Can you use Spellstrike with unarmed combat?
Unarmed Strike is listed in the 1-handed basic melee weapons chart, but the description reads:
If an unarmed strike can be made with any appendage, the appendage IS the weapon and it isn't a weapon that you hold. Unless it just means that you have to put your hand on your other hand/foot/tail/horns/etc to cast the spell into... yourself. Which, if it's a Jolting Surge... yikes.
The free feat you get at level 2 doesn't even have an unarmed option.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to make a punchcaster that actually punches (synergizing with things like Wrecking Fists), but my reading is that this does not work.
I see no reason this would unbalance a game, it fits the intended theme of the ability, so it should work fine.
( If your problem is "But Society!", my answer to that is also simple: "Leave Society play" :p )
Natural Weapons+Improved Unarmed Strike+Spellstrike+Wrecking Fists seems a little unbalanced.
At level 4, 1d6+4d6+4d6+6 = 37.5 average damage with one standard action, not counting Strength bonus. Yeah it costs 2 2nd level spell slots, but that's some serious front-loading.
I think you're trying to parse the rules so finely that they break. They will always do that when you parse them that finely.
What's meant by a melee weapon you hold? It's there to keep you from overpowering your friends weapon, using it with a thrown weapon, or using it with a ranged weapon. Not to raise the question of whether one hand holds itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason this would unbalance a game, it fits the intended theme of the ability, so it should work fine.
( If your problem is "But Society!", my answer to that is also simple: "Leave Society play" :p )
Natural Weapons+Improved Unarmed Strike+Spellstrike+Wrecking Fists seems a little unbalanced.
At level 4, 1d6+4d6+4d6+6 = 37.5 average damage with one standard action, not counting Strength bonus. Yeah it costs 2 2nd level spell slots, but that's some serious front-loading.
I don't think wrecking fists and spellstrike can be performed on the same turn. Spell strike allows:
If the spell you cast allows an attack as part of casting the spell (such as jolting surge), you can cast the spell into your weapon and attack in the same turn. In addition, for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites, you treat your class level as your base attack bonus.
And wrecking fists says:
Whenever you attack an opponent with your unarmed strikes as a standard action (or a full attack as a full action), as part of that action you can expend a 1st-level or higher spell slot before attempting the first attack roll to deal additional damage. If that attack hits, you deal an additional 2d6 damage per level of the spell slot expended, of the same damage type as your unarmed strike.
So you can't use wrecking fists when you standard action cast the spell and attack with the weapon (unarmed strike) as part of spell strike.
You could wait a turn for debuffs and such to make your alpha strike, but two turns and two spells to put all your eggs in one basket seems of dubious value.
I think you're trying to parse the rules so finely that they break. They will always do that when you parse them that finely.
It's called "Quality Control," BNW. And if I don't do it, who will?
WHO.
WILL?
I see no reason this would unbalance a game, it fits the intended theme of the ability, so it should work fine.
( If your problem is "But Society!", my answer to that is also simple: "Leave Society play" :p )
Natural Weapons+Improved Unarmed Strike+Spellstrike+Wrecking Fists seems a little unbalanced.
At level 4, 1d6+4d6+4d6+6 = 37.5 average damage with one standard action, not counting Strength bonus. Yeah it costs 2 2nd level spell slots, but that's some serious front-loading.
I don't think wrecking fists and spellstrike can be performed on the same turn. Spell strike allows:
If the spell you cast allows an attack as part of casting the spell (such as jolting surge), you can cast the spell into your weapon and attack in the same turn. In addition, for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites, you treat your class level as your base attack bonus.And wrecking fists says:
Whenever you attack an opponent with your unarmed strikes as a standard action (or a full attack as a full action), as part of that action you can expend a 1st-level or higher spell slot before attempting the first attack roll to deal additional damage. If that attack hits, you deal an additional 2d6 damage per level of the spell slot expended, of the same damage type as your unarmed strike.So you can't use wrecking fists when you standard action cast the spell and attack with the weapon (unarmed strike) as part of spell strike.
You could wait a turn for debuffs and such to make your alpha strike, but two turns and two spells to put all your eggs in one basket seems of dubious value.
I'm not sure I follow. When you use Spell Strike with a standard action spell that allows for an attack, you're attacking an opponent with a standard action, and in this theoretical, you'd be using your unarmed strike. It doesn't say that the attack can be performed as a free action or anything; it's all a part of the standard action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're trying to parse the rules so finely that they break. They will always do that when you parse them that finely.It's called "Quality Control," BNW. And if I don't do it, who will?
WHO.
WILL?
I'm not sure I follow....I see no reason this would unbalance a game, it fits the intended theme of the ability, so it should work fine.
( If your problem is "But Society!", my answer to that is also simple: "Leave Society play" :p )
Natural Weapons+Improved Unarmed Strike+Spellstrike+Wrecking Fists seems a little unbalanced.
At level 4, 1d6+4d6+4d6+6 = 37.5 average damage with one standard action, not counting Strength bonus. Yeah it costs 2 2nd level spell slots, but that's some serious front-loading.
