| 39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Arcane Strike add its damage to Rays which cause damage?
This has been discussed many times in these threads before without definitive resolution. But I believe that the Warlock's Mystic Bolt ability clarifies that Arcane Strike will work with Rays that cause damage.
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item or a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
Weapon Specialization: Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?
All four of those are valid choices.
Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
This question has been discussed many times before. Here is a sample of threads, going back as far as 2011, in which the topic has come up.
Weapon Focus & Arcane Strike
Does Arcane Strike work with Ray spells?
Arcane Strike and Ray Spells
Arcane Strike to Rays?
Scorching Ray and Arcane Strike / Weapon Spec.
Can I use arcane strike with acid splash?
Mythic Arcane Strike + Bane + Ray of Frost
Can Wind Wall deflects Rays?
Are rays weapons? and what about other "weapon" feats for them. halp
I've seen two different arguments against Arcane Strike working with Rays. The first states that Arcane Strike only applies to weapons and Rays aren't weapons. But the FAQs clearly contradict this. I can't see any justification for this position.
The second argument is more significant. Arcane Strike states that "[a]s a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power." For many people this means that the only weapons that are "charged up" are those in your possession when you perform the swift action. Rays are instantaneous, and so can't persist long enough to perform a swift action. Since Rays can't even exist while you activate Arcane Strike, this argument leads to the conclusion that, in practice, there is no way to apply Arcane Strike to a Ray even though they are treated as weapons. Inspire Courage works with Rays because the ability operates while the Ray is in existence, but Arcane Strike is over before you can make any Rays.
The counterargument is generally based on a different interpretation of the Arcane Strike description. In this view, the swift action isn't the only time window for "charging your weapons." Instead the sentence "[a]s a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power" is interpreted to mean that it takes a swift action to grant yourself the ability to "charge up" your weapons. Under this interpretation, the next line "[f]or 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" clarifies that any weapons you use that round, even if they weren't in your possession during the swift action, will gain those benefits. Under this model, Rays would get the increased damage so long as they are used during that round.
If you read through the threads listed above, you will see both of these positions asserted over and over again. There weren't any other rules that enable us to determine which is the correct model for understanding the way Arcane Strike works, so there was no way to resolve the issue. But now that Ultimate Intrigue has introduced the Warlock's Mystic Bolts ability, I believe the deadlock has been resolved.
Mystic Bolts
...
Creating a mystic bolt requires the hand to be free, but the bolt appears only briefly, so a warlock using mystic bolts has a free hand any time she isn’t attacking with a mystic bolt. The warlock threatens with a mystic bolt, but only if she has a hand free. Because mystic bolts are impermanent, a spell that targets a single weapon (like magic weapon) can’t affect it, nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities. Abilities that affect all weapon attacks the warlock makes, such as the arcane striker warlock talent, function with mystic bolts.
...
So if you use Arcane Striker (which is just the Arcane Strike feat until 12th level), and then create a Mystic Bolt, the Bolt is affected by Arcane Strike even though it didn't exist during the swift action. The description makes it clear that Arcane Striker doesn't work with Mystic Bolts because of some special dispensation, but rather because it, like Arcane Strike itself, is one of those abilities that affects all weapon attacks. If Arcane Strike really only affects weapons that exist during the swift action, then it shouldn't work on Mystic Bolts. But it does work on Mystic Bolts, so it should also work on Rays.
Discuss or FAQ as you wish. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes.
No, because they are spell effects,not wielded weapons.
No, because they are spell effects,not wielded weapons.Even though they explicitly benefit from effects that modify weapon damage rolls and arcane strike is an effect that modifies weapon damage rolls?
Arcane Strike (Combat)
The gadget spec URL could not be foundYou draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
Note the bolded text. Using Arcane Strike is a separate swift action that is not part of your spellcasting action. When you use it, your ray spells are not there to be imbued. You can not combine Arcane Strike with your Spellcasting as a single combined action. Also the rest of the spell states "your weapons". Not your spells.
Just because two things share one or more properties, does not make them the same thing.
No, because they are spell effects,not wielded weapons.Even though they explicitly benefit from effects that modify weapon damage rolls and arcane strike is an effect that modifies weapon damage rolls?Arcane Strike (Combat)
The gadget spec URL could not be found
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
Note the bolded text. Using Arcane Strike is a separate swift action that is not part of your spellcasting action. When you use it, your ray spells are not there to be imbued. You can not combine Arcane Strike with your Spellcasting as a single combined action. Also the rest of the spell states "your weapons". Not your spells.
Just because two things share one or more properties, does not make them the same thing.
But arcane strike imbues weapons, not just a specific weapon you are holding when you activate. If you could activate arcane strike, pick up a sword from the ground, and still get a benefit from arcane strike then so to does it transfer to rays.
