Does the Orc Bloodline's Bloodline Arcana apply to spells that grant natural attacks or spells like flameblade or icicle dagger?
A: No. You don't cast a spell that does damage when casting Flameblade or Icicle Dagger any more than if you cast Summon Monster I. Your spell causes an object to appear, and that object is then used to deal damage during subsequent actions by yourself or others.
Absolutely yes.
If the spell does direct damage you get the bonus.
Flame Blade does direct damage, exactly as a fireball does or a ray of frost or a magic missile.
I don't see anybody ruling that a fireball or magic missile wouldn't get this bonus. Objects forged from magic.
Flame Blade does not conjure a sword, it conjures a magical fiery beam that takes the shape of a sword...just as fireball conjures a magical fiery mass in the shape of a ball that explodes when it hits something.
If the spell literally summoned a sword then no, you wouldn't get a bonus.
I don't see that as the difficulty, but rather things like reverse gravity, where it isn't obviously magic causing the damage, but changing the conditions and nature doing the rest.
Casting Flame Blade does not damage anyone; subsequent attacks with the sword (or sword-like beam) do. So I'd probably say no.
Only time casting causes damage that I can think of is when somebody is already neg hp. Otherwise it's always a spell effect.
Like, burning hands is excluded? Why? Why not?
Coz it's more than instantaneous? Cause it...? What?
Attacks using Flame Blade are subject to a Spell Resistance check by the target. No justification for treating the spell as if it is not a spell once the spell has manifested.
Melee Touch attack? Check.
Immaterial? Check
Subject to SR? Check
When you say 'the user makes an attack roll' this is true of most magical attacks, like Rays, for instance. Which are explicitly treated like weapons for the purpose of feats etc.
'Rays aren't spells because you make an attack roll' lel.
I agree with JDLPF, the arcana would not apply. The spell is not in this case dealing damage (as is the case with Fireball or Scorching Ray), it is creating an effect with which you may subsequently attack in order to deal damage.
Yes, ray spells require one or more additional attack roles, but they do not contain any language about 'weilding' the rays 'like a weapon'.
Burning Hands would be effected because it does direct damage; you do not 'weild' the cone of flame in order to deal future damage.
faq wrote: Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for 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.
Do you see how they're referred to as "weapon-like?"
Idk if that helps, being as the crowd here seems to be impervious to reason and decades of consistent rule-logic, but eh, it's not like they can make reading the CRB have an INT 9 req :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The key phrase is "direct" damage. Casting a weapon spell does not "directly" damage anyone, unlike the other spells you mentioned. It just gives you a weapon that you can attack with on later turns.
Also, claiming to be the only rational person in a decent sized group of people...It looks a bit like projection, and it's a little rude.
qaplawjw wrote: The key phrase is "direct" damage. Casting a weapon spell does "directly" damage anyone, unlike the other spells you mentioned. It just gives you a weapon that you can attack with on later turns.
Also, claiming to be the only rational person in a decent sized group of people...It looks a bit like projection, and it's a little rude.
Your phrasing seems a bit confusing. "Does directly damage" isn't a vary normal way of stating something, Did you perhaps omit "not?"
If I'm reading too far into this, and the "does" is simply for emphasis, feel free to ignore me.
I just edited it; should have been "does not."
Untentril wrote: faq wrote: Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
[...]
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.
Do you see how they're referred to as "weapon-like?" We're not examining a spell or effect that effects weapons, we're examining an effect that applies to "spells that do damage". The FAQ you cited does not apply to the situation.
There's no need to be rude, I'm done with the conversation if you're going to stoop to that rather than discussing the rules. You're welcome to rule as you wish in your home games, but you'll find that most people will rule differently.
As qaplawjw says above, the spells in question do not deal any damage, they instead provide you with something you can use to attack in future.
So, the two camps are:
For: The weapon is created as the spell effect, so benefits to spell effect should apply to the attacks made with that weapon.
Against: Since the arcana boosts the damage of spell effects, and the spell effect is to create a weapon. As that act deals no damage itself, the arcana benefit is thus wasted.
Personally, I believe it should be the former, but I like synergy.
A middle ground spell would be something like Chill Touch. You get multiple touch attacks (basically 1/round) that deal damage. If the touch attack you get each round with Chill Touch gains the benefit of the Orc Arcana, why doesn't the attack each round with the Flame Blade gain this same benefit?
