Arcane Striking....how often ?

[Darklone]

Hyp quoted here some nice sentence that might be applied...

 

[THEBIGLOU]

Darklone,

Good find, but after careful reading it applies to spells. I do remember that the same spell will not stack even if there are unnamed penalties/bonuses....I think it even goes as far as effects.

Other than spells I believe that unnamed bonuses do generally stack. I am not sure how that affects arcane strike, but at the very least they put in a BAB cap. I find it odd that they would have done that unless they allowed stacking or maybe some brokenness into EPIC levels that I can't see.


BIGLOU

 

[Darklone]

Well, balance... I put together some weird bad Eldritch Knight with a double weapon and lotsa attacks and assumed that both ends are improved with one spell... and still the possible damage was not too horrible. At least not too horrible compared with a Dervish or a power attacking barbarian (who don't have to pay spells to fuel their damage).

 

[Daalbar]

I have a question that sorta ties into this topic (at least insofar as it relates to the use of Arcane Strike)

Can a spellcaster under the influence of the 6th level, combat-oriented spell Transformation harness his/her spell slots using Arcane Strike to really power-up attacks and damage from the increased number of attacks this spell grants the caster? Or does this statement in the spell description -- "You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion items just as if the spells were no longer on your class list" preclude utilizing memorized spells to power Arcane Strike? Note that it explicitly prevents you from actively casting but doesn't actually say anything about temporary denial of access to spell "valences" or some such for other purposes.

So, does a Transformed spellcaster have access to spell slots for the purpose of accentuating attack/damage via Arcane Strike? Opinions?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Would you let a cleric / paladin cast a spell that said, "During the duration of this spell, you are unable to turn undead," convert his or her turns per day uses using Divine Might, Shield, etc.?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would you let a cleric / paladin cast a spell that said, "During the duration of this spell, you are unable to turn undead," convert his or her turns per day uses using Divine Might, Shield, etc.?

Oddly, at first glance, I'd answer those two questions differently.

The character who's lost his spellcasting ability, I wouldn't allow to trade in spells for a feat.

But the cleric who is unable to turn undead, I'd still allow to channel positive energy to power a divine feat.

If I were to look more carefully at the wording of a few things, I might change my ruling, but that's my immediate reaction

-Hyp.

 

[niastri]

What Sammael said. You give up one spell in the round and gain the appropriate benefits. That's it.

I don't believe it was in question whether Sammael was right.

Never doubt the Chosen.

 

[Deset Gled]

I believe that when under the effects of Transformation, you would still be able to use Arcane Strike. This is because text states that you lose you spellcasting ability "just as if the spells were no longer on your class list." Effectively, you still have the spell slots, you just can't use them on any spells that you previously could. This does not stop you from channeling that energy via other means, such as this feat.

Whether or not the text I mentioned is in reference only to the remarks about spell trigger items or all spellcasting is opening up a rather large semantics arguement.

As for the turning question, what Hyp said. Turning is a specific use of channeling positive energy. Specifically stopping it does not stop all uses of channelling positive energy.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Oddly, at first glance, I'd answer those two questions differently.

Interesting.

I view your spell slots - which you still have, you just can't cast any spells with them - as equivalent to usages of turn undead.

Amend my earlier question to "For the duration of the spell, you lose your ability to turn undead."

Does your answer change with this (relatively) minor grammar alteration?