Why doesn’t Bespell Weapon scale?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I know we’re hard up for gishes, but this really feels like a borderline trap feat; an extra 1d6 isn’t a huge bonus at level 6, and it only gets worse from there. Makes me wonder if earlier versions scaled with either level or spell level, or if it’s intentionally weak.


I dunno the reasonings or intentions. But there ar other similar things that don't scale with similiar limitations.
Rogue dedication has a specific feat for 1d6 sneak (With all the limitations of sneak attack). And that feat doesn't count as any prereq for higher feats meaning it directly competes with scaling feat access.

So.. I feel like they're expressly avoiding scaling dice effects via feats in this edition like that.
Near as I can figure anyway-which is fairly limited.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm suspecting it's because they don't want a dozen stackable die increases this time around and keeping things streamlined? At level six, that's like have a Striking (greater) for one attack, which normally isn't available until 12th. Since it's a free action and you can use it as many times as you have non-cantrip slots, it might pay off for a caster/martial gish with ranged weapons. Arcane archer type comes to mind.


I haven't done high level play still (I love it, but we need to know the rules better), but it seems like damage scales way lower than HP, so combats will get more turns to end at higher level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since it triggers off focus spells scaling from spell slot would be a bad move imo.

I think trap or near trap is being used quite liberally here as well. It is a free action, it contributes less to your overall damage as you get more runes for sure. But the same argument can be presented for spending the gold on that 3rd damage die rune.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Since it triggers off focus spells scaling from spell slot would be a bad move imo.

I think trap or near trap is being used quite liberally here as well. It is a free action, it contributes less to your overall damage as you get more runes for sure. But the same argument can be presented for spending the gold on that 3rd damage die rune.

Calling things trap liberally is a bit of an understatement. Especially since it's brought up on every little thing lately.

The feat isn't the strongest out there, but it's still a +1d6 of varying damage type applicable to any weapon, once a turn as many times as you can cast spells. That's basically a free damaging rune upgrade once every turn, and at level 6 it can be used six times.

Maybe it's harder to grasp value of things since the foundations have changed? At level 6, said wizard can apply essentially a level 8 rune to their weapon six times. And by casting specific type of spells, they can change the element of said attack to match weakness.


Scaling effects seem to start out significantly lower than 1d6 as well. For example, the Sorcerer's Dangerous Sorcery adds spell level to the damage dealt by a spell cast using slots/focus, and there are various ancestral feats that essentially add +1 damage per die of weapon damage in particular circumstances.


Alaryth wrote:
I haven't done high level play still (I love it, but we need to know the rules better), but it seems like damage scales way lower than HP, so combats will get more turns to end at higher level.

Aaaaw man. Not again! I thought they said they had learned from the mistakes they made with D&D 4e!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I haven't done high level play still (I love it, but we need to know the rules better), but it seems like damage scales way lower than HP, so combats will get more turns to end at higher level.
Aaaaw man. Not again! I thought they said they had learned from the mistakes they made with D&D 4e!

I feel like it's worth pointing out that even if raw damage scales slower than HP, there are other ways to keep same duration for combat. Martials can use higher level feats like Impossible Flurry and casters don't need to be as frugal with their spell slots. A 3rd level slot is cheap enough to a high level gish that they could be effectively using it for Haste every battle.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I haven't done high level play still (I love it, but we need to know the rules better), but it seems like damage scales way lower than HP, so combats will get more turns to end at higher level.
Aaaaw man. Not again! I thought they said they had learned from the mistakes they made with D&D 4e!

You would be happy to know this isn't the case

I calculated expected damage, and the time to take a monster definitely increases from 1-5, but it slows down after that at doesn't increase after 9

here is the document

It seems like that's because spells get more powerful


Yeah, I think a free +1d6 damage for the rest of the turn every single time you cast a spell is very underestimated. And as has been said, scaling it would easily become a mess.

Imagine if this scaled, a Rogue multiclassing caster with this feat casting Invisibility and landing a Sneak Attack for their respectable weapon damage plus multiple sneak attack dice plus multiple dice from this feat. Just for starters.


Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, for one thing your weapon is probably going to scale up in damage as a result of striking runes and so forth, weapon specialization, and etc. the bespell weapon itself is a rider on top of your strike follow up.

Your Level 13 Attack, is nothing like your level 6 attack, now granted, the bonus itself is a progressively smaller part of your total power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doen't scale because it costs no action. It's bonus damage added in a round where you cast a spell (which scales) and attack (which scales). It's like the sneak damage from the Rogue archetype.
Compare that to Power Attack which scales because it is its own action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

I haven't seen a rule that suggests you can't do this but the book is also 600+ pages so I may have missed it in the first reading.

I don't think a reaction in between would break the ability. It states specifically that your last "action" must have been used to cast a non cantrip spell. If a reaction is considered to be an action to break it then it should be reasonable to say a reaction is considered to be an action to support the ability. Example being you cast a reaction spell such as Featherfall. I don't feel like this is the case though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
themostbrutal wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

I haven't seen a rule that suggests you can't do this but the book is also 600+ pages so I may have missed it in the first reading.

I don't think a reaction in between would break the ability. It states specifically that your last "action" must have been used to cast a non cantrip spell. If a reaction is considered to be an action to break it then it should be reasonable to say a reaction is considered to be an action to support the ability. Example being you cast a reaction spell such as Featherfall. I don't feel like this is the case though.

I'm not sure if this is the case. I noticed something similar in the playtest. Monster abilities like Grab and Knockdown suddenly become a lot better with this reading. So I'd be wary of the pendulum swinging back at you there, regardless of whether there is a rule specifically forbidding it.


It shouldn't scale, because feats aren't supposed to scale in power unless they have a reason to. I'm sure folks are thinking of Power Attack. That costs a feat and uses an extra action. Its scaling is because of the increasing value of the extra action, not because a feat should give better damage if you're higher level. Bespell weapon is giving you "free" damage any time you were going to cast a spell and use a weapon anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

I don’t believe the ability is intended to work that way, and would make sure your GM is okay with that interpretation.

As for the usefulness of Bespell Weapon, it can definitely synergies where it counts. A Sorc or Wizard at level 4 or 6 can cast magic weapon and use Bespell Weapon for a minimum of 3d6. If they plan to focus on the caster side of things, spells like Jump and True Strike will most likely be used often enough to keep bespell weapon reliable.

For the Martial aspect; Ranger has a bonus d8 with Precision Edge(which scales), and Flurry Edge with Twin Takedown meaning they can get that extra 1d6 on three attacks pretty reliably. Monk can use it with Ki Strike and FoB which ends up as a pure upgrade. Rogue can use it as a bonus d6 to Sneak Attack.

It really doesn’t seem like a Trap Option as much as a part of the system that takes time to get used to.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

I don’t believe the ability is intended to work that way, and would make sure your GM is okay with that interpretation.

As for the usefulness of Bespell Weapon, it can definitely synergies where it counts. A Sorc or Wizard at level 4 or 6 can cast magic weapon and use Bespell Weapon for a minimum of 3d6. If they plan to focus on the caster side of things, spells like Jump and True Strike will most likely be used often enough to keep bespell weapon reliable.

For the Martial aspect; Ranger has a bonus d8 with Precision Edge(which scales), and Flurry Edge with Twin Takedown meaning they can get that extra 1d6 on three attacks pretty reliably. Monk can use it with Ki Strike and FoB which ends up as a pure upgrade. Rogue can use it as a bonus d6 to Sneak Attack.

It really doesn’t seem like a Trap Option as much as a part of the system that takes time to get used to.

I am use to D&D where the exact wording is very important to how something is suppose to work. I am not sure if Pathfinder is not a good at this.

Turns are just a mechanic to allow ease of play. The end of your last turn happened immediately previous to the beginning of your current turn. No time passed. I assume that when referring to your last action it is not turn based unless the rules specifically says so.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.


breithauptclan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.

I'd certainly not count reactions and free actions as actions for purposes of "your last action." But I'm still skeptical you can carry them over between turns. I dunno.


Captain Morgan wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.
I'd certainly not count reactions and free actions as actions for purposes of "your last action." But I'm still skeptical you can carry them over between turns. I dunno.

