Pathfinder: Battlemind Link?? Does this spell make any sense?

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Hello everyone at the playground!
I come to you today with a rules question regarding the spell Battlemind link...
Here is the issue... The spell states that
You and the ally each roll initiative in combat and use the higher die result before adding modifiers.
It then goes on to state
Melee: If you both make melee attacks against the same creature, you both make attack rolls and both use the higher of the two dice for your attack rolls (plus bonuses).

Ranged: If you both make ranged attacks against the same creature, you both make attack rolls and both use the higher of the two dice for your attack roll (plus bonuses).

Spell: If you both cast spells and target the same area or same creature, affected creatures take a –2 penalty on their saving throw against the spells.


So, when are you and your ally considered attacking the same creature? I could understand the effecrts of the spell if it made you both act at the same time... Then you would attack together and everything would work. But it says you take the same initiative roll before adding modifier. So you do not appear to act in the same time... Anybody have any insight for me?

Battlemind Link

School divination [mind-affecting]; Level inquisitor 4, sorcerer/wizard 6

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT

Range personal and close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target you and 1 ally
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell resistance yes (harmless)

DESCRIPTION

You fuse your thoughts with an ally’s, allowing the two of you to fight in tandem, perfectly coordinated. You and the ally each roll initiative in combat and use the higher die result before adding modifiers. This has three effects.

Melee: If you both make melee attacks against the same creature, you both make attack rolls and both use the higher of the two dice for your attack rolls (plus bonuses).

Ranged: If you both make ranged attacks against the same creature, you both make attack rolls and both use the higher of the two dice for your attack roll (plus bonuses).

Spell: If you both cast spells and target the same area or same creature, affected creatures take a –2 penalty on their saving throw against the spells.

You and the target lose these benefits if you cannot see each other or if you or the target is unconscious or helpless.

[Andreaz]

Whenever you two are doing the same thing you keep the best roll of 2d20


You two shot the creature. You rolled 14 and he rolled 17. You two rolled 17.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Whenever you two are doing the same thing you keep the best roll of 2d20


You two shot the creature. You rolled 14 and he rolled 17. You two rolled 17.

Yeah, but we act at different times in initiative... So at what time are we both considered attacking the same creature? If I attack it, and my partner plans to attack it on his turn, does that count? Or would I attack it, and just use my roll, then my partner attack it and use the roll that I previously rolled, or his own? The spell doesen't seem to make sense unless we both act at the same time, which does not appear to be the case considering the wording...

[Bhaakon]

It doesn't work, obviously.

The only way I can see it working close to as intended is if both character share the same initiative, as you say. As long as there's a gap where another creature can sneak in between them, then there are going to be problems.

Or even if they just have separate turns. I mean, what do you do if the target dies on the first player's hit? Is the second still player obligated to hack at the dead body because you used the double roll?

[Andreaz]

Acting on the same round. Doesn't have to be at the same time to be simultaneous. Remember the round is the same for everyone no matter what order they act?


Even so, if it's such a big deal whoever's ahead just has to delay a bit.

[Bhaakon]

Acting on the same round. Doesn't have to be at the same time to be simultaneous. Remember the round is the same for everyone no matter what order they act?

Sure, in theory the round is representing simultaneous action, but the mechanics of it just don't work that way. The mechanics are sequential, not simultaneous. Which is a problem, because this spell needs to operate with that mechanical sequence, and it doesn't (at least not well).

[Kesnit]

When the higher Initiative goes, both players declare their action and roll. The player who actually had that Initiative uses the better of the rolls. Then when the other player goes, they use their action with the previous roll.

[LordBlades]

When the higher Initiative goes, both players declare their action and roll. The player who actually had that Initiative uses the better of the rolls. Then when the other player goes, they use their action with the previous roll.

Then what happens if changing battlefield conditions invalidate the 2nd player's declared action?

[Killer Angel]

It's a bad written spell, that you need to houserule, to make it work.

[Psyren]

When the higher Initiative goes, both players declare their action and roll. The player who actually had that Initiative uses the better of the rolls. Then when the other player goes, they use their action with the previous roll.


Then what happens if changing battlefield conditions invalidate the 2nd player's declared action?

I'd say it works more like this:

1) Higher Init goes: both players roll. Higher number is chosen as the attack roll.
2) Lower Init goes: second player chooses if he's going to attack. If he does, he doesn't have to roll to hit - he already did and the number was chosen. If he does not attack, the spell does not affect him that round.

Repeat until combat ends.

Where it can get complicated is if one player full-attacks and the other doesn't.

[Segev]

I would suggest house-ruling it such that they both act on the highest initiative that either of them has, and they do attack simultaneously. When one gets more attacks than the other for any reason, the one with extra attacks only benefits from the spell's effects on the attacks he shares with the other.

Treat the damage from the dual attacks like you would that from Manyshot: since they both hit together, they apply simultaneously. If one would have killed the target by itself, the other is wasted. Such is the risk taken for greater accuracy.

[Kesnit]

I'd say it works more like this:

1) Higher Init goes: both players roll. Higher number is chosen as the attack roll.
2) Lower Init goes: second player chooses if he's going to attack. If he does, he doesn't have to roll to hit - he already did and the number was chosen. If he does not attack, the spell does not affect him that round.


