Arcane Strike: Broken?

[Mystic badger]

I find it quite good when polymorphing (especially in my favorite forum : the hydra)

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes, it does. What's your point? Yarren the bladesinger channels arcane energy into "a melee weapon" (singular) as per the feat description. If the example involved a dragon it'd be channeling arcane energy into its "natural weapons" (plural) as per the feat description.

Or are you trying to argue that the example is intended to override the main feat description, and that you can't use Arcane Strike with unarmed strike or natural weapons?

All the example does is help clarify how the feat is meant to be used...

A dragon, for example, has multiple natural weapons, but he can only choose one to apply arcane strike to. And of course you can use arcane strike with an unarmed strike, why do you think I suggested you couldn't?

 

[Iku Rex]

All the example does is help clarify how the feat is meant to be used...

A dragon, for example, has multiple natural weapons, but he can only choose one to apply arcane strike to.

Once again: The feat lets the dragon channel arcane energy into it's natural weapons. Natural weapons means more than one. If they meant one natural weapon they would have used the singular - "natural weapon", like they did when they specified "melee weapon" (not "melee weapons") and "unarmed strike" (not "unarmed strikes"). What part of this is it you don't understand?

And of course you can use arcane strike with an unarmed strike, why do you think I suggested you couldn't?

You're placing great importance on the example saying that Yarren can only use Arcane Strike with "a single melee weapon". If that's supposed to be taken literally, he can't use Arcane Strike with a natural weapon or an unarmed strike. Those are not melee weapons ("handheld weapon designed for close combat"-- glossary).

 

[FrostedMini1337]

Actually, I think there is a valid argument to be made that it would be improper english to end that sentence with the phrase natural weapon because it implies you can only have one natural weapon.

something about unarmed attacks can be knees and elbows as a monk. do you have to choose which elbow or which knee or which hand? stuffs starting to not make sense....

 

[zypherillius]

An untyped plus to hit is pretty big in this game last i checked.

but any person playing a wizard blowing a delay blast fireball at +7 to hit and additonaly 7d4 on damage isnt really playing a smart wizard. in extreme cases if the wizard is the last of the party surviving, then i can see it useful. but if a wizard is throwing away spells that can turn the tide of battle and using them to hit an enemy in melee is not a good wizard player.

 

[Iku Rex]

Actually, I think there is a valid argument to be made that it would be improper english to end that sentence with the phrase natural weapon because it implies you can only have one natural weapon.

Why? If "a natural weapon" implies you can only have one natural weapon, why doesn't "a melee weapon" imply that you can only have one melee weapon?

something about unarmed attacks can be knees and elbows as a monk. do you have to choose which elbow or which knee or which hand? stuffs starting to not make sense....

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[ThirdWizard]

but any person playing a wizard blowing a delay blast fireball at +7 to hit and additonaly 7d4 on damage isnt really playing a smart wizard. in extreme cases if the wizard is the last of the party surviving, then i can see it useful. but if a wizard is throwing away spells that can turn the tide of battle and using them to hit an enemy in melee is not a good wizard player.

I don't think anyone ever intended for wizards to use this feat.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Once again: The feat lets the dragon channel arcane energy into it's natural weapons. Natural weapons means more than one.

Right, a dragon has more than one natural weapon. So out of all of his natural weaponS, he can choose one to apply arcane strike to.

If they meant one natural weapon they would have used the singular - "natural weapon", like they did when they specified "melee weapon" (not "melee weapons") and "unarmed strike" (not "unarmed strikes"). What part of this is it you don't understand?

A human can have many different types of weapons (swords, mace, lances). But this feat only applies to one of them.
A creature (such as a dragon) can have many different types of natural weapons (bite, claw, tail slap, wing). But this feat only applies to one of them.
A person making an attack without any weapons is making an unarmed strike. This feat applies to that unarmed strike (if you can make more than 1 attack in a round with that unarmed strike, then the arcane strike will apply to each one).

You're placing great importance on the example saying that Yarren can only use Arcane Strike with "a single melee weapon". If that's supposed to be taken literally, he can't use Arcane Strike with a natural weapon or an unarmed strike. Those are not melee weapons ("handheld weapon designed for close combat"-- glossary).

The example is just there to CLARIFY how this feat works, so that there isn't any questions. Of course it works with an unarmed strike or natural weapons (of which you can only apply it to one specific one), it is spelled out in the benefits section of the feat.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Why? If "a natural weapon" implies you can only have one natural weapon, why doesn't "a melee weapon" imply that you can only have one melee weapon?

It doesn't imply you can only have one. You can have 100 different ones if you want. But the feat Arcane Strike only applies to one of them when you use the feat and attack with that weapon.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I *think* what he is trying to say is that unlike an "untrained" person making a normal unarmed strike, the Monk is special in that it gets Improved Unarmed Strike and their entire body is considered a weapon. So a Monk that uses Arcane Strike can apply it to an elbow, a headbutt, a punch or a kick (to name a few) with one use of the feat. You don't have to specifically call it out ("I use Arcane Strike on my fist this turn"), whereas with a dragon, you would ("The dragon arcane strikes with his bite attack).

Or maybe I am wrong with what he is trying to express...

 

[Iku Rex]

The example is just there to CLARIFY how this feat works, so that there isn't any questions. Of course it works with an unarmed strike or natural weapons (of which you can only apply it to one specific one), it is spelled out in the benefits section of the feat.

Why can you only apply the feat to one specific natural weapon? What part of the feat description leads you to think that?

Is it the feat description specifying that you channel arcane energy into "natural weapons" (plural, as opposed to the other two options)?

Or the spell description stating that you get extra damage and an attack bonus on "all attack rolls" for one round?

Or will you once again bring up the example involving a melee weapon (singular) as a "clarification" of how the feat works with natural weapons (plural)?