8
\$\begingroup\$

The Monks "Ki Strike" Class Feat gives you access to the Power "Ki Strike", and says the following:

This power is a type of special spell you can cast by spending Spell Points

The section on powers (page 193) says that

Most characters who gain powers from a class feature cast them using Spell Points.

But the Ki Strike Power itself does not list a cost in its description. The Ki Blast Power does not specify a cost, either, but the Ki Blast Feat (from the Monk) does:

You can unleash an impactful cone of force by channeling your ki. You gain the ki blast ki power (see page 234), which you can cast by spending 2 Spell Points. Increase your Spell Point pool by 2.

This leads me to think that "Ki Strike" does not cost any Spell Points to use. Is that assumption correct? If not, how many Spell Points does Ki Strike cost, and where do I find that information?

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

RAW: it costs 1 spell point now.

Paizo released another errata which you can access even though they are down.

  • Page 99—In Ki Strike, at the end of the third sentence, add “, which you can cast at a cost of 1 Spell Point”. In the second paragraph, change “When you use Ki Strike” to “When you select Ki Strike”

Ki strike now costs 1 spell point to use.


Prior to the errata, it had no cost

There was no rule stating a minimum spell point cost for all powers (some sections like the sorcerer bloodlines state a minimum cost for the powers they grant, monk lacks this), and since the feat had no cost listed to use it, it was free to use (aside from being a verbal free action, which could provoke people and monsters with the right feats).

This was likely an oversight, but it could have been intentional given this wasn't updated in the first errata to the Playtest Rulebook, and they may have wanted to playtest it to see how it ran.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ You might alternately want to link directly to the update document (v1.1) here: paizo.com/download/PZO2102%20001-029-1.pdf \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 28 '18 at 5:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also (as I suggested in the meta discussion), you should either edit out the old version of the answer, or merge it more naturally with the body text rather than just leaving it struck through and hard to read. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 28 '18 at 5:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast is right on. Try to blend the previous answer's text so that it complements the new information—something like If you're playing without the errata or Prior to the release of the errata. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Aug 28 '18 at 11:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alright, will do so \$\endgroup\$ – william porter Aug 28 '18 at 12:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast I would, but I'd rather not link directly to a download link as that could give people the wrong idea. Also when it's updated again, that link probably wouldn't work. \$\endgroup\$ – william porter Aug 28 '18 at 12:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.