Arcane Strike: Broken?

[FrostedMini1337]

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...

Maybe this will help me explain my "I think it's proper english" points:
"You can channel arcane energy into a natural weapon, your unarmed strike, or melee weapons".

That is correct english even if I only mean you can channel it in to one melee weapon at a time.

For the other thing, I mean that is a pretty weird distinction to make between "You only do that to your left or right hand Mr. Wizard, you can do it to your wings, claws, bite and tail slap Mr. Pit Fiend, and Mr. Monk, you can do any part of your body you care to attack with."

 

[Rkhet]

Mr. Monk, you can do any part of your body you care to attack with.

Monk: "I channel arcane energy into my magical, lawful and adamantine nose."



Edit - Sorry, but that sort of talk doesn't sit too well with Grandma.

 

[moritheil]

There are some cases in which it's worthwhile...

- (Says the person playing a high-level gestalt Sorcerer | Dragon Disciple/Paladin type who can fairly easily deal ~200 hp/round in melee when using arcane strike and a high level spell)

IME, 200/round ought to be par for the course above 16th. I'm not knocking it; I'm just saying that that isn't broken by any means.

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.

On the contrary, if I send a particularly nasty melee touch spell at you, I'd welcome a +7 to hit to ensure that I don't miss your touch AC. Does that make me a bad wizard player? Admittedly, this is probably only worth doing in desperate times when an attack has to hit.

Side question for all you rules-mongers: Do spectral hand and grazzt's long grasp turn melee touch attacks into ranged touch attacks? The spectral hand text implies that a spell cast through it is still a melee touch attack.

The spell gives you a +2 bonus on your melee touch attack roll