It would be interesting to get some official input on this ability. It seems to have a few different interpretations.


Captain Morgan wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.
I'd certainly not count reactions and free actions as actions for purposes of "your last action." But I'm still skeptical you can carry them over between turns. I dunno.

Taking a look at free actions in general, they seem to have either a ‘Trigger’ or specify when you’re suppose to use them during a turn. Divine Weapon works very similarly and uses a Trigger, and with how Free Actions tend to work in general, i’d say the wording for Bespell Weapon was meant to say ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. Even with the current wording it seems to suggest the ability is meant to work as a kicker effect after casting a spell.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.
I'd certainly not count reactions and free actions as actions for purposes of "your last action." But I'm still skeptical you can carry them over between turns. I dunno.
Taking a look at free actions in general, they seem to have either a ‘Trigger’ or specify when you’re suppose to use them during a turn. Divine Weapon works very similarly and uses a Trigger, and with how Free Actions tend to work in general, i’d say the wording for Bespell Weapon was meant to say ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. Even with the current wording it seems to suggest the ability is meant to work as a kicker effect after casting a spell.

Allowing this feat to be used on the next turn like that would be like allowing Spellcasting actions to be done on different turns, or for you to use the action for a Metamagic on one turn and cast the spell modified by it on the next.

It's also blatantly min-maxy but that's another discussion.

And using "turns are an abstraction" as an argument as someone did doesn't really work when it's a feat that lasts until the end of a turn. You can't use turn abstraction to justify cheesing the rules and then ignore it where it would be inconvenient. If we tried to use the turns as an abstraction argument on tge whole situation then Bespell Weapon would end 1 action after the triggering spell if it was a 2 action cast, 2 actions after if it was a 1 action cast, and immediately if it was a 3 action cast, which would prevent cheesing it for an entire turn anyway. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
"A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost), and a free action with a trigger follows the same rules as a reaction (except the reaction cost)."

RAW: you can only use it on your turn as the free action doesn't have a listed "trigger", can only be used when you fulfill the prerequisite and when you would normally be able to make a single action (your turn).

Possible interpretation: Prerequisite was meant to be trigger, in which case if you make a reaction spell cast then you would be able to use it between turns. But only when you make a reaction spellcast.

Personally I am fairly sure that the RAW reading is correct in this case and omitting "trigger" is intended. It helps stop fiddly reaction based usages and keeps the feat's impact relatively linear.


Edge93 wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.
I'd certainly not count reactions and free actions as actions for purposes of "your last action." But I'm still skeptical you can carry them over between turns. I dunno.
Taking a look at free actions in general, they seem to have either a ‘Trigger’ or specify when you’re suppose to use them during a turn. Divine Weapon works very similarly and uses a Trigger, and with how Free Actions tend to work in general, i’d say the wording for Bespell Weapon was meant to say ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. Even with the current wording it seems to suggest the ability is meant to work as a kicker effect after casting a spell.
Allowing this feat to be used on the next turn like that would be like allowing...

There are rules that prevent the splitting of actions and such. I see no rule preventing this nor do I see it as min/maxing. It seems to me to be the simplest way to interpret the ability. Everyone else's reading requires the creation of non existent rules or rewriting the ability itself like you suggest. If your last action was to cast a spell then your last action was to cast a spell. It doesn't say if your last action this turn was to cast a spell. If that is what they indented I don't know why they didn't phrase it better.

Also with multiple attack penalties it really isn't that powerful. You are far less likely to hit with the second and third attacks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't agree that feats "shouldn't scale" when you level up. There's a lot of feats that improve your to-hit, reduce your MAP, allow you to hit multiple targets, increase damage of a spell by it's spell level, power up when proficiency increases, etc. Plenty of good stuff that will continue to get better as you level up so that it continues to be useful vs the greater enemies you will face.

As it is, it's decent if you get it asap and then you should be retraining it after a few levels. The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Also, this is a cool feat that fits in many character "concepts", so it's a shame that it's kinda irrelevant after a while.