Also, what of blooded arcane strike?
So you argue Arcane Strike only works with any weapon you're wielding at the instant you use it and if you say, quick draw a weapon or pick up an improvised weapon during that same round you don't get the benefit?
1. It's rude to put words in peoples mouth, especially to have them answer a question that you did not ask.
2. I answered your specific question. If you want to play moving goalposts because you don't like my answer, consider us done.
3. Blooded Arcane Strike is a separate ability, which I'm not familiar with and is not germane to this question.
Since Arcane Strike is not used on a specific weapon and grants the effect for a full round to all your weapons, I'd say that it works on Rays too (just like how a Bard's Inspire Courage can).
The problem with your logic is that Rays are not weapons. they are spell effects. They may take some of the same kind of advantages that can be applied to weapons, but that does not make them weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Arcane Strike is not used on a specific weapon and grants the effect for a full round to all your weapons, I'd say that it works on Rays too (just like how a Bard's Inspire Courage can).The problem with your logic is that Rays are not weapons. they are spell effects. They may take some of the same kind of advantages that can be applied to weapons, but that does not make them weapons.
There's literally an FAQ in the OP that goes directly against what you say.
Arcane strike is an effect that affects weapons.
Rays counts as weapons for the purpose of effects that affect weapons.
QED.
Since Arcane Strike is not used on a specific weapon and grants the effect for a full round to all your weapons, I'd say that it works on Rays too (just like how a Bard's Inspire Courage can).The problem with your logic is that Rays are not weapons. they are spell effects. They may take some of the same kind of advantages that can be applied to weapons, but that does not make them weapons.There's literally an FAQ in the OP that goes directly against what you say.
Arcane strike is an effect that affects weapons.
Rays counts as weapons for the purpose of effects that affect weapons.
QED.
And to almost every general rule, there are exceptions. This is one of them for reasons already stated. I have nothing further to add to this, I'm sure someone else can help you more than I can.
This will all end in tears, but I clicked FAQ anyway.
Edit: Thank you Gisher for the clear and concise stating of this question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey OP, excellent work on the original post. It almost brought a tear to my eye.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you argue Arcane Strike only works with any weapon you're wielding at the instant you use it and if you say, quick draw a weapon or pick up an improvised weapon during that same round you don't get the benefit?1. It's rude to put words in peoples mouth, especially to have them answer a question that you did not ask.
2. I answered your specific question. If you want to play moving goalposts because you don't like my answer, consider us done.
3. Blooded Arcane Strike is a separate ability, which I'm not familiar with and is not germane to this question.
1) They aren't being rude and "putting words in your mouth" Since they are asking you if what they are saying is true. This is actually a GOOD COMMUNICATION SKILL CALLED REFLECTION. It's when you reflect back what you are understanding someone to be saying.
Like if you said, The sky is blue except at night. And someone asks "So does that mean you think it's blue during sunset?" it because they are reflecting their understanding of what you said and making sure they understand you.2)The OP specifically brought up these issues. If you're just answering from the title and not the actual post, well then you'd be the one that moved the goalpost and he's just setting it back to where it was originally
3)Blooded arcane is germane since it just allows no-action use of arcane strike. So if there was no action to trigger does it now work for these "weapons"?
Overall you're being very confrontational and you're the one that seems be more rude and dismissive.
Since Arcane Strike is not used on a specific weapon and grants the effect for a full round to all your weapons, I'd say that it works on Rays too (just like how a Bard's Inspire Courage can).
I think the pertinent question would still be: Does it apply to weapons that don't exist/aren't associated with the spellcaster at the time the swift action is expended? If not, then the effect shouldn't apply to instant spells like most rays or touch attacks, nor should it apply to weapons that are picked up after the swift action because, at the time the imbuement (imbuall?) occurred, that wasn't the caster's weapon.
I also think the difference comes in how you look at the ability. Does it apply to the weapons and all weapons in existence and associated with the caster are imbued at once? Or does it apply to the caster and any weapon he picks up/casts/uses is affected? And if it's the former, can I imbue my weapon and hand it off to someone else to use? If the latter, can I pick up a smaller creature and hit someone with him and gain the arcane strike's modifiers - now suppose that small creature was a monk who then uses his own fists to attack while the duration is still in operation - are his attacks imbued?
Ultimately, I don't think the comparison with a bard's inspire courage is an apt comparison. That's a mind-affecting effect - it affect's the listener and that's why they get a bonus on their saves, attacks, and damage. The weapons, not having minds, aren't affected directly by inspire courage at all.
3)Blooded arcane is germane since it just allows no-action use of arcane strike. So if there was no action to trigger does it now work for these "weapons"?
I'm not sure it's entirely germaine since, being always on, there's no moment the effect turns on. It always applies to any weapon the bloodrager uses. I'd say that makes it pretty obvious ray spells should be affected for any bloodrager with this feat. But I don't think it says much about the arcane strike feat given its action cost.
