Hand of the Apprentice uses a spell attack roll. Would it gain the +1 to hit if the weapon used were a +1 striking weapon?
I initially assumed that it would, but now I'm reading on page 305 under Spell Attacks
Spell attack rolls benefit from any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, including your multiple attack penalty, but not any special benefits or penalties that apply only to weapon or unarmed attacks
So now I'm not so sure. I'd still say that extra damage from a striking rune would apply, and I'm leaning toward saying the item bonus to hit would also apply but I'd like to hear other interpretations
Because Potency runes give a bonus to weapon attack rolls I would say it does not apply to a spell attack. However, the damage from a striking rune would apply because Hand of the Apprentice does damage as if you hit with a melee strike attack. There is a stipulation in the Spell Attack rules that says if the spell asks for a different kind of attack such as a weapon strike, then use the normal rules and bonuses for that type of attack.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
vermines1 wrote: Because Potency runes give a bonus to weapon attack rolls I would say it does not apply to a spell attack. However, the damage from a striking rune would apply because Hand of the Apprentice does damage as if you hit with a melee strike attack. There is a stipulation in the Spell Attack rules that says if the spell asks for a different kind of attack such as a weapon strike, then use the normal rules and bonuses for that type of attack. There isn't actually such a thing as a "Weapon Attack Roll". There are melee, ranged and spell attack rolls.
Under Weapon Potency (p. 581), it says,
"attack rolls with this weapon gain a +1 item bonus"
So it's not actually specifying the type of attack roll. In this case, you are using a spell to attack with the weapon. So the attack roll is a "spell attack roll", yes. But you are also most definitely attacking with the weapon.
The more I read and consider, the more I'd say the attack bonus applies.
I was thinking about this on my morning dog walk, and also wondered how it is you could apply the striking but not potency runes. I'm also thinking that maybe you can. It puts the wizard on the same footing as a basic, no feat fighter for 1-2 attacks per encounter, usually with an inferior and underused and so underinvested weapon, so I don't think there's a huge balance concern, even with regular True Strike boosting.
Very tempted to do a staff of divination and magical pick build on a dwarf or fighter MC if potency runes do apply.
Xenocrat wrote: I was thinking about this on my morning dog walk, and also wondered how it is you could apply the striking but not potency runes. I'm also thinking that maybe you can. It puts the wizard on the same footing as a basic, no feat fighter for 1-2 attacks per encounter, usually with an inferior and underused and so underinvested weapon, so I don't think there's a huge balance concern, even with regular True Strike boosting.
Very tempted to do a staff of divination and magical pick build on a dwarf or fighter MC if potency runes do apply.
Agreed
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Dwarf pick slinger via True Strike + Hand of Apprentice was my first theorycraft build. I see no by-rules reason why either rune wouldn’t apply; you are attacking with the weapon, just using your spell attack as the roll. The spell literally says damage is as if you hit with a melee strike with the only noted exception is use casting stat to damage. As you’re talking 1-2 attacks per encounter, and it’s not like the damage is high evocation tier, don’t see why it would be a huge balance issue. Just a neato flavorful attack IMHO. It’s the massive upside of crit-fishing the pick with True Strike that can really spike damage.
The only real balance concern I see is that this might actually be the absolute best use of a focus spell in combat (across maybe all classes, even).
Do you think that you apply the Fatal trait of the Pike weapon (or any trait that could apply for that matter?) to the Hand of the Apprentice?
Because it make sense for some of them, but for other like a propulsive weapon or a thrown weapon, by the rules it would add STR over the INT bonus. So I can see it working for some weapon, and not for others, and so I think that it probably does not work. Imagine a Hand with Lance as you moved 10ft before on a mount, it would not make any sense RAI, but RAW if Hand apply the weapon traits, you would gain the bonus from joust.
Any opinions?
SteelGuts wrote: Do you think that you apply the Fatal trait of the Pike weapon (or any trait that could apply for that matter?) to the Hand of the Apprentice?
Because it make sense for some of them, but for other like a propulsive weapon or a thrown weapon, by the rules it would add STR over the INT bonus. So I can see it working for some weapon, and not for others, and so I think that it probably does not work. Imagine a Hand with Lance as you moved 10ft before on a mount, it would not make any sense RAI, but RAW if Hand apply the weapon traits, you would gain the bonus from joust.
Any opinions?
Hand of the Apprentice is specifically for melee weapons, not propulsive/thrown weapons.
Regarding the lance jousting trait, that sounds like silliness that obviously is not intended and should not be allowed by any sensible GM, IMO.
mrspaghetti wrote: SteelGuts wrote: Do you think that you apply the Fatal trait of the Pike weapon (or any trait that could apply for that matter?) to the Hand of the Apprentice?
Because it make sense for some of them, but for other like a propulsive weapon or a thrown weapon, by the rules it would add STR over the INT bonus. So I can see it working for some weapon, and not for others, and so I think that it probably does not work. Imagine a Hand with Lance as you moved 10ft before on a mount, it would not make any sense RAI, but RAW if Hand apply the weapon traits, you would gain the bonus from joust.
Any opinions?
Hand of the Apprentice is specifically for melee weapons, not propulsive/thrown weapons.
Regarding the lance jousting trait, that sounds like silliness that obviously is not intended and should not be allowed by any sensible GM, IMO. So you would allow the fatal trait to work with Hand? And would allow a Sweep trait from two Hand of the Apprentice in the same round?
Just curious.
SteelGuts wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: SteelGuts wrote: Do you think that you apply the Fatal trait of the Pike weapon (or any trait that could apply for that matter?) to the Hand of the Apprentice?
Because it make sense for some of them, but for other like a propulsive weapon or a thrown weapon, by the rules it would add STR over the INT bonus. So I can see it working for some weapon, and not for others, and so I think that it probably does not work. Imagine a Hand with Lance as you moved 10ft before on a mount, it would not make any sense RAI, but RAW if Hand apply the weapon traits, you would gain the bonus from joust.
Any opinions?
Hand of the Apprentice is specifically for melee weapons, not propulsive/thrown weapons.
Regarding the lance jousting trait, that sounds like silliness that obviously is not intended and should not be allowed by any sensible GM, IMO. So you would allow the fatal trait to work with Hand? And would allow a Sweep trait from two Hand of the Apprentice in the same round?
Just curious. Fatal, yes. Sweep, no because that would seem to be intended for multiple melee attacks on nearby enemies, not those 500 feet away. The second attack with Hand would not seem to have any bearing in that case.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
