So far as I can understand it, it appears that from the 2e rulebook that spells automatically succeed on being cast after the number of actions for them to be cast has been committed. If the spell is an attack, a roll will need to be made to see if the attack hits the desired target or misses.
If the attack roll for a spell fails for let's say a fireball, does that mean that the fireball is conjured but lands somewhere else? Possibly affecting different characters or the environment?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
You don't have that quite right. Fireball has the Attack trait, but does not require an attack roll.
The trait means that casting the spell increases your Multiple Attack Penalty, if you take an action after you cast the fireball, which DOES require an attack toll.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think there's just a massive wave of Typos going on in the spell section.
For now, the way I'm running the game is:
Everything with spell attack has the Attack trait
Everything without spell attack, doesn't.
It just make sense to me that this is the intent.
Fireball has no attack roll (it also doesn't have the attack trait). So you automatically succeed at casting the spell and everyone in the affected area rolls a reflex save to try and dodge instead.
Spells that need spell attacks have that explicitly called out. More commonly there is no spell attack roll and the defender rolls a save of some sort vs your spell DC instead.
shroudb wrote: I think there's just a massive wave of Typos going on in the spell section.
For now, the way I'm running the game is:
Everything with spell attack has the Attack trait
Everything without spell attack, doesn't.
It just make sense to me that this is the intent.
Can you post a couple examples of what you believe to be typos or errors? I think you may have a misunderstanding.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
It is correct that fireball does not have the attack trait (I assumed that it did, from the question, and only just double checked), so it doesn't interact with any attack rolls at all in any way.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
HammerJack wrote: You don't have that quite right. Fireball has the Attack trait, but does not require an attack roll.
The trait means that casting the spell increases your Multiple Attack Penalty, if you take an action after you cast the fireball, which DOES require an attack toll.
I do not think this is correct. Page 446 under Multiple Attack Penalty says every check that has the attack trait incurs the MAP. Casting a Fireball is not a check as the caster does not roll for it. Also, Fireball doesn't have the attack trait.
And of course, ninja'd.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I was assuming that it was a case like Chill Touch, which actually is a spell that has no attack roll, but has the attack trait (it didnt occur to me that someone would be asking about spell attack rolls for a spell with neither an attack roll nor the Attack trait). This does mean that if you cast chill touch, even though you make no check, you increase your MAP for subsequent actions.
page 446 wrote:
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.
Page 446 also says attack actions, not just checks.
mrspaghetti wrote: shroudb wrote: I think there's just a massive wave of Typos going on in the spell section.
For now, the way I'm running the game is:
Everything with spell attack has the Attack trait
Everything without spell attack, doesn't.
It just make sense to me that this is the intent.
Can you post a couple examples of what you believe to be typos or errors? I think you may have a misunderstanding. Chill touch: Attack Tag but it's saving throw based.
Death knell: same as above
Ghoulish cravings: same as above
Goblin Pox: same as above
Mariner's curse: same as above
Outcast curse: same as above
Spider Sting: same as above
Disintegrate: spell attack but no Attack trait.
Polar ray: same as above
Tanglefoot: same as above
my pet theory is that when they rebalanced the spells after the playtest, and decided that "touch attacks" are automatic and etc (since most of the 1st category are touch range) they forgot to remove the Attack trait when they removed the Spell attack roll.
Similarly, when they changed a few spells from Save to Spell attack, they forgot to add the trait.
shroudb wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: shroudb wrote: I think there's just a massive wave of Typos going on in the spell section.
For now, the way I'm running the game is:
Everything with spell attack has the Attack trait
Everything without spell attack, doesn't.
It just make sense to me that this is the intent.
Can you post a couple examples of what you believe to be typos or errors? I think you may have a misunderstanding. Chill touch: Attack Tag but it's saving throw based.
Death knell: same as above
Ghoulish cravings: same as above
Goblin Pox: same as above
Mariner's curse: same as above
Outcast curse: same as above
Spider Sting: same as above
Disintegrate: spell attack but no Attack trait.
Polar ray: same as above
Tanglefoot: same as above
my pet theory is that when they rebalanced the spells after the playtest, and decided that "touch attacks" are automatic and etc (since most of the 1st category are touch range) they forgot to remove the Attack trait when they removed the Spell attack roll.
Similarly, when they changed a few spells from Save to Spell attack, they forgot to add the trait. Disintegrate might be a mistake, but I don't see any issues with the others. Attacks don't necessarily need to have an attack roll to logically have the attack trait. And there could be times when spells with an attack roll don't necessarily have to have the attack trait (though I would be surprised if Disintegrate were one of them).
Mind you, I'm looking at Archives of Nethys at the moment to confirm that Disintegrate doesn't have the attack trait, not sure if the book matches (there are many errors on AoN). I don't have my book in front of me.
EDIT: Polar Ray is probably also a mistake
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
mrspaghetti wrote: shroudb wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: shroudb wrote: I think there's just a massive wave of Typos going on in the spell section.
For now, the way I'm running the game is:
Everything with spell attack has the Attack trait
Everything without spell attack, doesn't.
