A mistake in the wording of arcane strike?

[Devronq]

i was reading arcane strike just now

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.

That last line there is redundant is it not? You cant really have a BAB that's lower than the highest level spell you can cast. (unless you cheese to qualify for the feat) maybe if you muticlass into a bunch of prc and don't use the fractional bab rules you could do it but seems like its hard enough to do that its pointless to mention. agree, disagree thoughts?

[questionmark693]

It does see, redundant...but I don't think that it's necessarily a flaw in the wording, as the effect of arcane strike is totally unaffected by that sentence's presence or absence.

EDIT: Apparently I totally didn't see all the ramifications of the feat like I thought I did :smalltongue:

[Emperor Tippy]

i was reading arcane strike just now

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.

That last line there is redundant is it not? You cant really have a BAB that's lower than the highest level spell you can cast. (unless you cheese to qualify for the feat) maybe if you muticlass into a bunch of prc and don't use the fractional bab rules you could do it but seems like its hard enough to do that its pointless to mention. agree, disagree thoughts?

Nothing stops you from activating the feat twenty or so times. By level 20 those first level spells are mostly useless so giving twenty of them up to get +20 to all attack rolls for the round might be useful. Especially when you can just sit in an auto resetting trap of Mage's Lubrication after the fight to regain all of the expended spell slots.

[Devronq]

Nothing stops you from activating the feat twenty or so times. By level 20 those first level spells are mostly useful so giving twenty of them up to get +20 to all attack rolls for the round might be useful. Especially when you can just sit in an auto resetting trap of Mage's Lubrication after the fight to regain all of the expended spell slots.

ahhh good point i didnt realise you could use it more than once per turn ya its a free action so huh ok it does serve a purpose thanks :)

[Barsoom]

That's actually not the reason. Activating it 20 times won't add to your attack bonus, since bonuses from the same source don't stack. But, you can be something like Wizard 5/Master Specialist 3, capable of casting 4th level spells, with a BAB of only +3. So it's not redundant.

[Emperor Tippy]

That's actually not the reason. Activating it 20 times won't add to your attack bonus, since bonuses from the same source don't stack. But, you can be something like Wizard 5/Master Specialist 3, capable of casting 4th level spells, with a BAB of only +3. So it's not redundant.

That's true, Tippy is sleepy and Tippy should head to bed before Tippy makes more mistakes.

[Devronq]

That's actually not the reason. Activating it 20 times won't add to your attack bonus, since bonuses from the same source don't stack. But, you can be something like Wizard 5/Master Specialist 3, capable of casting 4th level spells, with a BAB of only +3. So it's not redundant.

only if you don't use the fractional bab rules as i mentioned :P

[Rhynn]

only if you don't use the fractional bab rules as i mentioned :P

That's an Unearthed Arcana variant rule, isn't it, though? So the material has to assume you're not using it, even if it is clearly superior.

[TuggyNE]

We already have a thread for this, you guys.

[Kristinn]

You are mistaken. A level 2n+1 (odd number) Wizard has a BAB of n, and access to level n+1 spells. So that line is highly relevant.

[ahenobarbi]

Also fast-progression classes exist.