|
So it isn't a weapon at all for one attack a round at level 3 and all attacks per round at level 5.
This is not the case. Even though you can use it as a touch attack, the mystic bolt still counts as a weapon as defined earlier in the ability. Being able to touch with the Mystic Bolt does not change this.
The FAQ clarifies that items which to not occupy the hand to not interfere with your ability to deliver touch spells. As it seems like the mystic bolt does occupy the hand (you need a free hand to use it), that specific FAQ entry doesn't apply here.
At 3rd level the mystic bolt changes from regular attack against regular AC to a touch attack against touch AC. Thats all there is to it, it doesn't change the fact it is still considered a weapon. As you can deliver a spell with the "touch attack" action, but not just any attack that targets touch AC the mystic bolt can not be used here.
The Flame Blade spell creates a weapon made of fire for example that is also resolved against touch AC. It might be easier to see why you can't deliver a touch spell with that blade, which uses the same wording as the mystic bolt ability (touch attack).
If they wanted mystic bolt to be only treated as a weapon for the purpose of applying feats and abilities to it they would have written so. As they didn't we have to assume its for all purposes.
How weak or strong a class is does also not change the rules as written and as such shouldn't really belong to this discussion. Of course people are often willing to use the more favorable interpretation for a weaker class if several exist, but in this case I don't see anything ambigious to work with.
If something is treated as a weapon it effectively is a weapon. Most weapons can't be used to deliver touch spells and the mystic bolt is no exception.
That being said you can make a warlock work decently by getting a lot of attacks with feats like rapid shot and improved two-weapon fighting. The wizard spell list is the strongest in the game and far more flexible than the witch list, so you can contribute in most situations.
Of course the class has weaknesses (like having trouble to harm monsters with energy resistances), but thats why you also have spells and weapon proficiencies. At higher levels you just switch to throwing weapons with your improved arcane strike and pretty much all the feats that improved your mystic bolts before keep working. You keep your bolts as a backup weapon against enemies with vulnerabilities or lots of natural armor.
So it isn't a weapon at all for one attack a round at level 3 and all attacks per round at level 5.This is not the case. Even though you can use it as a touch attack, the mystic bolt still counts as a weapon as defined earlier in the ability. Being able to touch with the Mystic Bolt does not change this.
It was never a weapon to begin with though:
The warlock vigilante attacks with mystic bolts as though they were light one-handed weapons, and the bolts can be used for two-weapon fighting (with each hand creating one mystic bolt) and feats and abilities that apply to weapon attacks (unless they’re excluded from that feat, such as with Power Attack).
Emphasis mine.
Now the other attacks that read like that are Unarmed Strikes, because they are not weapons, they are only treated that way for attacks
Why make the distinction at all if it was meant to be like the MindBlade ability which reads like this:
At 1st level, a mindblade can expend 1 point from her psychic pool as a standard action to manifest a light melee weapon of her choice, formed from psychic energy.
The above indicates that it manifests a light melee weapon, not "as though" not "attacks as though" it manifests a MindBlade weapon.
These are not weapons, because if they were "treated as weapons for all purposes" that would be an explicit line.
That is not the line, the line is "attacks as though they were light weapons".
Which implicitly calls them not weapons because then it would just read "Mystic Bolts are considered light weapons" which is the standard wording for that behavior.
The Flame Blade spell creates a weapon made of fire for example that is also resolved against touch AC. It might be easier to see why you can't deliver a touch spell with that blade, which uses the same wording as the mystic bolt ability (touch attack).
Well let's take a look at that spell:
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand.
Already different. It is a 3 foot long, blazing beam that springs forth FROM your hand, not "by touching your foe".
You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar.
Again, it explicitly treats it AS ANOTHER TYPE OF WEAPON THAT EXISTS. So not "as though it were a light weapon", but "as if it were a scimitar". Notice the distinct differences in the wording.
Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.
THE BLADE is what does the touch attacks, so the BLADE must touch the target. This is explicitly different from a Mystic Bolt, which is a finite non-wielded weapon. It is simply something to give your hand "threat" when it otherwise shouldn't (at least without Unarmed Strike).
It is written that way so you can full attack with "touch attacks", treat it as a weapon for feats/abilities/etc, and apply standard replacements for all "normal attacks".
