|
The sidebar on page 298 about spell attack rolls says "However, note that the spell attack roll doesn’t gain any bonuses or penalties that apply specifically to weapon attacks or unarmed attacks."
So by strict reading of the text you are questioning, the inclusion of "using a weapon" prevents spell attack rolls from gaining this penalty... and I would also say they lose the option to be used to make a nonlethal attack unless the spell explicitly is nonlethal.
But that's being informed by my bias against huge surges of magical energy harness for explicitly lethal effect being not just big spikes of damage, but also easily improvised into another effect too. For example, why bother learning the sleep spell if you can achieve the same thing with a spell that can also do something else?
Alternatively if you went through the trouble of learning to harness this magical power why would you not learn how to direct to an area that wouldn't kill the target, like the appendages? As long as you are making an attack roll I don't see why you can't.
Those type of spells also have the attack trait meaning they would suffer other penalties that weapons would normally incur because of MAP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow PCs to make their Spells non-lethal by either taking a -2 Penalty to the Attack Roll, or reducing the DC of the required Save by 2.
That's probably not strictly by the book, but it seems unfair to allow non-lethal arrow strikes, but not non-lethal lightning strikes.
The book is a little hazy
I concur, but with a book this thick it's no wonder... I still think the book is 99.98% well written though ;)
p453 The first sentence says that you can make a non-lethal attack without specifying a weapon requirement (even though the next three sentences all reference weapons)
I don't think this is "hazy" though, Attack Rolls are described p446 and are divided between Melee Attack Rolls and Ranged Attack Rolls. Spells Attack Rolls got their own entry (p447) separate to Attack Rolls, thus when you refer to an Attack Roll you can't compare it to a Spell Attack Roll.
In fact there's only two types of attack rolls in the Game :
- One called "Attack Roll" which consist of "Melee Attack Rolls" and "Ranged Attack Rolls".
- And the other is the "Spell Attack Roll" (for which there's no difference between Melee or Ranged, the same rule apply). To which Multiple Attack penalty does NOT apply for example, since it's not an Attack Roll and the MAP rule is specifically in the Attack Roll entry.
The "hazy" part is when they say "make an attack" where they should say "make an Attack Roll" if it's intended to be used only with weapons, or "make ANY attack roll" (or maybe simply "make any attack" if they want to the rule to be for weapons and spells).
Though since the Spell Attack is listed in this entry you can infer that an Attack refer to both "Attack Roll" and "Spell Attack Roll"...
p658 says that Attacks use Strike or other Attack Actions
p628 ;) Usually you can't use a "resume" of the rules in the appendix (this is in the Glossary and Index part) as a rule, you have to read the "real" rules, the detailed ones... But since there's no other definition of what an Attack is in the entire books then you I think you're right to take this rule.
Thus, a literal reading would seem to be that if a spell has the attack trait, it should be possible to make it non-lethal. Produce Flame allows you to make a melee attack with the flame in your hand and has the attack trait. Spiritual Weapon is another example
A corollary is that nothing in the rules allows spells that do not have the Attack trait to be made non-lethal. Thus, it does not appear possible to make a Fireball non-lethal.
Do I think that the designers intended that only physical weapons (not spell manifestations) could be made non-lethal? Probably, but that is not the way the rules are written
Since nothing other than the Glossary and Index part define what an attack is, and since this entry do list the Spell Attack Roll as being an attack it seems that per RAW you are right.
Granted, if they wanted the "nonlethal attack" to be weapon only, to be less "hazy" they should have said "Attack Roll" in the nonlethal attack definition ... ;)
The book is a little hazyI concur, but with a book this thick it's no wonder... I still think the book is 99.98% well written though ;)
p453 The first sentence says that you can make a non-lethal attack without specifying a weapon requirement (even though the next three sentences all reference weapons)I don't think this is "hazy" though, Attack Rolls are described p446 and are divided between Melee Attack Rolls and Ranged Attack Rolls. Spells Attack Rolls got their own entry (p447) separate to Attack Rolls, thus when you refer to an Attack Roll you can't compare it to a Spell Attack Roll.
In fact there's only two types of attack rolls in the Game :
- One called "Attack Roll" which consist of "Melee Attack Rolls" and "Ranged Attack Rolls".
- And the other is the "Spell Attack Roll" (for which there's no difference between Melee or Ranged, the same rule apply). To which Multiple Attack penalty does NOT apply for example, since it's not an Attack Roll and the MAP rule is specifically in the Attack Roll entry.The "hazy" part is when they say "make an attack" where they should say "make an Attack Roll" if it's intended to be used only with weapons, or "make ANY attack roll" (or maybe simply "make any attack" if they want to the rule to be for weapons and spells).
