So my group got one of our books and looking through it, I see a confusion point unresolved from the playtest. Certain spells have the Attack Trait but make no mention of any attack roll to be made. This includes Abyssal plague, Chill touch, Death Knell, Ghoulish Cravings, Goblin Pox, Mariner's Curse, Outcastes Curse, Spider Sting, Savor the Sting, Touch of Undeath, and Force Bolt. Each spell makes no mention of making any attack, but has the attack trait and has saving throw (with the exception of force bolt) and is usually touch range. So does the attack trait imply that you have to make an attack? Cause if that is the case, force bolt, which is basically a single magic missile, doesn't make any sense. But on the other hand, spells like spider sting would be automatically dealing piercing damage with no mitigation without any attack rolls.
And if the attack trait makes the spell require an attack roll, should it be a spell attack, since nothing says that spell attacks are the default.
Also, since most a touch spells, I copied out the following from the book on touch spells an attack rolls
"You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll"
Also, if spider sting has the attack trait, probably so should purple worm sting
Attack trait and touch range -> touch attack
attack trait and range -> ranged touch attack
It's as easy as that
And afaik all spells attacks are made by a casting attribute + prohphiciency roll, which is standard for the spell
You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll
means that you can automatically touch targets which are willing/not putting up resistance, the spell specifies the need for an attack roll through the attack tag, if there is no tag the target has to make a resistance check
And Purple worm sting has the attack tag in the playtest, it is probably an oversight
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells with the attack trait do break invisibility, I think. That would be important for something like Force Bolt.
One thing the attack trait is probably still doing even if it doesn't require an attack roll (I am agnostic on that point without the book) is upping your multiple attack penalty for any follow on attacks you make in that round.
Attack trait and touch range -> touch attack
attack trait and range -> ranged touch attackIt's as easy as that
And afaik all spells attacks are made by a casting attribute + prohphiciency roll, which is standard for the spell
You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack rollmeans that you can automatically touch targets which are willing/not putting up resistance, the spell specifies the need for an attack roll through the attack tag, if there is no tag the target has to make a resistance check
And Purple worm sting has the attack tag in the playtest, it is probably an oversight
I would like a reference for the claims you are making here, because I cannot find anything supporting your claims in the CRB. In particular, why would you assume that the quote regarding touch spells should be restricted to willing targets when this is mentioned nowhere in the paragraph in question?
I do not think that the attack trait automatically implies any sort of attack roll. For instance, the Force Bolt spell has the attack trait and specifically states it does not require a roll. All the other attack spells mentioned allow saves to reduce or negate their effects (except minor ones like the 1d4 piercing damage from Spider Sting, which I see no problem with being automatic).
Regarding invisibility: the attack trait is not relevant for this. There is a small section on hostile actions in the spell chapter, and it does not mention the trait.
As far as I can tell, the only effect the attack trait has, using RAW, is that it increases your multiple attack penalty. I am not sure of the reasoning behind this for spells that do not require attack rolls, but it does mean that you should always use these *after* making any other attacks you wanted to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look in the index, it says the following under Attack (trait).
"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."
As far as I'm concerned, that simply means that it's ideal as your last attack each round if it doesn't call for an attack roll.
Edit: Beaten to it!
|
Attack trait and touch range -> touch attack
attack trait and range -> ranged touch attackIt's as easy as that
And afaik all spells attacks are made by a casting attribute + prohphiciency roll, which is standard for the spell
You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack rollmeans that you can automatically touch targets which are willing/not putting up resistance, the spell specifies the need for an attack roll through the attack tag, if there is no tag the target has to make a resistance check
And Purple worm sting has the attack tag in the playtest, it is probably an oversight
I would like a reference for the claims you are making here, because I cannot find anything supporting your claims in the CRB. In particular, why would you assume that the quote regarding touch spells should be restricted to willing targets when this is mentioned nowhere in the paragraph in question?
I do not think that the attack trait automatically implies any sort of attack roll. For instance, the Force Bolt spell has the attack trait and specifically states it does not require a roll. All the other attack spells mentioned allow saves to reduce or negate their effects (except minor ones like the 1d4 piercing damage from Spider Sting, which I see no problem with being automatic).
Regarding invisibility: the attack trait is not relevant for this. There is a small section on hostile actions in the spell chapter, and it does not mention the trait.
As far as I can tell, the only effect the attack trait has, using RAW, is that it increases your multiple attack penalty. I am not sure of the reasoning behind this for spells that do not require attack rolls, but it does mean that you should always use these *after* making any other attacks you wanted to use.
I think Seisho is going by his knowledge of 1E. If the target is willing he's saying you can usually hit automatically, but if they are unwilling, you need to make an attack, either a roll to hit or they make a save. And it makes perfect sense that an Attack trait on a spell should end Invisibility as it did in 1E (unless it was Improved Invisibility). If 2E has the same restriction, it would make perfect sense to say that any spell with the Attack Trait ends Invisibility.
I closed the book, but I did look up Invisibility and it mentioned that hostile actions ended the spell, so I'm pretty sure that anything using the Attack trait would qualify.
|
|
I closed the book, but I did look up Invisibility and it mentioned that hostile actions ended the spell, so I'm pretty sure that anything using the Attack trait would qualify.
I wonder if there is still any way to get the Improved version from 1E? I rather hope not, because in our Pathfinder game, our Sorcerer can just use Imp Inv. and start Fireballing giants while flying 800' away and they have practically no defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if there is still any way to get the Improved version from 1E? I rather hope not, because in our Pathfinder game, our Sorcerer can just use Imp Inv. and start Fireballing giants while flying 800' away and they have practically no defense.
Alas for you, you can. It drops the duration to 1 minute, and is a 4th level spell. However, the reduced number of spells of each level will curtail the strategy somewhat, as will Fireball having a flat 500 foot range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I closed the book, but I did look up Invisibility and it mentioned that hostile actions ended the spell, so I'm pretty sure that anything using the Attack trait would qualify.
This is true, but it should be noted that an action does not need to have the Attack trait to break Invisibility. Hostile actions and actions with the attack trait are different things.