The first character I wanted to build was a gnome rogue who picks up the ancestry feat for an attack cantrip (acid splash/electric arc). Always enjoyed the idea of sneak attacks with weapon-like spells, but it just wasn't super optimal in many cases in PF1.
Looking at SA in the playtest guide, it seems as though spells that have attack rolls are no longer allowed to be used with SA. The rules text indicates that SA activates when making a Strike action. The Strike text points specifically to wielded weapons for its use.
Can someone clarify, either to affirm that SA doesn't work or indicate how it does?
Also - Do touch attacks count as unarmed?
Natural attacks appear to be. But I’m away from my laptop so can’tt check this atm.
No, but it is because "touch" refers to the type of AC you are targeting with the attack. "Unarmed" is a specific...weapon (?) that you can use when you attack with fists (feet, knees, elbows, etc).
From the book: "Melee touch attacks have the finesse trait (see page 182)." This would leave me to believe that they should count for Sneak attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, A goblin rogue with the sneaky and burn it ancestry feat who gets the produce flame cantrip (which can be used as a melee and ranged weapon) can cause some serious havoc.
From the book: "Melee touch attacks have the finesse trait (see page 182)." This would leave me to believe that they should count for Sneak attacks.
Good to know. Final piece for the good-to-go would be to know if the bit about the Strike action in the SA rules is incorrect/out-of-date, only applies to melee abilities, or there's some nuance that I'm missing.
Does this have a definitive answer? I've been seeing a lot of disagreement on it. I would really like for this verbiage to be clarified. I haven't seen any discussion on it since August.
Does this have a definitive answer? I've been seeing a lot of disagreement on it. I would really like for this verbiage to be clarified. I haven't seen any discussion on it since August.
No definitive answer, as far as I can tell, but here are the competing arguments for and against:
As listed upthread, Spell attacks are either ranged (so sneak attack worthy) or unarmed finesse attacks (also sneak attack worthy), so on those grounds they should count.
However p197 seems to nix the notion of spell sneak attacks:
Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal
any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.
On the one hand, it could be argued that this does not apply to sneak attack damage, as you could argue that this wording would also apply to things like conditional bonuses to damage, such as from dangerous sorcery or the like. Or there's also the argument that this only applies to extra sources of damage (e.g. you don't get to both get a fist attack and the spell attack from your melee touch attack), and since sneak attack only adds damage to the attack, rather than being a second instance of damage (despite not being typed as a bonus), that p197's statement about not dealing additional damage does not apply.
Neither of these arguments are especially compelling for me, as I look at it as the case of specific beats general, in that the most general is sneak attack, which says that you add this damage under certain circumstances with certain weapons. More specific than that p197 states that spells don't do extra damage outside of what it lists, which is still more general than effects that apply a conditional bonus to spell damage.
Alright, that's kind of where I was landing as well. I still find the whole verbiage about "magic attacks" and "ranged magic attacks" to be what conflates this whole nonsense. It does sadden me though that now both D&D and Pathfinder have seemingly done away with spells and sneak attacks (Arcane Trickster).
Though at least in Pathfinder 2e the chance for a Prestige class bringing it back is there. Thanks again for the info!
It's pretty clear that you can sneak attack with some spells, given that melee touch attacks are treated as finesse weapons and ranged touch attacks qualify automatically - however, you'll be limited in how often you can pull these off due to a lack of silent spell (careful spell still needs talking).
I'd argue that sneak attack is a more specific rule than pg 197, so it works on the specific trumps general concept, but I could see someone arguing the opposite.
While much of what you posted is true, I want to highlight the area of the rulebook that muddles the whole "spells aren't strikes" point. On Page 305:
STRIDING AND STRIKING
Two of the simplest actions you'll most commonly use...
...
Strike is an action with the attack trait that allows you to attack with a weapon you're wielding or an unarmed attack (such as with a fist).
Now that can be read one of two ways, that it's saying the Strike action specifically is an action with the attack trait, or actions with the attack trait are a Strike. If it was meant to be the former, it really should read as "The Strike action allows you to attack..."
Now even if you read it the latter way, (which I honestly think is incorrect), spells are Activities, not Actions. But what conflates this is that spells have Attack traits of their own, and nowhere in the Spells section does it explicitly explain what the Attack trait means.
It does say that some spells require spell attacks (which I assume is where this trait comes from). But then the Somatic Action really already covers that (also, as that is an Action which gives you an attack... is that now a Strike under the latter interpretation?).
I think that this is likely where the most confusion comes from, that people are having a hard time differentiating "melee attack/ranged attack" from "Strike".
But personally, I will always read the rules in the least opportunistic way as to not "lawyer" them to my benefit. Still doesn't change my sadness at not being able to have a sneaky caster get the drop on someone with a spell for some bonus damage (rewarding careful and intelligent play).
Strike is a specific action.
As an example, Strike has specific critical effects, while an "attack" does not.
Your bonded part just says that Strike (action) has the attack (trait). Not that all things with the attack trait are Strikes.
I agree with that, but I still think this needs to be made more explicit. A simple entry in the Sneak Attack feature or even under the Strike action of "Spell attacks do not count as Strikes." would put a nail in the coffin, though.