best persistent ocular supernatural spell buffs?

[sleepyphoenixx]

A) With combat reflexes, you still deliver a negative level to whoever happens to be within 20 feet of you. You don't need to trip them.

My point is that every "beatstick" (to me generally meaning a non-caster, str-focused fighter) will already have his own tricks,
the most common of which (because it's the most effective core-only/non-ToB melee strategy) is tripping. They're build for it.
They've also usually invested feats and plenty of gold into their weapon, all of which using Thunderlance invalidates.

You're replacing a move they've build around for a different trick (that they mostly could already do on their own, you only add Fell Drain). That's not a buff to me, that's a waste of resources.
Sure, Fell Drain on every hit is nice, but you're also nerfing their damage (possibly quite significantly). And i've yet to find a melee player who liked having his damage nerfed.

B) Enlarge Person + Reach Weapon is far inferior. Unless the character is specifically build with shorten grip (which is an oddly specific feat to take, for specific builds) you only threaten the spaces on the far end of your reach, as opposed to the whole area. Even with it, the Enlarged Person does not threaten the space they occupy.

Most people just use a Guisarme + Spiked Gauntlet/Armor Spikes if they don't spring for EWP:Spiked Chain. There is no valid mechanical reason to ever take Shorten Grip (or any other feat) to deal with this issue.

C) Again with triping. Don't tunel vision on a single trick. There are a lot of excelent maneuvers that don't rely on triping the opponent. Unless you mean something different than ToB maneuvers? 'Cause that's what people refear to as maneuvers generally.

Sorry, miscommunication. I'm talking about the special attacks available to non-ToB melee (bull rush, grappling, tripping, charge, disarm basically).
Of which tripping is generally the most effective and widely applicable.

Though most ToB builds i've seen that aren't TWF Swordsages try to fit it in their build as well, especially Crusaders because of the synergy with Thicket of Blades.

[gijoemike]

I think that's a consequence of humanoid-centred design more than any conscious design decision. At best, it's circumstantial evidence, which isn't enough to determine RAW. Magic weapon provides circumstantial evidence that natural weapons are weapons: if they weren't, there'd be no need to specifically call out that magic weapon doesn't work on them.

I mean, if your DM ruled against it, that may be it, but I don't think it's borne out by the rules.

Actually I think they are different based on your own example. Here is the text of magic weapon. Also this weird snippet of text is where the entire argument is born from. The argument is stupid

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls).

You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

An unarmed attack is a natural weapon and thus isn't valid for Magic Weapon. EXCEPT!!! monks unarmed strike is considered a weapon. The text clearly defines weapon and natural weapon to be different distinctions. Are they subsets or supersets of one another? Lets think this through logically.

If [manufactured] weapons are a subset of natural weapons then the spell natural weapon should work on them. They are called out as not. So it concludes that natural weapons are a subset of weapons. That makes more sense anyway

If natural weapons are a subset of weapons then magic weapon should work on them. Except there is a clause that prevents that. OK, magic weapon just doesn't work on natural weapons, fine.

So natural weapons are a subset of weapons that are targeted by Magic Fang.
Weapons are a superset that includes Natural Weapons and the spell Magic Weapon excludes the subset of Natural Weapons.

<---- Up to this point we are fine and dandy --->


Finally we have the STUPIDITY of the monk's unarmed strike clause.
Why the heck does that exist. If a monk's weapon is both a natural weapon and weapon then weapons/natural weapons cannot be sub/super sets of each other. So many people have a final conclusion of a VIN DIAGRAM. Natural weapons on one side, Weapons on the other and the only thing in the middle is a monk's unarmed strike.



Lets look at Weapon Focus. Text is from D&D tools and d20srd
Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You are especially good at using this weapon. (If you have chosen ray, you are especially good with rays, such as the one produced by the ray of frost spell.)


This makes no sense. Why is grapple and ray allowed? Please not that unarmed strike is called out as an exception as it is a natural weapon which is implied not allowed. If natural weapons were allowed this clause wouldn't be needed.

THEREFORE, as stupid as this Sounds Natural Weapons are NOT weapons and it is backed up by multiple clauses in the PHB.


The monster manual is full of contradictory info on this. There are dozens of examples of weapon focus(bite) or wf(claw). The intent of the rule and wording in early D&D had to be different than it was later on. So ask your DM.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Finally we have the STUPIDITY of the monk's unarmed strike clause. [...] If a monk's weapon is both a natural weapon and weapon then weapons/natural weapons cannot be sub/super sets of each other [...]

First: The monk ability specifically lets monks treat their unarmed strike as manufactured weapon, not as a "weapon".
Second: If the monk ability let you treat your unarmed strike as a "weapon", it wouldn't cause any problems. It would just be redundant. You can already treat unarmed strikes like weapons.
Third: When given the choice between "natural weapons aren't weapons" and "the monk's unarmed strike ability is stupid", I will go with the second one, every time. WotC editors make mistakes, no doubt about it, but they are a hell of a lot more likely to mess up in one specific class ability than consistently mess up calling natural weapons natural weapons and giving out Weapon Focus with them.