True strike says ""
Athletics checks to disarm, grapple, shove, and trip all have the Attack trait. Does that mean an Athletics check made to disarm, grapple, shove, and trip are considered attack rolls, and can benefit from spells and abilities such as true strike?
Well, Grapple, Shove and Trip all have the Attack trait, so I imagine True Strike would work with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule it that way in my games.
They have the attack trait. And you make a roll. Therefore that roll is an attack roll.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True strike says ""
Athletics checks to disarm, grapple, shove, and trip all have the Attack trait. Does that mean an Athletics check made to disarm, grapple, shove, and trip are considered attack rolls, and can benefit from spells and abilities such as true strike?
Attack Rolls are defined on page 446 (but not in the index, unfortunately):
“When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.”
So yes - if an action has the attack trait and requires a check, you’re making an attack roll.
Interestingly, I think that means you have to make an attack roll with spells like chill touch (even though they also get a save). I hadn’t really read the spells section yet.
As opposed to touch of idiocy, for example, which also has a range of touch but not the attack trait so wouldn’t need a roll.
If I just read the spell, I think I would have assumed that chill touch’s saving throw requirement was in place of an attack roll.
Interestingly, I think that means you have to make an attack roll with spells like chill touch (even though they also get a save). I hadn’t really read the spells section yet.
As opposed to touch of idiocy, for example, which also has a range of touch but not the attack trait so wouldn’t need a roll.
If I just read the spell, I think I would have assumed that chill touch’s saving throw requirement was in place of an attack roll.
This actually would be a bit of problem for a number of spells and should probably be a FAQ, because it looks rather arbitrary to which spells it applies to, and for spells that only list what happens on a saving throw, there is actually nothing in the rules that would tell you that the effect of the spell only happens if you succeed, nor what happens on a critical success.
For example:
Produce flame has the attack trait and tells you what happens on a success and what happens on a critical success.
Polar Ray does not have the attack trait, requires a spell attack roll, but gives you no indication that you gain any benefit from getting critical success.
Nowhere in the spell attack description on 447 and 448 does it say there is a basic formula to follow as far as getting critical success on a spell attack. In fact, on page 305, under spell attacks, it says "Spell attacks don't deal any damage beyond what is listed in the spell description." But there is also nowhere, outside of the individual spell descriptions that tells you that you even require a success on a spell attack roll to hit. Which is why I think the spell attack section on 447 and 448 ends with this:
"Many times, instead of requiring you to make a spell attack roll, the spells you cast will require those within the area or targeted by the spell to attempt a saving throw against your Spell DC to determine how the spell affects them."
Because otherwise each of the attack trait spells that require a save would also have to tell you what level of success is required to force the save. There is nowhere else in the rules that spell that out.
I think it is instead best to understand that the attack trait is specifically defined on page 629 of the glossary as being: "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."
Which is weird because saving throws are not affected by MAP, but if you cast an attack action spell that required a saving throw and then attacked wjth a weapon, you would take a penalty to that second attack.
Another possibility is that not all of these spells were written at the same time and there were different rules governing how they would be handled, which might explain why polar ray does not have the attack trait, nor a critical success description while a spell like produce flame does.
But right now any spell that does not require a spell attack roll, and tell you what happens on a success in the description, can't have an attack roll, because there is no where in the book that tells you generically what happens when you succeed or fail on a spell attack roll. We can't apply generic melee or ranged attack roll rules to spell attack rolls because, as it tells us on 446, "Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page."
Yeah, this area of the rules looks like there’s some minor inconsistencies. (I imagine Polar Ray not having the attack trait is purely an error).
In general, most “undefined” saves could be treated as all-or-nothing effects with no benefit if you score a critical success. They could also be read as missing the “basic save” descriptor (at least in those cases where damage is done). My guess is the former is the intention.
I suspect there will be need for DM adjudication here - it looks to me like some spells weren’t completely updated to the final formulation of the rules (or that some section of the spellcasting rules was accidentally cut).
I think I’d say:
Chill touch requires an attack roll and a save. Critical success is the same as a success and likewise CF=F. The saving throw results in a tiered effect.
Touch of Idiocy doesn’t need an attack roll, just a saving throw.
Polar Ray needs an attack roll (and has the attack trait). CS=S=the listed effect and CF=F=no effect.
No save.
