Hi all! Just to confirm: I was reading Spiritual Weapon and says "uses and contributes to your multiple attack penalty". I suppose that means that if you attack with your weapon and then uses SW to make a second attack (or viceversa) you'll get a -5 in the second attack. So now every time you attack it will count for the purposes of the MAP. Is this correct?
Correct.
A related question.
Some spells have the attack trait but call for a saving throw instead of a spell attack roll.
Does multiple attack penalty apply to spell DCs in such cases? Was that RAI even if it isn't RAW?
A related question.
Some spells have the attack trait but call for a saving throw instead of a spell attack roll.
Does multiple attack penalty apply to spell DCs in such cases? Was that RAI even if it isn't RAW?
No and no. It just means you should strike before a saving throw spell with the attack trait rather than after it.
No and no. It just means you should strike before a saving throw spell with the attack trait rather than after it.A related question.
Some spells have the attack trait but call for a saving throw instead of a spell attack roll.
Does multiple attack penalty apply to spell DCs in such cases? Was that RAI even if it isn't RAW?
I think your right that it doesn't RAW but I think there is a mistake somewhere. Probably they shouldn't have the attack trait at all.
It doesn't make sense why a few save spells have the attack trait if it doesn't apply to them. All the other save spells like Fireball and Lightning bolt don't have the attack trait but Chill Touch does? Feels like a mistake leftover from when chill touch was a touch attack roll.
Similarly there are also a few spells which require a spell attack which don't have the attack trait, Polar ray doesn't have an attack trait but searing light does. Again feels like a mistake and spells which have spell attacks should have the attack traits and ones that don't should not.
|
Something like invisibility will break if you do anything with the Attack trait too, so having the Attack trait is indicative of more things than just determining MAP.
Something like invisibility will break if you do anything with the Attack trait too, so having the Attack trait is indicative of more things than just determining MAP.
Check your link there is no mention of the attack trait on that page. It says "hostile action". If it was just the attack trait than chill touch or a strike would break invisibility but Fireball wouldn't.
P. 446 says that Attack actions have Attack rolls (either melee, ranged, or spell)
I think the traits on spells are just typos/errata.
Everything that has an attack roll should have the attack trait, everything that doesn't, shouldn't.
Yah. That sounds right to me. At least for now that will be my house rule.
|
|
P. 446 says that Attack actions have Attack rolls (either melee, ranged, or spell)
I think the traits on spells are just typos/errata.
Everything that has an attack roll should have the attack trait, everything that doesn't, shouldn't.
Attack actions have attack rolls.
Cast a Spell is not an attack action.Just because something has the Attack trait does not mean it is part of an Attack action. The trait itself makes no mention of needing to make an actual attack roll, it simply states that it affects MAP.
In addition, the index states that "Most attacks require an attack roll" suggesting there is room for attacks that don't require a roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Polar Ray example reminds me that I think I posted about similar issues in the playtest potential errata thread. I guess they decided they didn't care in the time they had available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I read it, in regards to chill touch, it’s because unlike casting Magic Missiles or Fireball casting Chill Touch (per the attack trait) doesn’t provoke AoO. Or do you think I’m way off on that?
All spells with somatic or material components provoke AoO because those components have the manipulate trait.