Why is Mystic Bolts worded in such a way? If it worked as simply as you say there wouldn't be a reason to make all the distinctions it does in its text.
You could just reference the spell Flame Sword (or steal the wording) and this ability would be done in 1 paragraph. It consists of several, never calls it a weapon, says it requires touches, changes to touch attacks at level 3, etc.
You're either calling the developers deliberately convoluted here for the sake of being convoluted (as it could be written entirely different if it was read your way) OR that the devs had a very explicit meaning in the words that were chosen.
The differences are pretty wide swinging.
From the UI FAQ:
Warlock Mystic Bolts: This ability says that it lets me count it as a light weapon, but is it manufactured? Do the bolts add my Strength bonus on damage rolls?
Warlock mystic bolts aren’t manufactured weapons; they’re magical effects (similar to scorching rays or the flames from produce flame), and you don’t add your Strength bonus on damage rolls.
So they explicitly AREN'T manufactured weapons, they are magical effects.
If they wanted mystic bolt to be only treated as a weapon for the purpose of applying feats and abilities to it they would have written so. As they didn't we have to assume its for all purposes.
WHAT?
That's literally what the wrote:
The warlock vigilante attacks with mystic bolts as though they were light one-handed weapons, and the bolts can be used for two-weapon fighting (with each hand creating one mystic bolt) and feats and abilities that apply to weapon attacks (unless they’re excluded from that feat, such as with Power Attack).
If it was your way they would have just wrote:
"Mystic bolts are treated as light weapons"
It makes the follow up writing entirely unnecessary because if it was "treated as a light weapon for all purposes" they DONT NEED to make the distinction that it applies to feats and abilities.
Why make the distinction?
I can't even apply strength to damage with this "weapon" yet I'm supposed to treat it as a Light Weapon for all purposes except what you think is reasonable?
Seems pretty silly to me.
I mean, you could take the fact that everyone who's posted here has read it to not work to mean that perhaps you're being pedantic and/or ignoring conflicting text that makes it so that it doesn't work.
Anyways, I've made my case as have several others. Listen or don't and do as you will. Just make sure to not spring it on a GM and make sure to explain that there is disagreement on how it works.
Yeah this specific thread, but the thread I listed in comment 2 has several people agreeing with me exactly as I describe it to work
I think the general consensus from this forum so far has been "this guy is new and doesn't know how stuff works"
When in fact I have been playing pathfinder since release, have had this account since 2010, and have a firm understanding of the rules since their initial inception in 3.0
You can call me "pedantic" all you want, but in reality just because people in this thread are leaning a particular way means pretty much nothing in terms of argument land (because no one in this thread has done research or exploration on this ability like I have since I poised this question weeks ago and got no response til today).
Am I a rules lawyer? sure. Am I looking at this from a skewed perspective? maybe.
But do I feel anyone has argued their point with anything other than their personal speculation and bias of reading the rules and not the TRUE RAW reading? no.
It's like someone took a Sovereign Citizen legal filing on the back of a napkin and turned it into a Pathfinder madlib.
It's like someone took a Sovereign Citizen legal filing on the back of a napkin and turned it into a Pathfinder madlib.I mean, you could take the fact that everyone who's posted here has read it to not work to mean that perhaps you're being pedantic and/or ignoring conflicting text that makes it so that it doesn't work.
Anyways, I've made my case as have several others. Listen or don't and do as you will. Just make sure to not spring it on a GM and make sure to explain that there is disagreement on how it works.
Yeah this specific thread, but the thread I listed in comment 2 has several people agreeing with me exactly as I describe it to work
I think the general consensus from this forum so far has been "this guy is new and doesn't know how stuff works"
When in fact I have been playing pathfinder since release, have had this account since 2010, and have a firm understanding of the rules since their initial inception in 3.0
You can call me "pedantic" all you want, but in reality just because people in this thread are leaning a particular way means pretty much nothing in terms of argument land (because no one in this thread has done research or exploration on this ability like I have since I poised this question weeks ago and got no response til today).
Am I a rules lawyer? sure. Am I looking at this from a skewed perspective? maybe.
But do I feel anyone has argued their point with anything other than their personal speculation and bias of reading the rules and not the TRUE RAW reading? no.