If I use Summon Monster I and it gets multiple attacks per round, why shouldn't it benefit from Orc Arcana?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Generally you only apply weapon damage bonus once per spell per this FAQ and others.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9uxg
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Because the summoned monster is the one doing the damage, not the spell.
Rysky wrote: Because the summoned monster is the one doing the damage, not the spell. I find it more accurate to say that it's because the arcana requires casting.
In the case of flame blade and SM, the effect can be argued to be part of spell; but that's irrelevant because their damage isn't directly tied to having cast the spell.
For those who say these damage bonuses do work with ongoing weaponized spell effects that require a save and are affected by SR, do you think Shadow Weapon spell should get the same benefit?
For those of you who say ongoing weaponized effects should not get the damage because the spell is calling something into existence and that thing is then doing damage, do you also think Flaming Sphere should be excluded from the benefit?
So fun fact: I actually changed my own opinion within writing this post.
Bladelock, I am in the for camp, and I think shadow weapon does not get the bonus for the same reason Summon Monster doesn't get the bonus: The spell description has no Dice-based damage roll to which to add the bonus.
THAT SAID, that spell, like all the other spells that manufacture weapons, have their own internal limiters on damage, plus you have a spell cast making attack rolls each turn. +1-2 damage on a hit is not a huge issue. In fact, its also very flavorful for an Orc spellcaster to just summon up a weapon and charge into battle. So if I was GM'ing and my player asked, I would give the minor damage boost.
Rules though, the spell description does not have a damage roll in it, so it would not get the bonus damage. The line is unclear, but how I personally read it, that seems to be a place that makes sense.
We agree that shadow weapon would not get the bonus. It was mentioned because people were using saves and SR as a litmus test on the "for" side of things. I think it is not that cut and dry.
I used Flaming sphere on the against side because it is something that is brought into existence by the spell. The thing brought into existence then does damage. I think most would agree that flaming spheres would get the damage bonus.
My personal opinion is that if the spell does energy damage it will most likely be affected by traits that improve energy damage.
*Flaming Sphere = yes
*Flameblade = yes
*Icicle dagger = physical damage no, cold damage no because it doesn't do dice of damage, Frost enhancement no because it is defined as an enhancement bonus rather than simply an extra d6 of cold damage.
*Shadow weapon = no because it does physical damage not shadow damage
*Instant weapon = no because it does physical damage not force damage
*Holy Ice Weapon = physical damage no, cold damage no because it doesn't do dice of damage, holy water damage yes (if that bonus exists)
JamesTheDonkey wrote: bonus.
THAT SAID, that spell, like all the other spells that manufacture weapons, have their own internal limiters on damage, plus you have a spell cast making attack rolls each turn. +1-2 damage on a hit is not a huge issue. In fact, its also very flavorful for an Orc spellcaster to just summon up a weapon and charge into battle. So if I was GM'ing and my player asked, I would give the minor damage boost.
Answering this separately because it is bit of hijack. The manufactured weapon spells do have some real built in advantages that make them better than they may initially seem. With the right build, possibly worth the opportunity cost.
Shadow Weapon can have a good amount of metamagic feats used with it to make it potent, even if they can't be used to increase damage.
Instant Weapon allows the user to use any weapon in the game proficiently. You want a reach weapon, you got it. Need a bludgeoning weapon, no problem. You need to make someone flat footed with trip, it's one cast away. If you're an 11th level Arcanist you can even swap that +1 enhancement bonus for Bane.
Holy Ice Weapon will have more base damage than most magic weapons of the equivalent level.
I think it would. Spell penetration feat would affect Flaming Sphere's and Flaming Sword's ability to penetrate SR so I don't see why +1 fire damage to fire spells wouldn't apply as well.
To continue this distinguishment between a spell and an object created by a spell I want to add another question. How would flame blade interact with Zursvaater's final boon for Sentinels, Pyroclastic Champion?
Here is how I read it:
If you create a weapon with a spell, and that spell did fire damage, then that weapon would not be affected by pyroclastic Champion for Sentinels. So no flame blade.
If you create a weapon that has an enhancement bonus that does fire damage it will be affected. So Instant Weapon, enhance by a Magus' arcane pool to be flaming, would receive bonus damage.
If the flame is produced by a feat like Elemental Fist, which is not a spell or sla, the bonus damage would apply.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
