Talk:Arcane Strike (5e Spell)

Hello, fellow wikian! I like the concept of making a brawling spellcaster, but unfortunately, the current version might be a bit too strong, perhaps? Here's why I thought so:

• Abusal Potentials. While I think that the current version is actually very good execution, the problem is mainly because of the risk of abuse by multitasking. I can already imagine that if this spell is implemented in game, chances are non-spellcasters will find a way or two to get access to this spell, and since this is a cantrip, which can be learned from a single multiclassing or Magic Initiate feat ^(PHB), it won't be too hard at all. The upshot is ridiculously increased damage output, which will be more than enough to cause some mayhem in the game. I don't think such mayhem is intentional, which is why I can think of a way or two to avoid it:

• Cantrip? From what I see, this spell looks great, but maybe a bit too great for a cantrip, which can be cast at will and does not require spell slots. For comparsion: true strike is also a cantrip that boosts weapon attack, but its effect ends when the concentration is broken (by the way, concentration is a good way to add more risks in a spell, and I recommend adding this simple risk.) and only affects a single attack.

• Scaling? While this spell looks nice and all, I think the extra weapon damage dice scaling with the level could be problematic, especially so considering the potential of abuse by non-spellcasters. My suggestion is: If you're going to keep this spell a cantrip, I think it could do without scaling, or with scaling but affects only one attack. If you're going to make this spell a 1st-level spell, I think the scaling (from using higher-level spell slots) is good to go.

• School of Magic? And this is somewhat trivial, but isn't Transmutation more suitable for this spell, rather than Evocation? To quote definition from 5e Transmutation Spells: "Transmutation spells change the properties of a creature, object, or environment. They might turn an enemy into a harmless creature, bolster the strength of an ally, make an object move at the caster's command, or enhance a creature's innate healing abilities to rapidly recover from injury."

Well, that's it for now. Oh, and I did some formatting cleanup to keep things clear as well. --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

Thanks for the comprehensive appraisal. The idea for the scaling damage was to emulate the damage of standard attack cantrips, applied to a weapon instead of cast independently; the trade-off for the increased damage being the mage exposing himself to the hazards of direct melee. I'd copied text directly from the 5e SRD:Fire Bolt spell, and took for granted that the requirement for the scaled damage was caster level instead of character level. I guess the original wording could serve as a loophole for technically-minded munchkins. Suppose we add a cost to this spell, make it a first level spell with a duration of one minute instead of one round? And thanks for the mention of Transmutation. That does make more sense, given that the spell description implies amplifying the weapon itself rather than adding flames or frost to the blade.--Sir Dinadan (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

The problem with the scaling damage is that it is extremely good for eldritch knights, and to a lesser extent arcane tricksters. It's just like the SCAG cantrips – you see eldritch knights and arcane tricksters using them more than you see wizards using them. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 19:15, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't "half casters" like eldritch knights and arcane tricksters only count half their levels as caster level?--Sir Dinadan (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

5e cantrips scale with character level, not class level. And EK/AT are 1/3 casters, not 1/2. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 19:31, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

Checked the modification - I saw that the spell is now a 1st-level spell. I did yet another modification because:

I see that you referred to the caster level, which is sadly now gone in 5th edition. In past edition, it was common to see the same 1st-level spell works differently when cast by a 1st-level spellcaster and 5th-level spellcaster. In 5th edition, not so much. All spells work exactly the same on a specific level of spell slots spent, regardless of spellcaster's level. Which is why I added the "At Higher Levels" paragraph. --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

Most spells, but not quite all. Only spells of level 1 or higher. Cantrips, by contrast, do scale with level. 5e SRD:Fire Bolt. As you've pointed out, there does indeed seem to be a loophole ripe for exploitation in the fact that the official text does not specify class level instead of character level.