ChibiNyan wrote:

I don't agree that feats "shouldn't scale" when you level up. There's a lot of feats that improve your to-hit, reduce your MAP, allow you to hit multiple targets, increase damage of a spell by it's spell level, power up when proficiency increases, etc. Plenty of good stuff that will continue to get better as you level up so that it continues to be useful vs the greater enemies you will face.

As it is, it's decent if you get it asap and then you should be retraining it after a few levels. The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Also, this is a cool feat that fits in many character "concepts", so it's a shame that it's kinda irrelevant after a while.

It depends on what other feats it ends up competing against for the specific build. I agree the 3.5 damage would be worth retraining out of after some point; though some Flurry builds with Monk or Ranger and maybe even Fighter could make some good use out of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
It shouldn't scale, because feats aren't supposed to scale in power unless they have a reason to.

Not sure I agree. The majority of feats are designed to stay relevant, either by scaling or having an effect that's independent of scaling.

It's only really a handful of options that have quirks in their design that makes them lose power as you level.


ChibiNyan wrote:


The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Where are ypu getting every couple of turns from? Anyone choosing it is likely focusing on weapon attacks and getting 2-3 attacks a turn. So a more likely 2 attacks a turn means that unless you are attacking with awful hit chances it is a reliable boost.

Focus spells mean it won't even chew into normal spell casts to any major degree, especially at later levels when the same character is able to recover more than one focus point.

A character taking this feat will likely pick up and use single action spells more frequently to maximise its effectivenss.

As I said before though, if people believe this isn't useful. Then that brings into question the usefulness of the weapon die runes.

Grand Lodge

Bespell weapon is great if you know a target has weaknesses. Fighting against a Cinder Rat? Hit em with a ray of frost, bespell weapon, then follow up with an attack from Hand of the Apprentice. You've just made them take an extra 1d6+5 damage you otherwise would not have been able to do without bespell weapon.


citricking wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I haven't done high level play still (I love it, but we need to know the rules better), but it seems like damage scales way lower than HP, so combats will get more turns to end at higher level.
Aaaaw man. Not again! I thought they said they had learned from the mistakes they made with D&D 4e!

You would be happy to know this isn't the case

I calculated expected damage, and the time to take a monster definitely increases from 1-5, but it slows down after that at doesn't increase after 9

here is the document

It seems like that's because spells get more powerful

So combats steadily get slower from level 1 to 5 and then don’t get slower at all after level 9? (I don’t understand those graphs).

That wouldn’t be so bad. At least by level 5 you would know if combat takes too long (haven’t heard any such reports yet).


Bespell seems likely to work best with true strike then 2 action attack I can see why doesn't scale as it start giving too much dice. It more thought of does using spell to just get bespell seem worth it this turn.


Reziburno25 wrote:
Bespell seems likely to work best with true strike then 2 action attack I can see why doesn't scale as it start giving too much dice. It more thought of does using spell to just get bespell seem worth it this turn.

True Strike + Bespell Weapon seems really nice. An alternative could also be Jump + Bespell Weapon, giving the caster some nice mobility as well. I can actually kind of see an Arcane Archer, picking up bows via elven ancestry(or adopted).

As for the whole "good early on, retrain later", level 4 wizard feats at least aren't that impressive, you'd already take them if they fit your niche. I personally prefer Silent Spell, but if I was going a gish, I'd take Bespell Weapon and work it into my combat routine. So if I didn't want to have silent spells before, chances are I'm not gonna grab them later.


Yeah you reliant on type of single spell and then what type of strike you make, which future books like expand upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Syries wrote:
Bespell weapon is great if you know a target has weaknesses. Fighting against a Cinder Rat? Hit em with a ray of frost, bespell weapon, then follow up with an attack from Hand of the Apprentice. You've just made them take an extra 1d6+5 damage you otherwise would not have been able to do without bespell weapon.

You can't use bespell weapon with cantrips.

Grand Lodge

Oh whoops, forgot about that. Point still standing though, just cast snowball instead.


ChibiNyan wrote:


As it is, it's decent if you get it asap and then you should be retraining it after a few levels. The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Also, this is a cool feat that fits in many character "concepts", so it's a shame that it's kinda irrelevant after a while.

