| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was an interesting conversation started here:
Principia-Arcana-A-Foundation-In-the-Unknown#20
that really opens a big question about the ballance of spell attack roll spells and how they can be boosted.
Does the Quicksilver mutagen, which boosts ranged attack rolls, apply to spells that explicitly call out their spell attack rolls as ranged?
It seems like the answer is yes, but the usage of "spell attack" vs "ranged spell attack" in spell descriptions is not very consistant.
For example:
Of cantrips, only Produce flame explicitly says its spell attack roll can be made as a ranged spell attack roll.
Then in higher level spells, you have spells like ray of enfeeblement which explicitly say it is a ranged spell attack roll, while Acid Arrow does not use "ranged" in its description.
RAW, it appears that there are a select group of spell attack roll spells that can benefit from Quicksilver mutagens, and many others that cannot. Was this a carefully considered, intentional balance decision? Or an issue of inconsistent language usage in spells and the mutagen is supposed to work with a broader range of spell attack roll spells (like all of them that are not explicitly melee attacks) or none of the spells?
If the mutagen does work on certain spells, like produce flame, then there is a weird situation with the way that the wording of flanking is written where it is possible to make ranged spell attacks with flanking bonuses that might also benefit from this item bonus. Maybe that is intentional, but it becomes super weird that you might choose to ever use produce flame as a melee attack.
I think it would be really cool if the difference between ranged and melee spell attack roll spells was significant in important ways, but then why have so many spell attack roll spells that don't specify which one they are?
There are interesting RAW applications for all of this, but they make the nuance of spell descriptions incredibly complex for new players to navigate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text in produce flame
"Make a spell attack roll against your target's AC. This is normally a ranged attack, but you can also make a melee attack against a creature in your unarmed reach."
It seems pretty clear to me that if a spell is ranged it's supposed to be a ranged spell attack roll. Produce flames special thing is that you can make a melee spell attack even though the spell is ranged.
The text in produce flame
"Make a spell attack roll against your target's AC. This is normally a ranged attack, but you can also make a melee attack against a creature in your unarmed reach."It seems pretty clear to me that if a spell is ranged it's supposed to be a ranged spell attack roll. Produce flames special thing is that you can make a melee spell attack even though the spell is ranged.
That is a reasonable and possible interpretation, but then a hefty errata is necessary because the usage of "ranged" and "melee" and what it means for spell attack rolls to be either is all over the place, with actual mechanical advantages to both categories. And then, in instances where it doesn't specify, is produce flame the only switch hitter? Is there any advantage to a spell being a melee spell attack? Because flanking doesn't require you to attack with a melee attack roll, only be capable of doing so, which you can do with an open hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Hunter's Arrowhead can also offer an item bonus to attack rolls, and doesn't have anything preventing it to any attack roll made with a spell. Druids should multiclass into ranger I guess.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing Quicksilver mutagen to work on ranged spell attack roll stuff seems like an oversight. It would almost mandate MC alchemist for casters that want to use that stuff because the (eventual) permanent +3 is too much to pass up.
That being said, the potency rune may apply to Hand of the Apprentice, as it only dictates "attack rolls made with the weapon" and HotA is a spell attack roll using the weapon...
If it does work, every caster is going to be begging for someone in the party to be an alchemist.
No.
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.
Anything that gives a bonus to all attack rolls works fine though.
Hunter's Arrowhead is a great example.
They should really just errata things like Hat of the Magi to affect Spell Attacks from the relevant Tradition.
But there are also ranged spell attack rolls and melee spell attack rolls. There is no value what so ever to those categories if they do not benefit from things that affect ranged attacks or melee attacks, and those classifications should not exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the mutagen does work on certain spells, like produce flame, then there is a weird situation with the way that the wording of flanking is written where it is possible to make ranged spell attacks with flanking bonuses that might also benefit from this item bonus. Maybe that is intentional, but it becomes super weird that you might choose to ever use produce flame as a melee attack.
I think it would be really cool if the difference between ranged and melee spell attack roll spells was significant in important ways, but then why have so many spell attack roll spells that don't specify which one they are?
There are interesting RAW applications for all of this, but they make the nuance of spell descriptions incredibly complex for new players to navigate.