I guess I'm just upset that I wasted so much time typing out a post highlighting the differences of Mystic Bolts and other abilities only for it to be met with swift readings that skipped over all the highlighted parts.
If the ability works like everyone in this thread says it done, it could have been written in 2 sentences with no ambiguity.
I am placing my reading on the specific style of wording for the ability which is completely unique to anything else in the game.
Maybe everyone here thinks the devs just write stuff stupidly, I just choose to see the obvious syntax of the ability.
|
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#touch-spells-in-combat
The difficulty is pointing to something in raw that says it is a natural attack or an unarmed strike. in this case it is treated as a light weapon (argued as glowy mystic balls between you and the target in melee) so it is difficult to get a RAW ruling its unarmed/natural (even though it is a melee touch attack).
You are looking for wording that says a melee touch attack discharges the spell or that the Warlock bolts are treated as unarmed. Much as i wish i could find a way to justify it as i have plans for a warlock - RAW you need that wording or an eratta to back that up.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#touch-spells-in-combat
The difficulty is pointing to something in raw that says it is a natural attack or an unarmed strike. in this case it is treated as a light weapon (argued as glowy mystic balls between you and the target in melee) so it is difficult to get a RAW ruling its unarmed/natural (even though it is a melee touch attack).
You are looking for wording that says a melee touch attack discharges the spell or that the Warlock bolts are treated as unarmed. Much as i wish i could find a way to justify it as i have plans for a warlock - RAW you need that wording or an eratta to back that up.
Not to sound like a broken record, but they are not treated as light weapons.
You only make attacks as though they were light weapons.
Warlock Mystic Bolts: This ability says that it lets me count it as a light weapon, but is it manufactured? Do the bolts add my Strength bonus on damage rolls?
Warlock mystic bolts aren’t manufactured weapons; they’re magical effects (similar to scorching rays or the flames from produce flame), and you don’t add your Strength bonus on damage rolls.
Here is a prime example of why it ISN'T a light weapon for all purposes, only for the purpose of making the attack with regards to TWF, Feats, and Abilities.
Why would it go out of its way to tip toe around "they are treated as light weapons" which would make the follow up sentences completely unnecessary.
As for does it need an FAQ? Absolutely. Do I think that it reads inclusively? obviously, or why did they bother with the way it's worded.
Also note this line of Mystic Bolts:
A warlock can replace any normal attack with Mystic Bolt
Which under attack actions applies to anything that isn't Cleave or a Special action ability that allows an attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#touch-spells-in-combat
The difficulty is pointing to something in raw that says it is a natural attack or an unarmed strike. in this case it is treated as a light weapon (argued as glowy mystic balls between you and the target in melee) so it is difficult to get a RAW ruling its unarmed/natural (even though it is a melee touch attack).
You are looking for wording that says a melee touch attack discharges the spell or that the Warlock bolts are treated as unarmed. Much as i wish i could find a way to justify it as i have plans for a warlock - RAW you need that wording or an eratta to back that up.
Not to sound like a broken record, but they are not treated as light weapons.
You only make attacks as though they were light weapons.
"The warlock vigilante attacks with mystic bolts as though they were light one-handed weapons" means they are not made as unarmed or natural attacks (which is the trigger for touch discharging).
By base line the step up from unarmed strike is made with this weapon, you do not get attacked via AOO, you do not get limited to your unarmed strike damage, you get mystic bolts instead. They are not treated as natural weapons, nor manufactured but a light non manufactured one.
So if we take it as light for "for the purpose of making the attack" not damage but literally just to hit, we are hitting and multi-attacking etc as a light weapon (non natural, non manufactured).
If the GM argued you use magic to get past the defense but do not touch them as there is a Mystic bolt between you and them then what other reasoning is there beyond it says melee touch. If you can find an argument to get past there then it will float better.
I am looking for PFS myself so trying to work out if there is a more airtight argument beyond melee touch, if it was worded as an enhanced unarmed or natural attack then it would be much more straight-forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe everyone here thinks the devs just write stuff stupidly, I just choose to see the obvious syntax of the ability.
Let me make one thing clear: If the developers wanted that specific interaction, they would have written so. You need to notice that currently you are the only one seeing it and I would certainly argue something to be written in a stupid way if almost nobody understands it. So the one arguing the developers did a poor job is you.