But at that point after the swift action it is always on for all weapons for the round. As such rays should be valid for its use.
It would work with a spell blade created after the swift action or a force sword created after the swift action.
I'm not sure it's entirely germaine since, being always on, there's no moment the effect turns on. It always applies to any weapon the bloodrager uses. I'd say that makes it pretty obvious ray spells should be affected for any bloodrager with this feat. But I don't think it says much about the arcane strike feat given its action cost.
3)Blooded arcane is germane since it just allows no-action use of arcane strike. So if there was no action to trigger does it now work for these "weapons"?
It's super important if someone says it still doesn't work with that ability. It a very valid question in understanding someone's view of this matter.
But at that point after the swift action it is always on for all weapons for the round. As such rays should be valid for its use.
But is it? That's a reasonable question. And, as I pointed out, there are (at least) two approaches to it. Is it on the weapons that existed and were in possession at the time the swift action? Or is it on the caster and extendable to newly created/acquired weapons?
But is it? That's a reasonable question. And, as I pointed out, there are (at least) two approaches to it. Is it on the weapons that existed and were in possession at the time the swift action? Or is it on the caster and extendable to newly created/acquired weapons?But at that point after the swift action it is always on for all weapons for the round. As such rays should be valid for its use.
The latter, by the use of "weapons" rather than "weapon" or "held weapon".
Ugh, this is a tricky subject to adjudicate. On one hand, the first FAQ would win, but on the other hand, I really don't want rays to have that extra amount of power. Plus, imagine the shenanigans with Scorching Ray, getting up to +15 extra damage is ridiculous.
Keep in mind that the effects of Arcane Strike persist for an entire round, so if you utilize Arcane Strike before you cast a Ray spell or ability, those benefits would still apply to Rays; even if they are instantaneous.
In either case, it's safe to assume that this would only apply to effects that deal hit point damage, as per the second FAQ.
|
At 20th level I hardly think getting an extra 15 points of damage is going to be a big deal, especially since that won't be affected by metamagic.Ugh, this is a tricky subject to adjudicate. On one hand, the first FAQ would win, but on the other hand, I really don't want rays to have that extra amount of power. Plus, imagine the shenanigans with Scorching Ray, getting up to +15 extra damage is ridiculous.
Especially when the swift action cost will prevent casting a quickened spell.
Nothing in the feat requires an attack roll, only that what gets the damage is a weapon. That means rays count since they count as weapons, but not Magic Missile or Fireball. To clarify.
|
|
So, we've got two stances, basically, yes?
There's "You can use Arcane Strike for rays, why would you think you can't" and "Arcane Strike has to have something to 'imbue' when it's activated, so it won't affect a ray", correct?
I think the point we're at is that everyone basically agrees that if you could hold a ray in your hands for 6 seconds, it would be affected by Arcane Strike (correct me if I'm wrong), so the sticking point is the line in Arcane Strike that says "As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power."
You've got one group saying that this effect would only affect weapons on you at the time you use your swift action, so it wouldn't effect rays, and presumably the logical next step in that line of thought is that it wouldn't affect any weapon not on you at the time. The other group is effectively saying it's kind of like a stance that you activate as a swift action and which stays active for 1 round, or at least that's what I'm getting.
I'm finding myself falling on the side of Arcane Strike working with rays. The first sentence "As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power" may cause some confusion, but I'm inclined to think that second sentence "For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" clarifies intent and RAW function. You take a swift action, and then for one round all your weapons deal bonus damage. There's no stipulation or warning that you need to be holding or carrying the affected weapon at the time you use this ability, so presumably it would work on a dagger you caught or picked up, and if that's the case, then it should work on a ray as well, given all the FAQs telling us that rays should be treated as weapons for feats and effects that only affect weapons.
So, what, by RAW, counts as a "ray"?
|
Since Arcane Strike is not used on a specific weapon and grants the effect for a full round to all your weapons, I'd say that it works on Rays too (just like how a Bard's Inspire Courage can).I think the pertinent question would still be: Does it apply to weapons that don't exist/aren't associated with the spellcaster at the time the swift action is expended? If not, then the effect shouldn't apply to instant spells like most rays or touch attacks, nor should it apply to weapons that are picked up after the swift action because, at the time the imbuement (imbuall?) occurred, that wasn't the caster's weapon.
I also think the difference comes in how you look at the ability. Does it apply to the weapons and all weapons in existence and associated with the caster are imbued at once? Or does it apply to the caster and any weapon he picks up/casts/uses is affected? And if it's the former, can I imbue my weapon and hand it off to someone else to use? If the latter, can I pick up a smaller creature and hit someone with him and gain the arcane strike's modifiers - now suppose that small creature was a monk who then uses his own fists to attack while the duration is still in operation - are his attacks imbued?