This isn't really true at all. The damage doesn't scale per hit, but the frequency with which you can use it does. You get more spell slots, allowing you to burn lower level ones to trigger it quite consistently, and more options to use for those spell slots for maximum synergy. As I mentioned before, you could be hasted a lot more often.

It also has great synergy with focus spells and other one action options, which you probably also gain more of.


Captain Morgan wrote:
It also has great synergy with focus spells and other one action options, which you probably also gain more of.

Wish we could sort spells by actions, but so far, if one picks up a ranged weapon via ancestry feats, you could make a pretty mobile Arcane Archer who uses Jump spell with one action to move 30ft, then fire a ranged weapon twice with the +1d6.

I can imagine this only will get more variable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Circling back to the Bespelling from a previous turn thing... Now I'm less sure that doesn't work. I'm comparing the text of Bespell Weapon and Divine Weapon.

Frequency once per turn
Requirements Your most recent action was to cast a non-cantrip spell.
You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.

Frequency once per turn
Trigger You finish Casting a Spell using one of your divine spell slots on your turn.
You siphon residual spell energy into a weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an additional 1d4 force damage.

So first off, one is a trigger and the other is a requirement. Divine specifically triggers when you finish casting your spell, and lasts until the end of your turn. So there's no way you can have that carry over to the next turn.

Bespell weapon, on the other hand, is a requirement of what your last action was. It doesn't trigger when you cast the spell, it is activated whenever you want as long as your most recent action was casting. The two contrasted with each other support themostbrutal's reading.

That being said, there are plenty of places in the CRB where language wasn't consistently updated in different sections. So I am still positive on the intent here.

One interesting question: could a multiclass character use both feats at once? You can't have two free actions go off the same trigger, but Bespell doesn't have a set trigger... So the question would be if there is an opening to use another free action between finishing casting a spell and attacking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
One interesting question: could a multiclass character use both feats at once? You can't have two free actions go off the same trigger, but Bespell doesn't have a set trigger... So the question would be if there is an opening to use another free action between finishing casting a spell and attacking.

In the general case that's conceivable, but it doesn't work here.

You can't do cast-bespell-divine because after you've taken the bespell action you've missed divine's trigger.

You can't do cast-divine-bespell because you don't meet bespell's requirement: your last action wasn't casting, it was using divine weapon.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Circling back to the Bespelling from a previous turn thing... Now I'm less sure that doesn't work. I'm comparing the text of Bespell Weapon and Divine Weapon.

Frequency once per turn
Requirements Your most recent action was to cast a non-cantrip spell.
You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.

Frequency once per turn
Trigger You finish Casting a Spell using one of your divine spell slots on your turn.
You siphon residual spell energy into a weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an additional 1d4 force damage.

So first off, one is a trigger and the other is a requirement. Divine specifically triggers when you finish casting your spell, and lasts until the end of your turn. So there's no way you can have that carry over to the next turn.

Bespell weapon, on the other hand, is a requirement of what your last action was. It doesn't trigger when you cast the spell, it is activated whenever you want as long as your most recent action was casting. The two contrasted with each other support themostbrutal's reading.

That being said, there are plenty of places in the CRB where language wasn't consistently updated in different sections. So I am still positive on the intent here.

One interesting question: could a multiclass character use both feats at once? You can't have two free actions go off the same trigger, but Bespell doesn't have a set trigger... So the question would be if there is an opening to use another free action between finishing casting a spell and attacking.

Also see Bond Conservation for wording supporting next-turn-usage


ChibiNyan wrote:

I don't agree that feats "shouldn't scale" when you level up. There's a lot of feats that improve your to-hit, reduce your MAP, allow you to hit multiple targets, increase damage of a spell by it's spell level, power up when proficiency increases, etc. Plenty of good stuff that will continue to get better as you level up so that it continues to be useful vs the greater enemies you will face.

As it is, it's decent if you get it asap and then you should be retraining it after a few levels. The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Also, this is a cool feat that fits in many character "concepts", so it's a shame that it's kinda irrelevant after a while.

