So, an enterprising young wizard takes the Hand of the Apprentice feat and spell, which for a focus point lets them toss a weapon five hundred feet. Everyone loves prerequisites.
Since the spell uses a spell attack roll to do weapon plus Intelligence modifier damage, most properties are moot -- you're not getting any use out of Trip or Shove, and who cares about Reach when you're hitting someone at ranges that challenge longbows. But there are a few I wonder about. Assume that somehow the wizard knows how to use a weapon with that property for this purpose:
Deadly and Fatal. In case you crit, do these add their dice?
Two-hand. Can you choose this? (This is the one that inspired me -- after all, a staff is d4 damage, but Two-Hand d8.)
Agile and Backswing. It's a bad move, but if you do waste a focus point on this spell while enjoying the multiple attack penalty, can this help?
Backstabber. 'Help! Halfling and goblin wizards are trying to kill me!'
I also assume Versatile is fine since that can sometimes come down to which end you hit the enemy with and the spell can adjust for that.
Qaianna wrote: So, an enterprising young wizard takes the Hand of the Apprentice feat and spell, which for a focus point lets them toss a weapon five hundred feet. Everyone loves prerequisites.
Since the spell uses a spell attack roll to do weapon plus Intelligence modifier damage, most properties are moot -- you're not getting any use out of Trip or Shove, and who cares about Reach when you're hitting someone at ranges that challenge longbows. But there are a few I wonder about. Assume that somehow the wizard knows how to use a weapon with that property for this purpose:
Deadly and Fatal. In case you crit, do these add their dice?
Two-hand. Can you choose this? (This is the one that inspired me -- after all, a staff is d4 damage, but Two-Hand d8.)
Agile and Backswing. It's a bad move, but if you do waste a focus point on this spell while enjoying the multiple attack penalty, can this help?
Backstabber. 'Help! Halfling and goblin wizards are trying to kill me!'
I also assume Versatile is fine since that can sometimes come down to which end you hit the enemy with and the spell can adjust for that.
Quote: You deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike I'd say that makes the strike eligible for most of the traits on the weapon itself. Things like Deadly and Fatal would certainly help, as would Agile or Backswing (though as you note, they're unlikely to be good moves). The only one on your list I'm a little skeptical on is two-handed because you're not actively holding it in two hands when you throw it. Hand of the Apprentice has somatic components, so even if it's a two-handed weapon I'm pretty sure you're holding it in one hand when casting.
cavernshark wrote: The only one on your list I'm a little skeptical on is two-handed because you're not actively holding it in two hands when you throw it. Hand of the Apprentice has somatic components, so even if it's a two-handed weapon I'm pretty sure you're holding it in one hand when casting. I can see that. Although it also means no magicing a greatsword into someone from across a football field.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Qaianna wrote: cavernshark wrote: The only one on your list I'm a little skeptical on is two-handed because you're not actively holding it in two hands when you throw it. Hand of the Apprentice has somatic components, so even if it's a two-handed weapon I'm pretty sure you're holding it in one hand when casting. I can see that. Although it also means no magicing a greatsword into someone from across a football field. The spell only requires you to hold the weapon when casting, not be wielding it. So you can hold the staff in one hand, cast with the other and go. The same with a greatsword. You *couldn't* swing the greatsword with it only in one hand, but you can hold it.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You can cast spells with somatic components while wielding a two handed weapon though...
Cordell Kintner wrote: You can cast spells with somatic components while wielding a two handed weapon though... This.
Cordell Kintner wrote: You can cast spells with somatic components while wielding a two handed weapon though... Can we get a rules citation for this?
I would say that you can be holding a two handed weapon in your hand and use it for HoA. So a greatsword works. But I would say that for a weapon that has the "Two-Hand" trait, like a staff or bastard sword, I would say that trait isn't triggered because you are not "wielding it in both hands"
CRB p303 wrote: Somatic
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise
unable to gesture freely.
Material or foci however:
CRB p303 wrote: Material
A material component is a bit of physical matter consumed in the casting of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to have a free hand to retrieve and manipulate a material component.
CRB p303 wrote: Focus
A focus is an object that funnels the magical energy of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to either have a free hand to retrieve the focus listed in the spell or already be holding the focus in your hand. As part of Casting the Spell, you retrieve the focus (if necessary), manipulate it, and can put it away again if you so choose.