I won't even argue that it could be written in a more elegant way, but I still believe you are reading something into it that the rules do not support.To me it still seems you are evading the weapon issue. Something being threated as a weapon is identical to being that weapon in the given situation, otherwise the information would held no value at all. Just because they elaborate further what considering the bolt a light weapon implies that doesn't invalidate the first part in any kind (notice the logical "and"). The information the mystic bolt can be dual-wielded is essential, as we wouldn't know if we can create 2 of them simultaneously otherwise.
You also imply there is a huge difference between creating something that is used "as if it were a scimitar" and bolts used "as though they were light one-handed weapons", which I fail to see. You don't get much closer in wording.
The mystic bolt is obviously used like a weapon. Your weapon focus (unarmed attack) doesn't apply, the weapon focus (mystic bolt) does. As such you attack with the mystic bolt and you haven't quoted anything to convince me otherwise.
I have decided to give up defending the point.
I end up quoting the same things over and over again and pointing to exact wording of the ability itself.
"Attacks as though" is not the same as "treated as a light weapon".
It does not say the latter, it says the former.
You interpret them to be equivalent, I do not.
According to this thread I am wrong, according to the thread in comment 2 I am right.
Spellstrike seems to be the general consensus, and that's fine, but I do think the ability is worded completely differently from what you guys are reading it as.
They have written abilities that work like you describe before, why they would go out of their way to write Mystic Bolts differently but still interpret them exactly the same is a logic I just can't agree with.
Cheers and happy gaming.
If the GM argued you use magic to get past the defense but do not touch them as there is a Mystic bolt between you and them then what other reasoning is there beyond it says melee touch. If you can find an argument to get past there then it will float better.
I am looking for PFS myself so trying to work out if there is a more airtight argument beyond melee touch, if it was worded as an enhanced unarmed or natural attack then it would be much more straight-forward.
Here I would just argue that the trigger for damaging someone with the bolt is in the first line:
warlock slings bolts by (describes the method of slinging) touching her foe.
But again like my previous comment. I concede the people here choose not to read it that way.
|
|
So it isn't a weapon at all for one attack a round at level 3 and all attacks per round at level 5.This is not the case. Even though you can use it as a touch attack, the mystic bolt still counts as a weapon as defined earlier in the ability. Being able to touch with the Mystic Bolt does not change this.It was never a weapon to begin with though:
The warlock vigilante attacks with mystic bolts as though they were light one-handed weapons, and the bolts can be used for two-weapon fighting (with each hand creating one mystic bolt) and feats and abilities that apply to weapon attacks (unless they’re excluded from that feat, such as with Power Attack).Emphasis mine.
Now the other attacks that read like that are Unarmed Strikes, because they are not weapons, they are only treated that way for attacks
Why make the distinction at all if it was meant to be like the MindBlade ability which reads like this:
At 1st level, a mindblade can expend 1 point from her psychic pool as a standard action to manifest a light melee weapon of her choice, formed from psychic energy.The above indicates that it manifests a light melee weapon, not "as though" not "attacks as though" it manifests a MindBlade weapon.
These are not weapons, because if they were "treated as weapons for all purposes" that would be an explicit line.
That is not the line, the line is "attacks as though they were light weapons".
Which implicitly calls them not weapons because then it would just read "Mystic Bolts are considered light weapons" which is the standard wording for that behavior.
The main crux of the Archtype is the fact that the Mystic Bolts only appear when they are used while still threatening at the same time (able to use AoO's). This is a rare instance and unique for the Warlock, and the wording reflects the pace of use of the Mystic Bolts. They are, for all intents and purposes, light weapons used to impart an attack. If the character is holding a spell and TWF with the bolts, the spell is discharged without any effect.
The mindblade has a weapon (just like the Soul Knife in 3.5, or in the third party book for PF) created that is physically identical to the weapon it represents. He uses it just like the weapon in question in every aspect of it's use. The comparison between it and the Warlock doesn't change anything about how the Mystic Bolts are used.
The only time the Mystic Bolts are physically there is when they are used to attack with them, so the wording reflects that particular usage when clarifying them as light (one handed) weapons.