Though since the Spell Attack is listed in this entry you can infer that an Attack refer to both "Attack Roll" and "Spell Attack Roll"...p658 says that Attacks use Strike or other Attack Actionsp628 ;) Usually you can't use a "resume" of the rules in the appendix (this is in the Glossary and Index part) as a rule, you have to read the "real" rules, the detailed ones... But since there's no other definition of what an Attack is in the entire books then you I think you're right to take this rule.
Thus, a literal reading would seem to be that if a spell has the attack trait, it should be possible to make it non-lethal....
This is incorrect. Not only are Spell Attack Rolls Attacks, which do suffer MAP, they are specifically called out as one of the 3 primary types.
Attack Rolls
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page....
Multiple attack penalty
The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.
Also, Attack is specifically defined as anything with the Attack Trait.
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. 12, 446–447
This is incorrect. Not only are Spell Attack Rolls Attacks, which do suffer MAP, they are specifically called out as one of the 3 primary types.
Also, Attack is specifically defined as anything with the Attack Trait.
Oooh I stand corrected... Thank you for pointing that out, I would have misread that if not for you since Attack Roll and Spell Attack Roll are separated... ;)
Once again I just regret there's no chapter where something as important as the Trait are summarized and defined... (Searching for "Trait" in the PDF give too much response and searching for Attack Trait gives nothing, thanks for pointing out that if I search for a Trait I have to put parenthesis :) )
And the Spell Attack Roll should not be separated from the Attack Roll...
So it's even MORE right that you should be able to do nonlethal damage with attack spells and if they wanted to do it otherwise they should have precised "Weapon Nonlethal Damage" as the paragraph title... :)
And, thank you again for pointing this out for me, whenever they say "attack" somewhere then it applies to "Spell Attack Roll" too...
That's why I love this forum, it can really help you comprehend the rules... Keep up the good work everyone (and thanks again Aratorin for correcting me ;) )
Though without the reading of the Attack Trait you can infer there's no MAP since the entry specify "Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page." which does not have any MAP rules...
Once again proving that a real chapter on Trait should be made, you're not supposed to read all the Glossary and Index to understand the rules and especially if you have to search for "attack (trait)" instead of "attack trait" to find it... ;)
How do nonlethal spell attacks work? Page 453 says, "You can make a nonlethal attack in an effort to knock someone out instead of killing them (see Knocked Out and Dying on page 459). Weapons with the nonlethal trait (including fists) do this automatically. You take a –2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll when you make a nonlethal attack using a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait. You also take this penalty when making a lethal attack using a nonlethal weapon."
I can see this working in one of two ways. Either a spell attack roll can be made nonlethal at no penalty (because spell attack rolls are not weapons), or a spell attack roll cannot be made nonlethal. Which is the case?
I think you forgot a case.
1) Spells can be made nonlethal without penalty because the penalty for making things nonlethal only applies to weapon attacks.
2) Spells cannot be made nonlethal at all.
3) Spells can be made nonlethal by taking the -2 penalty.
Justification for option 3 is that the text can be read that way too.
You take a –2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll when you make a nonlethal attack using a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait.
Since spells are not weapons with the nonlethal trait, then they would take the -2 penalty to their attack rolls.
As opposed to the reading that justifies option 1
You take a –2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll only when you make a nonlethal attack using a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait.
|
Put me down for "undefined, the CRB doesn't really say". You can infer some things but they're too shaky to say that it's clearly possible, impossible, with a penalty, or without a penalty.
I'm also having some trouble imagining a lot of spells applied nonlethally. How do you nonlethally roast someone in a fireball? I'd like my bandits medium rare?
That said, I would like casters to have good nonlethal options. Subduing enemies without killing, either out of mercy, or because it's required by local law, because they're misguided/mind-controlled, or because you want to interrogate them, those are all things that have interesting story potential. So I would like it to be feasible. Right now, only incapacitation spells (yeesh) and Daze come to mind, or weakening an enemy and hoping a melee combatant strikes the final blow.
If a Merciful Spell metamagic existed that allowed you to cast nonlethally at no penalty, I might take that feat on several characters.
Put me down for "undefined, the CRB doesn't really say". You can infer some things but they're too shaky to say that it's clearly possible, impossible, with a penalty, or without a penalty.
I'm also having some trouble imagining a lot of spells applied nonlethally. How do you nonlethally roast someone in a fireball? I'd like my bandits medium rare?
The same way Roy Mustang did to Terrorist leader Bald.
|
I feel that only weapons can be used to deal non-lethal damage. It does not make sense that a fireball would not do lethal damage, or a magic missile, or a ray of frost...
The list goes on.
I will hang my hat on the the wording that only weapons can do non-lethal and that no where does it say that spells can be made non-lethal.
Maybe if a meta-magic feat comes out, than ok. But I don't recall a meta-magic feat like that in 1e. There could be as I didn't play many casters, and certainly none to high enough level, to know for certain.