Feats that hand you free damage shouldn't scale because (as far as I can tell) that's damage above the expected curve- your feats are rarely sources of raw damage bonuses. Plus, there are already cases where the damage does scale- it allows triggering an elemental weakness additional times with just one spell, and weakness damage does scale.

Viewed another way, this has two action costs- casting, and then attacking. Both of those actions already scale on their own, and using them together is already a viable strategy. This takes that viable strategy, and gives you an extra 1d6 per hit on top. If you scale that "on top" bonus, then the strategy gets to be too good, and/or the feat becomes "necessary" for the strategy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Replying to Fuzzy-Wuzzy and Captain Morgan:

action 1: as cleric, cast a 1-action divine spell (Heal? Shield?) Non-cantrips only if not Cleric.
free action: Divine Weapon
action 2: cast a 1-action spell from wizard/sorcerer multiclass
free action: Bespell Weapon
action 3: attack with weapon

You can use a 2-action spell for one of those if you're under a Haste effect. Such as, from wizard or arcane/occult/primal sorcerer. Also Bespell weapon is lower level than Divine weapon, so Cleric/other caster.

It's not at once, but it's still the same turn. It looks like both last until the turn's end, not just the next action.


Ah! I missed cast-divine-cast-bespell(-attack). Thanks for pointing that out.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Circling back to the Bespelling from a previous turn thing... Now I'm less sure that doesn't work. I'm comparing the text of Bespell Weapon and Divine Weapon.

Frequency once per turn
Requirements Your most recent action was to cast a non-cantrip spell.
You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.

Frequency once per turn
Trigger You finish Casting a Spell using one of your divine spell slots on your turn.
You siphon residual spell energy into a weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an additional 1d4 force damage.

So first off, one is a trigger and the other is a requirement. Divine specifically triggers when you finish casting your spell, and lasts until the end of your turn. So there's no way you can have that carry over to the next turn.

Bespell weapon, on the other hand, is a requirement of what your last action was. It doesn't trigger when you cast the spell, it is activated whenever you want as long as your most recent action was casting. The two contrasted with each other support themostbrutal's reading.

That being said, there are plenty of places in the CRB where language wasn't consistently updated in different sections. So I am still positive on the intent here.

One interesting question: could a multiclass character use both feats at once? You can't have two free actions go off the same trigger, but Bespell doesn't have a set trigger... So the question would be if there is an opening to use another free action between finishing casting a spell and attacking.

The loose wording is why i think it’s meant to be ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. It seems to be the only Free Action that i’ve seen with this amount of ambiguity on when you can/are supposed to use it.

As for stacking them; currently either have a Cleric grab Bespell via MC or Divine Sorc grab Divine Weapon via MC. Divine specifies that it has to be a spell from a Divine Spell Slot and Bespell just needs a Spel that’s not a Cantrip. With the current wording use Divine Weapon’s trigger after the spell and use the Bespell Free Action right before you attack. Seems like it would work RAW (individual GMs may vary).


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


The loose wording is why i think it’s meant to be ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. It seems to be the only Free Action that i’ve seen with this amount of ambiguity on when you can/are supposed to use it.

As for stacking them; currently either have a Cleric grab Bespell via...

Again I point at Bond Conservation, which has similar wording and which we know to be usable at the start of one's turn.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


The loose wording is why i think it’s meant to be ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. It seems to be the only Free Action that i’ve seen with this amount of ambiguity on when you can/are supposed to use it.

As for stacking them; currently either have a Cleric grab Bespell via...

Again I point at Bond Conservation, which has similar wording and which we know to be usable at the start of one's turn.

I looked at Bond Conservation the first time you mentioned it. Aside from it being a Metamagic that costs an action as apposed to a Free Action; BC has specific wording that allows you to use it the following turn. Bespell Weapon not only lacks this specific wording, but when compared to the majority of other Free Actions, makes that interpretation seem like an outlier rather than an exception.

You may be right in your interpretation, but i’ll still hold skepticism until a Dev says otherwise.

Core Rule Book page 444 wrote:

Ambiguous Rules

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Why doesn’t Bespell Weapon scale? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.