It just make sense to me that this is the intent.
Can you post a couple examples of what you believe to be typos or errors? I think you may have a misunderstanding. Chill touch: Attack Tag but it's saving throw based.
Death knell: same as above
Ghoulish cravings: same as above
Goblin Pox: same as above
Mariner's curse: same as above
Outcast curse: same as above
Spider Sting: same as above
Disintegrate: spell attack but no Attack trait.
Polar ray: same as above
Tanglefoot: same as above
my pet theory is that when they rebalanced the spells after the playtest, and decided that "touch attacks" are automatic and etc (since most of the 1st category are touch range) they forgot to remove the Attack trait when they removed the Spell attack roll.
Similarly, when they changed a few spells from Save to Spell attack, they forgot to add the trait. Disintegrate might be a mistake, but I don't see any issues with the others. Attacks don't necessarily need to have an attack roll to logically have the attack trait. And there could be times when spells with an attack roll don't necessarily have to have the attack trait (though I would be surprised if Disintegrate were one of them).
Mind you, I'm looking at Archives of Nethys at the moment to confirm that Disintegrate doesn't have the attack trait, not sure if the book matches (there are many errors on AoN). I don't have my book in front of me. that falls apart when you realise that:
spell+attack = MAP penalty but Attack+Spell doesn't.
When something is Saving throw based, even if it has Attack trait, it doesn't matter at all if you use it after an attack, becasue save DC doesn't "suffer MAP"
So:
if it's harder to hit after you auto-touch something, why isn't it harder to auto-touch something after you hit?
I do agree that "attack trait" doesn't always affect "attack", but it always affects a check.
Attack trait: on a CHECK is indeed important:
attack trait on a maneuver (skill check), on Escape (check), attack (check) is important.
Attack trait on a DC is meaningless.
p.s."
it's not only disintegrate. Again, it's also Polar ray and tanglefoot. And yes, those are from the book, not from AoN
shroudb wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: shroudb wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: shroudb wrote: I think there's just a massive wave of Typos going on in the spell section.
For now, the way I'm running the game is:
Everything with spell attack has the Attack trait
Everything without spell attack, doesn't.
It just make sense to me that this is the intent.
Can you post a couple examples of what you believe to be typos or errors? I think you may have a misunderstanding. Chill touch: Attack Tag but it's saving throw based.
Death knell: same as above
Ghoulish cravings: same as above
Goblin Pox: same as above
Mariner's curse: same as above
Outcast curse: same as above
Spider Sting: same as above
Disintegrate: spell attack but no Attack trait.
Polar ray: same as above
Tanglefoot: same as above
my pet theory is that when they rebalanced the spells after the playtest, and decided that "touch attacks" are automatic and etc (since most of the 1st category are touch range) they forgot to remove the Attack trait when they removed the Spell attack roll.
Similarly, when they changed a few spells from Save to Spell attack, they forgot to add the trait. Disintegrate might be a mistake, but I don't see any issues with the others. Attacks don't necessarily need to have an attack roll to logically have the attack trait. And there could be times when spells with an attack roll don't necessarily have to have the attack trait (though I would be surprised if Disintegrate were one of them).
Mind you, I'm looking at Archives of Nethys at the moment to confirm that Disintegrate doesn't have the attack trait, not sure if the book matches (there are many errors on AoN). I don't have my book in front of me. that falls apart when you realise that:
spell+attack = MAP penalty but Attack+Spell doesn't.
When something is Saving throw based, even if it has Attack trait, it doesn't matter at all if you use it after an attack, becasue save DC doesn't "suffer MAP"
So:
if it's harder to hit after you auto-touch something, why isn't it harder to auto-touch something after you hit?
I do agree that "attack trait" doesn't always affect "attack", but it always affects a check.
Attack trait: on a CHECK is indeed important:
attack trait on a maneuver (skill check), on Escape (check), attack (check) is important.
Attack trait on a DC is meaningless. I still don't see an issue - the general rule does not apply to all cases. For example, Magic Missile does (and should) have the Attack trait, but it un-erringly hits and also has no save. Some spells are going to be exceptions to the general rule, and specific overrules general.
EDIT: Actually (according to AoN, at least) Magic Missile doesn't have the attack trait. Maybe I'll just stop posting until I get home to my book :)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MM doesn't have the Attack trait.
The whole purpose of the "attack trait" is MAP
when you give it on something that by design CANNOT suffer from MAP, and then you see that in playtest it DID suffer from it, then the whole thing screams: tyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyypo.
Every other "attack tag" in the book is a check. And then you have 10 odd spells that are DC based.
yeah... that's 100% leftover text from playtest.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
To keep it simple, until there is official word or errata, in my home game I will say that MAP only applies when a roll is made versus an opponent's AC.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fumarole wrote: To keep it simple, until there is official word or errata, in my home game I will say that MAP only applies when a roll is made versus an opponent's AC. That would make combat maneuvers a lot stronger than they are.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
True. Any check then, which includes combat maneuvers, and is likely the intention of the rules.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