If he doesn't attack, it could negate the first player's action. The spell only goes into effect if both players do the same thing. If Player 1 uses Player 2's roll, then Player 2 changes their mind on their action, Player 1 has to revert to their own roll, which could change the outcome of Player 1's action. ("Wait, the monster only failed their saving throw because of the -2. Since the -2 didn't actually occur, the monster saved.")

If the battlefield conditions change between Player 1 and Player 2, I'd say set a small houserule that Player 2 can take a similar action. ("OK, the monster I was going to attack is dead. So I will attack the closest monster.") This allows Player 2 to take a turn, but they cannot change their action. (No going from "I melee Monster 1" to "I cast a spell at Monster 2.") If it isn't possible to do the same action (i.e. Monster 2 is too far away to melee), Player 2 has to do the best they can to fulfill the requirement (i.e. move towards Monster 2).

[JoshuaZ]

I'd say it works more like this:

1) Higher Init goes: both players roll. Higher number is chosen as the attack roll.
2) Lower Init goes: second player chooses if he's going to attack. If he does, he doesn't have to roll to hit - he already did and the number was chosen. If he does not attack, the spell does not affect him that round.
.

This makes the spell substantially stronger, since the second player will now know if the roll was bad and thus choose something else. But given the spell level, this doesn't seem unreasonably strong.

[Andreaz]

You really are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Like, REALLY.
1) Both roll init, both use the lower init result.
This guarantees they're acting at the same time and have a better initiative result than the pair would have otherwise.
2) Both roll their attacks, and both use the best of the two d20 rolls.

That's all it has to do. Reducing both attacks to a single roll is no benefit overall, and may well ruin a round. "Using the best of 2d20" is the real big gun here.

[3WhiteFox3]

You really are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Like, REALLY.
1) Both roll init, both use the lower init result.
This guarantees they're acting at the same time and have a better initiative result than the pair would have otherwise.
2) Both roll their attacks, and both use the best of the two d20 rolls.

That's all it has to do. Reducing both attacks to a single roll is no benefit overall, and may well ruin a round. "Using the best of 2d20" is the real big gun here.

Wouldn't that guarantee that one of them will act at a lower initiative than they would have normally?

[Fax Celestis]

I'd say it works more like this:

1) Higher Init goes: both players roll. Higher number is chosen as the attack roll.
2) Lower Init goes: second player chooses if he's going to attack. If he does, he doesn't have to roll to hit - he already did and the number was chosen. If he does not attack, the spell does not affect him that round.

Repeat until combat ends.

Where it can get complicated is if one player full-attacks and the other doesn't.

This is the only reading I can see where the spell actually functions.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Thank you everyone for your input.
What I have gathered is, yes, this spell is indeed broken and completely unusable without use of houserule or errata.
You have all presented valid suggestions on how the spell should work, I will have to consult my DM regarding how he wants to run it however.
I appreciate your time everybody!

[Andreaz]

Wouldn't that guarantee that one of them will act at a lower initiative than they would have normally?Yes, but it's either that of putting the lower init guy on top. The point is to get both acting at the same time, to guarantee both use the best of two d20 rolls on all attacks they do together. It's the only way this spell gives a real gain.

[Psyren]

This guarantees they're acting at the same time and have a better initiative result than the pair would have otherwise.

It may not actually - just because they have the same roll doesn't mean they'll be juxtaposed in initiative. Say they both roll a 10, but one has a very high Dex mod and the other doesn't, the gap between them may be large enough that the monster or even another ally goes in between.

[Andreaz]

It may not actually - just because they have the same roll doesn't mean they'll be juxtaposed in initiative. Say they both roll a 10, but one has a very high Dex mod and the other doesn't, the gap between them may be large enough that the monster or even another ally goes in between."both roll 2d20 for their initiative and keep the best roll", followed by "they use the same initiative result"
"d20 roll" and "initiative result" are different things. The latter has the modifiers, it's the full check.

[Psyren]

"both roll 2d20 for their initiative and keep the best roll", followed by "they use the same initiative result"
"d20 roll" and "initiative result" are different things. The latter has the modifiers, it's the full check.

Are you sure? On the PFSRD it says:


You and the ally each roll initiative in combat and use the higher die result before adding modifiers.

Bold mine.

Though on re-read, I suppose that could mean "don't add modifiers at all - in which case they would be next to each other, but it would very likely make their initiative worse. ("No modifiers" means no Dex, no Improved Initiative, no familiar bonus etc.)

[Andreaz]

Are you sure? On the PFSRD it says:



Bold mine.

Though on re-read, I suppose that could mean "don't add modifiers at all - in which case they would be next to each other, but it would very likely make their initiative worse. ("No modifiers" means no Dex, no Improved Initiative, no familiar bonus etc.)
You will also notice that I have not been trying to interpret the spell since my third post, which is when I first mentioned this. It's a rewrite.
The point of the spell is to let both attackers roll 2d20 and use the better result on their attacks. Guaranteeing same initiative is necessary to make this simple.