I don't think wrecking fists and spellstrike can be performed on the same turn. Spell strike allows:
If the spell you cast allows an attack as part of casting the spell (such as jolting surge), you can cast the spell into your weapon and attack in the same turn. In addition, for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites, you treat your class level as your base attack bonus.And wrecking fists says:
Whenever you attack an opponent with your unarmed strikes as a standard action (or a full attack as a full action), as part of that action you can expend a 1st-level or higher spell slot before attempting the first attack roll to deal additional damage. If that attack hits, you deal an additional 2d6 damage per level of the spell slot expended, of the same damage type as your unarmed strike.So you can't use wrecking fists when you standard action cast the spell and attack with the weapon (unarmed strike) as part of spell strike.
You could wait a turn for debuffs and such to make your alpha strike, but two turns and two spells to put all your eggs in one basket seems of dubious value.
No, you are using a standard action to cast a spell. Which allows an attack as part of casting the spell.
You are not using a standard action to attack with an unarmed strike. They are different standard actions.
No, you are using a standard action to cast a spell. Which allows an attack as part of casting the spell.
You are not using a standard action to attack with an unarmed strike. They are different standard actions.
That is a reasonable interpretation. As you say, if that's the case, then the character can still wait to attack the next round with Wrecking Fists.
I actually don't think it should work, but the wording is NOT clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are using a standard action to cast a spell. Which allows an attack as part of casting the spell.
You are not using a standard action to attack with an unarmed strike. They are different standard actions.
That is a reasonable interpretation. As you say, if that's the case, then the character can still wait to attack the next round with Wrecking Fists.
I actually don't think it should work, but the wording is NOT clear.
I think that it's clear enough that most GMs would not allow it. Especially when they see a player rolling 9d6 at level 4.
I think that 4th level ends up being the peak at which this build overperforms in any case. Out of curiosity, I looked at how this would work near max level.
6th level Eclipse Strike + 6th level spell for wrecking fists... at 18th level:
5d6+27+7+16d10+12d6 = 181.5 damage w/ 50% chance to hit = 99.8 DPR
Soldiers at 18th level have about 105-115 DPR with melee full attacks depending on weapon and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do appreciate everyone's theorycrafting and maths, but I guess I'm more interested in determining if you can really consider your unarmed strike to be a "melee weapon you hold."
Yes, I'm asking for Society, Metaphysician. Deal with it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do appreciate everyone's theorycrafting and maths, but I guess I'm more interested in determining if you can really consider your unarmed strike to be a "melee weapon you hold."
Yes, I'm asking for Society, Metaphysician. Deal with it!
1) I don't think this ability works because casting a spell is not using a standard action to attack with an unarmed strike.
2) From my understanding of unarmed strikes (which is limited) RAW they are not 'melee weapons that you hold' and do not work according to RAW (though I would allow it home game without question).
I agree with point 1 but point 2 has a lot of evidence against it.
Holding and Wielding Weapons
When the rules refer to wielding a weapon, it means you are holding a weapon with the correct number of hands and can thus make attacks with it. For example, if you are holding a small arm in your hand, you are considered to be wielding the weapon. If you are carrying a longarm in one hand or wearing a holstered weapon, you are not wielding it. You can carry a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you can’t make an attack with it while doing so.
Unarmed Strike
Level —; Price —
Hands 1 ; Proficiency Basic Melee
Damage 1d3 B; Critical —
Bulk —; Special archaic, nonlethal
If you can make an attack with a fist it is being wielded. If it is being wielded it is being held by game terms. That's fairly direct. A hand taking up a hand may seem silly, but that's exactly what the rules there say happens.
Is a hand holding itself .... is too existential to give you a usable yes or no answer.
The requirement for you to hold a melee weapon precludes
Ranged weapons
Thrown weapons
Melee weapons in your allies hands
Melee weapons in your enemies hands (I put mystic cure IV on the robots sword so he heals the next person he hits)
If natural weapons were to be excluded you'd have to specify manufactured weapons.
I agree with point 1 but point 2 has a lot of evidence against it.
Holding and Wielding Weapons
When the rules refer to wielding a weapon, it means you are holding a weapon with the correct number of hands and can thus make attacks with it. For example, if you are holding a small arm in your hand, you are considered to be wielding the weapon. If you are carrying a longarm in one hand or wearing a holstered weapon, you are not wielding it. You can carry a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you can’t make an attack with it while doing so.
Unarmed Strike
Level —; Price —
Hands 1 ; Proficiency Basic Melee
Damage 1d3 B; Critical —
Bulk —; Special archaic, nonlethalIf you can make an attack with a fist it is being wielded. If it is being wielded it is being held by game terms. That's fairly direct. A hand taking up a hand may seem silly, but that's exactly what the rules there say happens.
Is a hand holding itself .... is too existential to give you a usable yes or no answer.
The requirement for you to hold a melee weapon precludes
Ranged weapons
Thrown weapons
Melee weapons in your allies hands
Melee weapons in your enemies hands (I put mystic cure IV on the robots sword so he heals the next person he hits)If natural weapons were to be excluded you'd have to specify manufactured weapons.
So let's say that holds.