My guess as to the cause of this problem is that the spells were collated and edited. Then Polar Ray was added in using looser, pre-edit language and never got updated to spell out the results and to add the trait.
I'm of the mind that if it doesn't specifically call out needing an attack roll, there isn't one.
Nearly all spells are either spell attacks or saves, not both.
I'm of the mind that if it doesn't specifically call out needing an attack roll, there isn't one.
Nearly all spells are either spell attacks or saves, not both.
This was my thought too, but I think it’s an imported intuition from other games (PF1 particularly) rather than being an obvious feature of PF2.
What do you think the attack trait is there for in chill touch? (And why isn’t it there in touch of idiocy?) What impact does it have if it isn’t there to signify the need for an attack roll as per page 446?
I think the clearest interpretation of the rules at this point is to only do what the spell says in its description and only use the attack trait for determining if casting the spell would add to the MAP, because that is the only official thing that the attack trait does, and because spell attacks are explicitly called out as not working like other attack actions, and say that they do not always call for an attack roll.
Chill touch, Goblin Pox, Spider sting, Death Knell, Ghoulish Cravings and other spells that don't call out a spell attack roll shouldn't require one. Disintegrate does call for both and tells you how it works (and also lacks the attack trait for who knows what reasons). The purpose and application of the attack trait is not clear or consistent. The spell descriptions are all pretty explicit and conform to the rules about spell attack actions, with far fewer mistakes, which can require saves instead of attack rolls.
Should you be able to crit on polar ray? probably, but not by RAW. the rules as written work here, even if they nerf the spell.
Should every spell with the attack trait require an attack roll? Not by Raw, and not in any way that the rules tell you how to handle that attack roll. Trying to implement this interpretation means having to make up another rule like a basic spell attack roll, which would work like a basic saving throw. Not a difficult rule to invent, but one that would probably be present in the rules if it was intended.
Trying to extrapolate from the general rule, Attack actions require attack rolls, that Spell attack actions require attack rolls would directly contradict two specific rules about Spell attack actions that say they can require saves instead, and that they do not work like other attack actions and so have their own section instead. (All of this is from 446 to 448).
This is what the Touch Range section of the spellcasting chapter indicates:
A spell with a range of touch requires you to physically touch the target. You use your unarmed reach to determine whether you can touch the creature. 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. If an ability increases the range of a touch spell, start at 0 feet and increase from there.
So I think the intent is that Chill Touch and similar effects hit automatically.
Likely, the 'Attack Rolls' section is in error - after all, if you follow that section to the letter that means that if you want to trip an enemy, you need to succeed at a melee attack roll against the target and then roll your Athletics to trip, because it does not indicate that the skill check already counts as an attack roll.
|
I'm of the mind that if it doesn't specifically call out needing an attack roll, there isn't one.
Nearly all spells are either spell attacks or saves, not both.
This was my thought too, but I think it’s an imported intuition from other games (PF1 particularly) rather than being an obvious feature of PF2.
What do you think the attack trait is there for in chill touch? (And why isn’t it there in touch of idiocy?) What impact does it have if it isn’t there to signify the need for an attack roll as per page 446?
The attack trait only seems to occur in spells with a ranged spell attack roll, and in (some) touch spells. I'm fairly sure that it isn't intended to implicitly add an attack roll to touch spells because of what it says here:
Touch Range
A spell with a range of touch requires you to physically
touch the target. You use your unarmed reach to
determine whether you can touch the creature. 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. If an ability
increases the range of a touch spell, start at 0 feet and
increase from there.
So if you have to actually make an attack roll, it will be called out explicitly.
So what is the attack trait for then, on touch spells? I think it's to make sure the spell still increases MAP, even if you didn't have to roll for that particular attack. It's a bit like how the Assurance/Athletics trick allows you to make a maneuver while ignoring MAP, but any attacks you make after that still have their MAP increased because you used an action with the attack trait. (Otherwise, tripping people to make them flat-footed for follow-up strikes would make things very easy for rogues.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what is the attack trait for then, on touch spells? I think it's to make sure the spell still increases MAP, even if you didn't have to roll for that particular attack. It's a bit like how the Assurance/Athletics trick allows you to make a maneuver while ignoring MAP, but any attacks you make after that still have their MAP increased because you used an action with the attack trait. (Otherwise, tripping people to make them flat-footed for follow-up strikes would make things very easy for rogues.)