Ultimately, I don't think the comparison with a bard's inspire courage is an apt comparison. That's a mind-affecting effect - it affect's the listener and that's why they get a bonus on their saves, attacks, and damage. The weapons, not having minds, aren't affected directly by inspire courage at all.
It is on for all weapons used by the character with the feat, so all your point are moot.
If you hand them to some other character you aren't using them, If you pick up someone and use him as an improvised weapon it is imbued, but not when he make his attacks as you aren't using him, and so on.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anything that has Effect ray
|
|
The feat is already a niche feat anyway, Since they changed the SLA FAQ, and was never that powerful to start. I have rarely seen a full caster take the feat also, because they rather save their swift actions quicken spell, or class abilities. It get selected in the start of the game and quickly retrained as soon as quicken spell become a decent option. It will more then like be Nerf to even more useless and only A Melee Bard, Magi, blood ragers only ones that pick it. Caster will stop using it completely. Other Martial already got kick in the balls and are no longer allowed to get it via SLA. So why not Nerf it some more sounds like a plan.
FAQed
Add ranged bard and all sort of arcane gish. Better than power attack for people with a 3/4 BAB, especially if they are limited to one handed weapons.
Nothing in the feat requires an attack roll, only that what gets the damage is a weapon. That means rays count since they count as weapons, but not Magic Missile or Fireball. To clarify.So, does that mean Precise Shot doesn't work with ranged touch spells like Acid Splash? They aren't rays, but they use an attack roll. Are they considered 'weapons' for feats and other effects?
Most likely not.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most likely not.Nothing in the feat requires an attack roll, only that what gets the damage is a weapon. That means rays count since they count as weapons, but not Magic Missile or Fireball. To clarify.So, does that mean Precise Shot doesn't work with ranged touch spells like Acid Splash? They aren't rays, but they use an attack roll. Are they considered 'weapons' for feats and other effects?
Every spell, spell-like ability, supernatural, etc that makes an attack roll and deals damage is a weapon.
So they interact with (take the penalties) for shooting into melee, etc.
Most likely not.Nothing in the feat requires an attack roll, only that what gets the damage is a weapon. That means rays count since they count as weapons, but not Magic Missile or Fireball. To clarify.So, does that mean Precise Shot doesn't work with ranged touch spells like Acid Splash? They aren't rays, but they use an attack roll. Are they considered 'weapons' for feats and other effects?Every spell, spell-like ability, supernatural, etc that makes an attack roll and deals damage is a weapon.
So they interact with (take the penalties) for shooting into melee, etc.
Except that's not true for any spells aside from rays and a few that make, you know, weapons like longswords.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Except that's not true for any spells aside from rays and a few that make, you know, weapons like longswords.
It's only not true if you do all of the following:
- Ignore FAQ using a overly pedantic interpretation of RAW.
- Ignore developer comment during the time in which the lead FAQ writer post official comments before "official" comments were banned.
In short, at my table it's true. At most other tables I've played, it is true. If you ask during GenCon how you should run it, you will likely get that it's true.
But in some games, where the GM uses this "not true" interpretation of the RAW, it isn't true.
Good?
|
Except that's not true for any spells aside from rays and a few that make, you know, weapons like longswords.It's only not true if you do all of the following:
- Ignore FAQ using a overly pedantic interpretation of RAW.
- Ignore developer comment during the time in which the lead FAQ writer post official comments before "official" comments were banned.
In short, at my table it's true. At most other tables I've played, it is true. If you ask during GenCon how you should run it, you will likely get that it's true.
But in some games, where the GM uses this "not true" interpretation of the RAW, it isn't true.
Good?
I've been running my games with the view that "weapon-like" spells have to create effects like a weapon. You get a sword made of fire? That's weapon-like. Firing an orb of acid? Not similar to any weapon I know of.
However, I'm interested in the dev comment and FAQ if you'll link them?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
However, I'm interested in the dev comment and FAQ if you'll link them?
The FAQ is already linked in the thread.
I already linked in the developer comment
It should be made clear, he was the lead FAQ writer at the time of that post and it was before dev posts were "ruled" unofficial over a "that is not RAW" yelling match attack on the developers (a charge thread).
|
|
However, I'm interested in the dev comment and FAQ if you'll link them?The FAQ is already linked in the thread.
I already linked in the developer comment
It should be made clear, he was the lead FAQ writer at the time of that post and it was before dev posts were "ruled" unofficial over a "that is not RAW" yelling match attack on the developers (a charge thread).
Yeah looks like Sean K Reynolds said some things in a couple of threads that all ranged attacks should take penalties for firing into combat and gaining PBS.
They should really solidify that information somewhere more official nowadays though.