It is already possible for Spell Attacks to benefit from Flanking. Flanking only requires that you be adjacent, on opposite sides, and capable of making an Unarmed Attack. All characters are capable of making unarmed attacks. As long as you and an ally are adjacent to opposite sides of a creature, you can cast whatever spell you want that requires an Attack Roll and the enemy will be Flat Footed.
But there are also ranged spell attack rolls and melee spell attack rolls. There is no value what so ever to those categories if they do not benefit from things that affect ranged attacks or melee attacks, and those classifications should not exist.
But those are still Spell Attack Rolls, which are a different category than Melee or Ranged Attack Rolls. Frankly, I think those are just colloquialisms to point out if a spell can be cast at range or not, in case people miss the Range entry.
I wasn't expressing myself clearly there. I already know that flanking can apply to any spell, I was more pointing out that it would be weird if produce flame alone as a cantrip could benefit from item bonuses and that it would get pretty powerful when combined with flanking.
The real problem boils down to the fact that there is nothing in any of the rules sections of the Core rule book that explain what a ranged spell attack or a melee spell attack are. The only place those terms are listed is in the spells themselves and there is no explanation for what that means.
If you interpret spell attacks as some thing is is always a separate third thing then they would only ever get circumstance or status bonuses from things that grant those bonuses to attack rolls.
However, there are so many specific rules that apply to the terms "melee" and "ranged" that is weird for some spells to have these terms but not follow any rules for them.
I am not 100% sure what raw would be here.
I could see a hierarchal model of attack rolls where the first three categories are like separate folders: Melee Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Spell Attacks, and nothing about any of them cross over.
But I can also see these three categories as not being exclusive and working more like tags because the rules for attacks specify that their are "Three main types" meaning that there are also ones that fall outside these three categories or even combine them. In which case, "melee" and "ranged" are independent of being spell attacks, weapon attacks, unarmed attacks or other categories.
The wording of the spells themselves promotes this last interpretation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rules are pretty straight forward here. Spell Attacks are defined as a separate category so they are. Ranged as a descriptor is the most internally consistent way to read them.
Even if we don't ascribe to that philosophy, a massive +4 to attack rolls that has no real equivalent anywhere else in the game seems like it pretty blatantly trips the 'too good to be true' clause in the rules.
Certainly wizards would want the bonus if they were focusing on spell attack roll spells, but is it really "too good?" Having one party member be an alchemist just to boost the casters spell attack rolls is a pretty heavy commitment and without it, the cost of mutagens at the higher bonus levels are very expensive. As a consumable, it is a lot less of an obvious must purchase item for casters than a fixed wand or staff, and it makes it a lot more interesting.
I'd have to say that it would be my preferred way for casters to get access to an item bonus to spell attack rolls, because it has a significant cost and set back, rather than just an obvious, well all casters must buy X item.
That section is written more causally, they mean melee (weapon and unarmed) attack rolls, ranged (weapon and unarmed) attack rolls, and (melee and ranged) spell attack rolls.
Lots of spells make ranged (spell) attack rolls, so it applies as written, but a lot of people think that that's not intentional.
They should errata it if it isn't intended to apply to ranged spell attack rolls.
Or are you going to say that when telekinetic projectile said "ranged attack" it was meant to use Dex?
That section is written more causally
That's, uh, a pretty convenient position to take. What's your criteria for deciding which rules are the "serious" ones and which ones are the "casual" ones that we get to ignore or rewrite?
Or are you going to say that when telekinetic projectile said "ranged attack" it was meant to use Dex?
Back when the spell had that wording a lot of people argued that very thing, then it was fixed in errata.
The fact the developers thought it was necessary to change Telekinetic Projectile in order to make it function properly does more to refute the position than bolster it, because the errata wouldn't have been necessary in your version of things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are not crystal clear on this issue. They do not say that there are only three kinds of attacks, they say there are three main types of attack rolls, which remains true however you interpret a ranged or melee spell attack roll. All of the rules about spell attack rolls are buffered with words like usually or often meaning that establishing one default reading of all spell attack roll spells is impossible and that the spell descriptions are where you are supposed to look for clarity on any specific spell. Then the specific spells vary as well about how they define spell attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack, and even seem to imply that that decision is important in some fashion (see produce flame) which makes it difficult to assume that the words "ranged" and "melee" in spell descriptions amount to little more than flavor text.