This is the other reason I can think of too. I must admit, the whole MAP paradigm isn’t natural for me yet, so you might be right that this was the key determinant. (Some of their choices seem odd to me, if this is the case).
EDIT: thinking about it further, I’ve come around to your position on this. Cheers.
I should be clear, I’m not talking about RAW here - I think unicore pointed out some genuine inconsistencies or gaps in this area of the rules, so trying to nail down RAW is fruitless, imo. I’m interested in what people think was the intent.
So what is the attack trait for then, on touch spells? I think it's to make sure the spell still increases MAP, even if you didn't have to roll for that particular attack. It's a bit like how the Assurance/Athletics trick allows you to make a maneuver while ignoring MAP, but any attacks you make after that still have their MAP increased because you used an action with the attack trait. (Otherwise, tripping people to make them flat-footed for follow-up strikes would make things very easy for rogues.)This is the other reason I can think of too. I must admit, the whole MAP paradigm isn’t natural for me yet, so you might be right that this was the key determinant. (Some of their choices seem odd to me, if this is the case).
I should be clear, I’m not talking about RAW here - I think unicore pointed out some genuine inconsistencies in this area of the rules, so trying to nail down RAW is fruitless, imo. I’m interested in what people think was the intent.
My honest guess is that what the attack trait meant for spells changed at least once, maybe twice over the course of playtesting, and then got reviewed by an editor but not a developer, so the existence of a rules inconsistency there would not have jump out to the reader. Spells have always been a mess in every RPG I have every played in the last 25 years.
PF2 's are not as bad as PF1s or any version of D&Ds. Get 5 people working together to make a spell system and you get 5 different versions of how spells are supposed to work.
The good news is that they erred towards putting all the information you need (except for spelling out how basic saving throws work) in every spell description, so as long as you do what the spell says, you will be mostly right, most of the time. A couple of traits like incapacitated will be missed by many players and GMs but there are not that many of them, and not as elaborate as having to remember the differences between figments and phantasms or navigate the magical lighting level maze of PF1.
I honestly thing that spells like chill touch and all the other saving throw spells have been balanced around having to make 1 roll and not 2, so an attack roll (especially one without a critical success option), would be heavily debuffing the spell's intended power level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I think with most touch spells with an attack trait and a save, if you also added an attack roll to them, you'd never want to use them again. It would also be pretty uncharacteristic because all the ranged spells explicitly tell you when you should be making an attack roll.
It's a bit tricky to search for this, but I suspect typically the attack trait goes together with damaging touch spells, and ranged spell attacks that deal damage.
But I'm really not convinced all the spells are 100% correctly tagged.
But I'm really not convinced all the spells are 100% correctly tagged.
Me neither. I struggle to see why Polar Ray wouldn’t have the attack trait.
It is all pretty new though - there’s probably an internal logic I’m not seeing yet.
I honestly thing that spells like chill touch and all the other saving throw spells have been balanced around having to make 1 roll and not 2, so an attack roll (especially one without a critical success option), would be heavily debuffing the spell's intended power level.
Me too (now).
For me, the positions I take on these things are inevitably influenced by the specific situation that made me go looking. Here the two examples I looked at were chill touch and touch of idiocy. I wondered if the attack roll requirement was added to balance chill touch as it was a cantrip.
I’m sure the iterative, multi-department design process you outline is going to have an impact though. So that could easily explain this issue.
Well, for now, until any of this gets updated, Chill touch adds to your Map, so you'd want to make any other kind of attack action first, before casting it, while touch of idiocy, or polar ray, do not. Its not really a bid enough deal yet for me to understand what about touch of idiocy would be different from ghoulish cravings in terms of how the spells work, but its possible that there is some intention there. If so, I'd love to hear what a developer has to say about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm really not convinced all the spells are 100% correctly tagged.Me neither. I struggle to see why Polar Ray wouldn’t have the attack trait.
It is all pretty new though - there’s probably an internal logic I’m not seeing yet.
The tag system is meant to label the things that work with various options.
But because the system is new, the devs have not likely considered the consequences of all of the options yet. It is usually the case that they either haven't thought about how the spell should be working with a common buff, or they only thought about the common buffs, and they haven't realized that some of the less common buffs would also apply. Thus the inconsistent tagging.
Thankfully, this actually seems easier to errata than normal formatting. In the new runs or on the PDFs, the tags can just be slotted into or out of an empty space under the header. I can really see the advantage in that system now.