Arcane Striking....how often ?

[Philip]

Had some discussion about this with my DM as well, after I used a staff of power (double weapon) and arcane strike together with the staff's double damage power.

The DM found, for reasons of game balance, that Arcane Strike should power only one end of a double weapon, but you could use the ability twice to power both ends.

On the other hand, the text says melee weapon, unarmed strike or natural weapons. And that's surely not all meant as flavor text, it is meant to specifically exclude ranged weapons, ray spells etc.

 

[Sammael]

Oh, I agree. However, the feat's wording in that case should have been "...you gain a bonus on all melee attack rolls with the chosen weapon for 1 round..." and it should have been preceded by a "Choose either a melee weapon you have drawn, your unarmed strike, or your natural weapons." With the current wording, even if we ingore my xTreme rules lawyering (and Hyp can certainly confirm and deny whether I'm right or wrong), there is nothing that stops the caster from using arcane strike on a dagger (which is a melee weapon), and then throwing the dagger and keeping the bonus.

 

[Deset Gled]

1. If this ability can be activated multiple times per round, then sure. However, I maintain that it cannot be used in this manner (because it should be a swift action). As to why this doesn't screw two-weapon fighters up, see answer #2.

2. ... Thus, when the feat is used, it applies to both sides of a double weapon, or two weapons, or a ranged touch attack, or any other action you take that requires an attack roll (disarm, grapple, trip, sunder, etc.).

EDIT: Yes, this is rules lawyering, but it's RAW. I'm sure the feat's intent is different, and that it should probably apply only to melee weapons. But that's not what's written. There are also problems with weapons that can be used as both melee and ranged, such as daggers.

1. Just because you think something should be written differently doesn't mean it is. The text clearly states the feat is a free action. No two ways about it. It seems kind of odd that you would try to extrapolate the text to extreme detail in one case and simply blow it off in another.

2. You're forgetting the second half of the text, which is conveniently both a part of the actual feat text and an example (unlike the many examples that are separated). It clearly states the user of the feat applies the bonuses to "a single melee weapon of his choice". How this applies to double weapons is still slightly ambiguous, but applying the bonuses to two weapons and ranged attacks is right out. This also takes care of the dagger problem, since a dagger that is being thrown is a thrown weapon, not a melee weapon.

 

[Darklone]

Well, I don't have my book here, but I'm pretty sure the last few discussions (among others one where I asked in houserules whether allowing Arcane Strike with ranged weapons would be unbalanced) did not overlook that it's useable with ranged weapons.

The feat does screw TWF fighters because of the reasons Deset Gled explained. Well, perhaps not, if you use the same weapon in both hands (two shortswords) the feat would allow you to burn two spell slots for extra damage/to hit on both weapons.

 

[Zoatebix]

Looks like a break the "we all know" clause at the beginning of this thread - is this feat from Complete Arcane?
-George

 

[Sammael]

No, the feat is from Complete Warrior.

For what it's worth, I've sent the following e-mail to Andy Collins (via the Paizo sage advice e-mail):

I have several questions about the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior (as a result of a debate about it on ENWorld).

1. The feat, as written, requires a free action to use and grants an unnamed bonus. Since free actions aren't exactly "well defined," this can be interpreted to mean that it can be used an unlimited number of times per round, gaining cumulative bonuses to attack and damage. Are there plans to rectify this, perhaps through errata? Should it be a swift action instead of a free action?

2. The wording of the actual feat's benefits is not clear enough. It states that "...you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for 1 round..." Shouldn't this be "...you gain a bonus on all melee attack rolls with the chosen weapon for 1 round?"

3. There is a problem with weapons that can be used as both melee and ranged weapons, such as a dagger. A drawn dagger counts as a melee weapon. What happens if the dagger is thrown after the caster uses Arcane Strike on it? Does it keep the bonus or not?

4. Again, the feat calls for "channeling arcane energy into a melee weapon." Does this affect both ends of the double weapon? If it does, then it is an unfair disadvantage over two weapon fighters, who can only Arcane Strike one of their weapons. Presuming, of course, that my guess from question #1 is right, and that Arcane Strike cannot be used multiple times per round.

Some people state that they have house ruled that Arcane Strike can be used multiple times per round if the caster is using multiple weapons, and that it doesn't stack with itself (only applies to different weapons). I'd just like an official stance.

 

[Darklone]

Using a melee weapon as ranged weapon changes it into a ranged weapon.

Changing the useage of the feat into a Swift action screws TWF fighters.

 

[Sammael]

But leaving it as is allows infinite stacking of bonuses.

EDIT: and no, it doesn't exactly "screw" two-weapon fighters. There is nothing in the rules that implies that two-weapon fighters are always entitled to have the same bonuses with both weapons. After all, it is absolutely possible for a two-weapon fighter to have a +6 brilliant energy vorpal defending longsword in one hand and a simple dagger in another.

 

[Darklone]

I'm still not convinced that it would stack, but yes, that would be a problem with the rules.

Infinite: Depends how many spell slots you want to burn

 

[Zoatebix]

Shows how much I've read my copy Complete Warrior - just didn't grab me, I guess.

I suppose the fact that Complete Arcane isn't released yet should have tipped me off Sorry! I was sleepy...
-George