I honestly don't know if the terms on the spells are supposed to be applied like tags instead of as sub-folders, and don't see any clarity in the rules that makes one interpretation inherently better than the others, leaving it all open to pretty wild table variation. FAQ on this, if not errata seems very necessary for PFS, and will likely help everyone get a better sense of what the RAI are with it.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Unicore! This thread was a good idea, thanks for making it.
My initial reading of all this was pretty much in line with both Aratorin and Squiggit, in that the rules have made a specific distinction between types of attacks and how we make those attacks. I remain pretty firm in that belief, and the post from Seifter posted by citricking looks to back that up.
That said, I can also see where the questions comes in, and it is understandable that their might be confusion. Let me elaborate on my position.
Lets look at page. 446 of the core, regarding attack rolls.
Ranged attack rolls use Dexterity as their ability modifier.
Ranged attack roll result = d20 roll + Dexterity modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
Bolding mine for emphasis. This is the literal explanation for what makes a ranged attack roll.
Let's look at the mutagen again for clarity
Benefit You gain an item bonus to Acrobatics checks, Stealth checks, Thievery checks, Reflex saves, and ranged attack rolls, and you gain the listed status bonus to your Speed.
.
Functionally, then, we can determine that anything which fits the definition of a ranged attack roll would get the bonus from Quicksilver mutagen.
So what about spells? Much in the same way that a ranged attack roll has a precise definition, so to do spell attack rolls. In fact, its on the following page.
Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
Since no class currently uses Dexterity as their spellcasting ability modifier, we can say that even if the two did otherwise intertwined, no class currently meets the prerequisites for it to overlap... but that's a different conversation entirely.
Now, let's look at that Mark Seifter post again. Can you use or opt to use Dexterity to make a spell attack, even a ranged one? apparently not. This by itself would mean that any given spell would not fit the description and actions needed to make a ranged attack roll.
The Produce Flame spell gets brought up a lot in these discussions are it makes a interest contention point.
A small ball of flame appears in the palm of your hand, and you lash out with it either in melee or at range. Make a spell attack roll against your target's AC. This is normally a ranged attack, but you can also make a melee attack against a creature in your unarmed reach. On a success, you deal 1d4 fire damage plus your spellcasting ability modifier. On a critical success, the target takes double damage and 1d4 persistent fire damage.
So what are we take away from this spell?
Firstly, you make a spell attack roll as defined on page 447 and is quoted above. Secondly this attack can either be made as ranged attack or a melee attack. Does this mean that the spell flips between making a melee attack roll or ranged attack roll? No! It already told you what type of attack roll you will be making, and that is a spell attack roll.
Do the rules care about the difference in making a ranged spell attack roll or a melee spell attack roll? Not really, because neither of these two things actually exist. Spell attack rolls are one, centralised, thing that doesn't care about range. When we talk of a spell attack being ranged or melee, we aren't talking about the different types of attack rolls we are making, we are merely talking descriptively about the spells range.
Produce Flame can be made at either melee range or upto a range of 30ft, whichever you pick, the Spell Attack Roll is the same.
So what does this all mean for Quicksilver Mutagen?
Simply that it doesn't interact with anything that makes a Spell Attack Roll. It gives a bonus to Ranged Attack Rolls, which no spell in the game currently makes.
Why was this ever even an issue?
Because the language used for spells has not been consistent the whole way across the game line thus far. Go take a look at all the spells with the attack trait. You'll notice something about them, in that, they aren't consistently worded.
Why does Ray of Enfeeblement say "ranged spell attack" while Ray of Frost says "spell attack" when both can be used from range? Its because 1) The writers were sloppy, but, 2) it doesn't matter, all Spell Attack Rolls are the same and are distinct from Ranged Attack Rolls.
Old_Man_Robot,
I largely agree with you as far as how I personally read all of this the first time, but my initial reading also led me to assume that produce flame and shocking grasp, spells that specified melee spell attack rolls were the only ones that qualified to take advantage of flanking, until it was pointed out to me that you don't need to be using the melee attack to make the target flat-footed.
I think it is way to easy for 10 people to read just the information in the core rule book and come to 3 or even more different conclusions about how all of this works, and would like to see a round of Errata or FAQ centered on dialing it all down (probably by removing all references to melee or ranged spell attack rolls and replacing all of them with just spell attack rolls, if that is how it is all supposed to work.
