Whirling Blade with Arcane Strike

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry, but I just read the feat.

"you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed"

Key word being BONUS. It doesn't ADD damage to your attack, it is a BONUS to your attack.

Actually it does add damage, because after the comma that follows the section you quoted is this phrase:

" as well as extra damage equal to 1d4 points x the level of the spell sacrificed."

Additionally, regardless of which way you rule the feat works in terms of the number of spells, there IS another limit to its efficacy contained within it, namely:

"The bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus."

So even if you could nova with this feat, it reaches a point of diminishing returns based on the caster's BAB.

 

[Mark1733]

Good call. That caps me at +5 regardless. The question is whether I blow one 5th level vs multiple spells that add up to a +5 spell. My lower spells are more utilitarian, whereas my three 5th spells (only 1 known spell) are all attack. Its not a bad tradeoff...considering I am only using it with whirling blade under special circumstances.

 

[captnq]

When you activate this feat (a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity), you can channel arcane energy into a melee weapon, your unarmed strike, or natural weapons. You must sacrifice one of your spells for the day (of 1st level or higher) to do this, but you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed, as well as extra damage equal to 1d4 points x the level of the spell sacrificed. The bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus.

Sigh. Making me quote the whole thing, aren't you?

See the underlined part? See the comma? See the lack of a period?

"you gain a bonus"

Everything after that is a Bonus. Sorry, but I spent years reading contracts and screwing people over with them and getting paid for it. Everything after bonus is a "bonus" until you reach the period. The comma MIGHT have been RAI new sentence, but it's not a new sentence. It is what it is by RAW.

If there was an "and" or a "but" you could make an argument. But it is "COMMA As well as"

"As well as" is "equal to" or "Same as" And how does the statement begin?
"You gain a bonus ... Blah Blah Blah, More blah blah blah."
Whatever is "blah blah blah" is a bonus.

That makes the damage bonus damage. Not Extra damage. Extra damage stacks, bonus damage does not.

I've written 112 handbooks on 3.5. Feel free to check out my latest:
Erudite Handbook
Trust me. I know how to read the rules.
Burn as many spells as you wish, they will not stack.

 

[Celebrim]

That makes the damage bonus damage. Not Extra damage. Extra damage stacks, bonus damage does not.

Excellent. That means the designer in fact does not deserve a flogging. I'm pleased to hear it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sigh. Making me quote the whole thing, aren't you?

See the underlined part? See the comma? See the lack of a period?

Indeed- you might recall I pointed it out to you.

"you gain a bonus"

Everything after that is a Bonus.

Which phrase is followed by "as well as extra damage"

If I write a sentence: "you gain a bonus apple, as well as an orange", it does not follow that the orange is now an apple.

Sorry, but I spent years reading contracts and screwing people over with them and getting paid for it.

Good for you! I still am: TX Bar number 00796145, mostly in Entertainment law. Got an MBA as well, certified as a mediator and working on my arbitrator certification as well. So you could say I know a little something about contracts.

That makes the damage bonus damage. Not Extra damage. Extra damage stacks, bonus damage does not.

Except for the fact that the subsequent phrase in question explicitly and unequivocally uses the terminology "extra damage". See your own quoting of the rule- that term is at variance with the main clause. Had they NOT used the specific term "extra damage", I probably wouldn't be writing this post.

Simple fact is, the 3.X's designers were not (AFAIK) attorneys, and often got sloppy with their use of language, which is one reason I really don't put much faith in RAW interpretations where the language is in conflict.

I've written 112 handbooks on 3.5.

I freely admit that I am not a game designer.

Trust me. I know how to read the rules.

My first semester of law school, I got a perfect illustration of the impact of language upon rules. A man who help redraft the Tx criminal code in the late 1980s-early 1990s was talking about a specific section of the code. A student who was not a native English speaker asked about that section and how it was read- her interpretation of a key- but not defined- term was very different.

He looked at it. We had 10 minutes of silence as that man stood in front of the class and studied the rule and the dueling understandings of the key term. He then noted that her reading was- linguistically speaking- as valid a reading as the way his group had intended. He thanked her, and told the class that he was making calls that day to get that code redrafted, because otherwise, a clever attorney would be able to sent the system chasing its own tail for quite a while using her reading.

The point? Knowing how to read rules is great, but sloppy drafting can derail a rule. Here, we have the superior clause saying one thing, but the subsequent clause explicitly telling us something else entirely.

Burn as many spells as you wish, they will not stack.

I have played it both ways. It really doesn't make a huge difference in the long run. Play as you like.

 

[Debatra]

...Wow, really? I've heard of rules-lawyering, but this is a bit much.

Somehow, I don't think WotC intended this game to be played exclusively by people with law degrees.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

The point? Knowing how to read rules is great, but sloppy drafting can derail a rule. Here, we have the superior clause saying one thing, but the subsequent clause explicitly telling us something else entirely.

There is also something to be said for not having "absolute faith" in a single person's understanding of rules and text. Had that woman not asked about a different interpretation of the words, the redraft of that criminal code almost certainly would have gone through and, as you said, a clever attorney could have used it in ways not originally foreseen or intended. I imagine cleaning up that mess could have cost millions.

Thankfully D&D's rules don't have such profound consequences (and are also much easier to change for a given gaming table), but in the interest of keeping the community lighthearted and fun since the game system we're talking about is meant for entertainment, it's best that we all realize the voice and understanding of an individual is not the only applicable one, regardless of what qualifications one has. Those qualifications should be acknowledged of course, but being qualified does not make one immune to informed discussion on the topic, and it is not the one's qualifications and experiences that are the only bar to which an informed person can be held to.

TL DR version is we shouldn't be egotistical asshats who think our view is the only one that matters or is the end-all be-all even if we feel more qualified than others to discuss or make a judgment on a topic. That goes for both actually being that way as well as having effective communication that shows we are not.

As far as the rules discussion about Arcane Strike goes, the wording would seem to indicate the intent was to only sacrifice one spell. The technical aspects of the rules would seem to show multiple spells can be sacked at once where the attack bonus is limited by the highest single spell level sacked, but the damage bonus is not so limited. In the context of a D&D game, which one should be used? Answer: The one that seems most reasonable to the gaming group. It's something to be decided for every campaign and not in the grand scheme of things because the DMG very clearly says the DM is the final rules arbiter and can change things as seen fit. One case of a DM making the change is not a precedent for another to make the change.

Can one make recommendations for general use of the feat? Yes. It is simple to go over the wording, mention there are different viewpoints on it, mention the likely consequences of such viewpoints, then say it is up to the DM to choose which would be better for their particular campaign.