Can you then not use it while your hands are full and you're attacking with Improved Unarmed Strike, as that specifically states that you don't need a hand free?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you then not use it while your hands are full and you're attacking with Improved Unarmed Strike, as that specifically states that you don't need a hand free?
You probably can use it. The improved unarmed strike feat and natural weapons effectively takes the required hands from 1 to 0. The horns and feet are still being wielded, which means they're still being held. Wielded is a subset of held. I don't think "a hand can't hold itself" is a good enough argument to create a venn diagram with wielded but not held as a thing when there is direct evidence that a hand CAN hold itself. You have to start with "CAN a hand hold itself?". And extrapolate from there. Not start with a hand can't hold itself and try to cite the generic rules as an exception.
If an effect has a range of touch, you must touch a creature or object to affect your target, which requires you to hit with a melee attack roll (against EAC unless the effect says otherwise) if you are touching an unwilling target. A touch effect that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. (multiple target stuff here...)
Spell seargent
You can cast spells with a range of touch into a melee weapon you hold.
So a minotaur could designate "horns" or a kung fu ysoki could designate "unarmed strike" as the weapon holding the charge then make a standard action attack to discharge the spell. Or cast the spell on round one and then kick/gore on round 2. Spell seargent doesn't even have the premature detonation clause pathfinder did that would arguably set off the shocking grasp into the pistols the ysoki was holding: The spell specifically goes off when an enemy is struck, not when you touch something , take a step, or even grab an ally. (I suppose a non kung fu ysoki could designate "unarmed strike) as the weapon held but is going to have to drop something to touch someone)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf has the right of it. Being too literal can ruin the fun. Unarmed strike is a weapon. If we want to be extremely literal and technical to prove it, you are holding your hand to your body by the exploitation of physics. Without which everyone would disintegrate. Fun right? It's fundamentally the same argument as grasping a weapon.
Unfortunately we have to be a bit literal in Society, to account for table variation. This is why I always default to RAW, and BNW, like a sane person, rightfully chastises me for being pedantic. I just don't want to be in a situation where a GM has any, even crazy RAW, basis to rule my entire schtick as something that doesn't work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately we have to be a bit literal in Society, to account for table variation. This is why I always default to RAW, and BNW, like a sane person, rightfully chastises me for being pedantic. I just don't want to be in a situation where a GM has any, even crazy RAW, basis to rule my entire schtick as something that doesn't work.
The thing is that RAW very rarely reduces table variation. The very concept of THE raw increases it. If you believe that the rules can only say one thing, then in the 900 different parts of the rules SOMETHING is going to say the opposite of the other 899 things. But since the rules can't disagree with each other, and can't be misread, that one thing is just as important as the 800 other things.
The belief in the one true raw (one true raw not valid at all locations. One true raw subject to table variation. Consult your mystic if raw prestsist for more than a 4 hour SFS Session...) gets worse when it comes with the companion, belief in perfect extrapolation. If you have a perfect logician and a perfectly coherent system then you can extrapolate from A to B to C to D. Rather than reducing variation, this is a license to go from Ikea to an MC Escher painting. Especially since most gamers are NOT perfect logicians...
The spell seargent requires a held weapon.
A hand can't hold itself
You can't use the spell sergeant abilities with an unarmed attack.
And whats really annoying about that interpretation paradigm is that its almost immune to evidence to the contrary. Because its allegedly both a sound and valid it supposed can not be wrong.
A far better (Even for Organized play. ESPECIALLY for organized play) rules interpretation paradigm is a subjective mix of
RAW
RAI
Evidence for a position
Evidence against a position
Arguments for a position
Arguments against a positon
Consideration of power levels compared to similar options.
This won't get you a total lack of variation either, but just the concept that you could be wrong allows for players to make an argument for their character that the allegedly rock solid sylogism does not.
In this case, it appears that the raw is that you generally do hold your hand (or horn or foot or tail or teeth or other whappy appendage). Wielded= held with the ability to strike. Something that is wielded is held. Natural weapons are wielded, therefore they are held.
In the bigger picture, A spell going on your fist is actually the NORMAL way that a touch spell works. it's really weird to object to a spell going on your fist when... thats what they do all the time. Every jolting surge touch attack is presumed to go onto a creatures hand, and then you reach out and touch someone with 1.21 jiggawats.
In terms of power, you keep as many variables the same as possible. Spellstrike if anything is the culprit here, not the electrohorns.
I don't think you can compare a natural weapon AND feat investment with a maxed out weapon for that level, but at fourth level 1d10+4+5d6 (Avg 27) is what a level 4 weapon does, while electrohorns get you 1d3+6+5d6 (Average 25.5). Using a weapon could net you more damage. It also has the possibility of other incomparables, like reach or targeting EAC instead of the 99 percent more likely to be harder to hit KAC.
So the bang for your buck is good, but not outrageous. Either spellstrike or natural weapons are a little too good, the combo of (spellstrike+natural weapons) is pretty comparable to (spellstrike+Weapon) so there's no reason to try to find a reason to ban it.
RAW it seems to work.
RAI it seems to work.
Powerwise its very comparable to other options in the same niche.