I also think another option, to appease the folks really clamoring for item bonuses to spell attack roll spells, is to let ranged and melee spell attack rolls to be a meaningful term and have items specifically boost one or the other, which is what this idea originally got spinning in me. It would still probably require some Errata to make sure there was consistency about which spells could be affected by which items (the examples mentioned above: ranged cantrips without ranged spell attack called out).
Again, I don't think this second option was originally intended, but it is currently possible and could be turning a mistake into an interesting new mechanical situation. The important part is that it not over complicate things, which is the current situation with different terms apparently referring to the same thing in different spells.
|
|
Personally I'm all in favour of adding combat runes to spells with the attack trait.
Pretty sure we've both cracked the math in other threads and its been worked out that it's not only fine, but kinda needed, in order to bring caster attack spells up to par.
If they want to make melee and ranged spell attack rolls meaningful terms is up to Piazo I guess. It would probably just be easier to errata the wording and key it off traits. But I suppose they could add additional traits to clarify it as well.
I believe "ranged spell" and "melee spell" are there for things like "making a ranged attack while in melee" instances, which are few and far between now thankfully, but I do believe they still come up. Shooting a point blank ray of frost might proc a reaction for certain enemies, while smacking them in the face with a melee produce flame would be kosher. But that's just my guess coming out of playing a PF1 Magus and super closely reading the rules for attacking in melee with ranged stuff, and the devs saying anything not clearly splayed out in 2E rules, ruling should defer to how PF1 did it. As to roll bonuses, I wish Potency runes on staves applied to SARs, because that would make staves super cool and stuff! Just imagine smacking someone in the face with an electrified stick and essentially tazing them with an evocation staff ^.^
I believe "ranged spell" and "melee spell" are there for things like "making a ranged attack while in melee" instances, which are few and far between now thankfully, but I do believe they still come up. Shooting a point blank ray of frost might proc a reaction for certain enemies, while smacking them in the face with a melee produce flame would be kosher. But that's just my guess coming out of playing a PF1 Magus and super closely reading the rules for attacking in melee with ranged stuff, and the devs saying anything not clearly splayed out in 2E rules, ruling should defer to how PF1 did it. As to roll bonuses, I wish Potency runes on staves applied to SARs, because that would make staves super cool and stuff! Just imagine smacking someone in the face with an electrified stick and essentially tazing them with an evocation staff ^.^
Both Produce Flame and Ray of Frost have Somatic Components, and therefore the Manipulate Trait. They both proc AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe "ranged spell" and "melee spell" are there for things like "making a ranged attack while in melee" instances, which are few and far between now thankfully, but I do believe they still come up. Shooting a point blank ray of frost might proc a reaction for certain enemies, while smacking them in the face with a melee produce flame would be kosher. But that's just my guess coming out of playing a PF1 Magus and super closely reading the rules for attacking in melee with ranged stuff, and the devs saying anything not clearly splayed out in 2E rules, ruling should defer to how PF1 did it. As to roll bonuses, I wish Potency runes on staves applied to SARs, because that would make staves super cool and stuff! Just imagine smacking someone in the face with an electrified stick and essentially tazing them with an evocation staff ^.^Both Produce Flame and Ray of Frost have Somatic Components, and therefore the Manipulate Trait. They both proc AoO.
He's referencing pf1, where ranged might provoke even though you're casting defensively.
There are other reactions besides aoo, there might be one that react to ranged attacks but not manipulate actions.
For what it's worth, if they ever decide to make spells that do use DEX as their to-hit stat, it would probably be fair game to let Quicksilver Mutagen work on it. Mostly because a caster's DEX is very likely going to be lower then their casting stat.
Personally, it appears to be the difference between a 'hit-scan' spell and a 'ballistic' spell (to borrow some FPS terminology). If all you have to do is point at the target and cast, then the spell will hit if your crosshair is on-target the moment you trigger, so to speak, and it doesn't get any better then that. That's akin to using your casting stat.
However, if you have to use DEX, because you are just, say, conjuring up a ball of flame you still have to physically hurl at your target, then anything that improves your aim could be argued to apply.
The comparison is lagging of course, even the 'point finger and cast' spells could benefit from 'pointing better', but I believe it would be more 'in the spirit of things' if we draw the line at what to-hit stat is beign used.
[Now I've been very vocal about not allowing casters to do too much damage, so they don't steal the martial's thunder, but I'd rather the spells are weaker then people can't hit for the life of them. Missing just is no fun, and I want everybody to have fun, including the casters. Just not at the expense of the martials.]