other kinds. Heroism is a +2 to attack (the effect of this sell at CL 10, with the added benefit of it having an effect above and beyond reducing the penalty to 0) among many other things.
I don't think the spell does quite exactly what anyone (except Jaunt) thinks it does.
When you voluntarily use one or more actions or feats that apply penalties to attack rolls with your melee weapons (such as a charge, fighting defensively, or using the Power Attack feat), the spirit reduces the total penalty on affected attacks by 1 (to a minimum penalty of 0).(it decreases "the total penalty" on the affected attacks by the given amount, not each penalty every time. So if you have CL 15 and are taking three -4 penalties, it reduces the total penalty to -8; it doesn't ignore all three of the penalties. It's still extremely powerful for its spell level at high caster level though, particularly for magus where it's 1st.)
hmm then how does it work with a charge that has power attack applied to it? do you choose to apply the penalty reduction to AC or to-hit first, or are they considered separate total penalties?
I'm not sure I even understand your question.
It only reduces penalties to attack rolls. The AC penalty is unaffected.
If you mean do you add the +2 from charging and the -X from Power Attack, you don't sum them to +1 and say there's no penalty. You just sum all the penalties, and then reduce that by however much Blade Spirit gives you, and then finish your calculation. If you have 300 +1 bonuses on your attack, and -4 from Power Attack and a CL20 Blade Spirit, you're still going to have a +300 bonus.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Missed that bit. Still, nice way to negate Power Attack or TWFing penalties, and to make Fighting Defensively more worthwhile for those classes.
I'm a bit baffled as to why it's on the Sorcerer/Wizard list though...and very disappointed, actually. It would have made an incredible Inquisitor spell instead.
Or put it on a Staff of some kind, possibly combined with true strike. Or a custom wondrous device.
It seems like a cheat spell. Those penalties exist for a reason. They're a consequence to a choice you make. It seems like a very mechanical, almost cynical, effect, and not really magical or wondrous or spiritual.
And you are expending a resource to negate those penalties for a short time. One might say "the effects of gravity exist for a reason" and thus Fly is a "cheat spell" and that would make just as much sense.
And really, it's no different than a buff spell of other kinds. Heroism is a +2 to attack (the effect of this sell at CL 10, with the added benefit of it having an effect above and beyond reducing the penalty to 0) among many other things.
I don't know if I'm being clear. Flying is super cool and fun. Superman flies. Dragons fly. Tinkerbell flies. Jet fighters fly.
But negating a penalty like that just seems so meta to me. It's like a spell that lets you ignore the 1.5 movement costs of moving diagonal or lets you keep the die result if it lands on the floor--but only if it's better than the re-roll you did that landed on the table.
I want to like it, but it seems wrong to me for some reason. I think it has some kind of unintended consequences that we just haven't discovered yet.
Everything that adds a +1 or +2 to something is "meta" though. There's no real thematic difference between Bless and this.
I suppose.
I think the fact that it's not so much a bonus as the negation of a penalty. But then Furious Focus does that as a feat, too, and I don't hate that. And there is that trait that does the same thing for Combat Expertise, and I actually like that.
Hmmmmmm......
Idk.
I'll have to think about it.
I don't think it's broken or bad design space.
It just irks me for some reason.
And I really like that Improved Tactician spell or whatever it's called that paladins get that increase bonuses for flanking, higher ground, charging, etc.
So I don't know why negating penalties is bothering me so much. Grrr.
Now I'm annoyed with myself.
I'm not sure I even understand your question.
It only reduces penalties to attack rolls. The AC penalty is unaffected.
If you mean do you add the +2 from charging and the -X from Power Attack, you don't sum them to +1 and say there's no penalty. You just sum all the penalties, and then reduce that by however much Blade Spirit gives you, and then finish your calculation. If you have 300 +1 bonuses on your attack, and -4 from Power Attack and a CL20 Blade Spirit, you're still going to have a +300 bonus.
it specifically is called out as working with charge, and the only "attack penalty" involved is the one to your AC.
When you voluntarily use one or more actions or feats that apply penalties to attack rolls with your melee weapons (such as a charge, fighting defensively, or using the Power Attack feat)
so i guess then, how is charge related to this ability since it is specifically called out then?
also they specifically say "penalty" after that, i feel like maybe this was edited and a mistake got through, or the intention changed at some point.
It's not. Somebody goofed, because Charge doesn't impose an attack penalty.
I feel this is semi-FAQ relevant so at least they become aware of the mistake and can edit it.
They don't tend to FAQ or errata splatbooks like this. The ability is clear enough, despite the poor example, so there's really no need for one except for consideration for second printings (of which there will be none, most likely).
They don't tend to FAQ or errata splatbooks like this. The ability is clear enough, despite the poor example, so there's really no need for one except for consideration for second printings (of which there will be none, most likely).
fair point
Hm.
Samsaran TWF Inquisitor with a paladin's spell list could have this as a second level spell. Otherwise... An inquisitor would need scrolls for this, but it works.
I'm somewhat tempted to try making a Power Attacking Risky Striking halfling paladin using this feat to compensate for the power attack penalty now. Maybe even a TWF paladin with Piranha + Risky? Hmm.
Out of curiosity, if you used a Shadowdancer's Shadow Call to create a quasi-real shadowy creation conjuration to create Blade Tutor's Spirit, would that work? It's not affecting anyone else but you.