Kelseus wrote: I would say that trait isn't triggered because you are not "wielding it in both hands" Well, if you are checking hands, you wouldn't be able to deal ANY damage because you aren't wielding it in ANY hands... All we have is "you deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike" and an attack using the "Two-Hand" trait IS a melee Strike. That and we know you can make two handed Strikes with a weapon or a greatsword wouldn't be a viable weapon.
IMO, if you go down the 'how many hands' rabbit hole, the spell either stops working or you treat it in however many hands as you want to count as.
graystone wrote: Kelseus wrote: I would say that trait isn't triggered because you are not "wielding it in both hands" Well, if you are checking hands, you wouldn't be able to deal ANY damage because you aren't wielding it in ANY hands... All we have is "you deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike" and an attack using the "Two-Hand" trait IS a melee Strike. That and we know you can make two handed Strikes with a weapon or a greatsword wouldn't be a viable weapon.
IMO, if you go down the 'how many hands' rabbit hole, the spell either stops working or you treat it in however many hands as you want to count as. There's a more reasonable middle ground where it works with whatever number of hands you had on it when you cast (I did confuse the material/focus component use of hands for the somatic gestures earlier). Wielding a weapon in two hands has an action cost (interact to change grip), so if the wizard is holding the weapon in two hands or uses an Interact action to change grip to two hands prior to 'throwing' then it probably should inherit the trait. I don't think the wizard should just be able to go from a 1-hand grip and throw with the 2-hand benefit.
cavernshark wrote: I don't think the wizard should just be able to go from a 1-hand grip and throw with the 2-hand benefit. Then it would be worded wrongly: you'd be requiring wielding instead of holding. You can houserule that, but it's not the rules as you are specifically allowed to hold 2 handed weapons in one hand and it would be quite odd if you can 2 hand a greatsword from one hand but you can't do the same with a bastard sword.
You can 100% wield a staff in two hands and cast Hand of the Apprentice, there should be no arguments on whether you can use the 2-hand trait or not. Can you hit with your staff 2-handed? Yes. Therefore you can use the d8 with the spell.
cavernshark wrote:
There's a more reasonable middle ground where it works with whatever number of hands you had on it when you cast (I did confuse the material/focus component use of hands for the somatic gestures earlier). Wielding a weapon in two hands has an action cost (interact to change grip), so if the wizard is holding the weapon in two hands or uses an Interact action to change grip to two hands prior to 'throwing' then it probably should inherit the trait. I don't think the wizard should just be able to go from a 1-hand grip and throw with the 2-hand benefit.
Yeah, I feel exactly the same ( hurling a weapon with 1 or 2 hands should matter, and that depends how you hold it ).
This would be a really good example of balance, with an excellent trade off.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: Yeah, I feel exactly the same ( hurling a weapon with 1 or 2 hands should matter, and that depends how you hold it ).
This would be a really good example of balance, with an excellent trade off.
Not sure why tbh. It isn't hurled with the hands, it is hurled by magic.
Thezzaruz wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Yeah, I feel exactly the same ( hurling a weapon with 1 or 2 hands should matter, and that depends how you hold it ).
This would be a really good example of balance, with an excellent trade off.
Not sure why tbh. It isn't hurled with the hands, it is hurled by magic. Indeed it's magic, but I imagine the wizard being able to hurl it with 1 or 2 hands.
A throw improved by the power of magic.
Or else I imagine I could simply carry a greatsword around with only 1 hand, letting it scar the ground while being carried around.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
That's the point though. You can huck the 2-handed greatsword from one hand, no problem. But all of a sudden a smaller weapon like the bastard sword needs two hands to be fully effective?
The point of 1h vs 2h is, how much exertion is required to use the weapon to maximal effect? We know indisputably that HotA uses a greatsword to maximal effect even when you cast while holding it in one hand, so it makes zero sense to assume that it can't use a smaller weapon to maximal effect in the same circumstances.
On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sigfried mcWild wrote: CRB p303 wrote: Focus
A focus is an object that funnels the magical energy of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to either have a free hand to retrieve the focus listed in the spell or already be holding the focus in your hand. As part of Casting the Spell, you retrieve the focus (if necessary), manipulate it, and can put it away again if you so choose.
Okay, so, you couldn't hold a Greatsword in 2 hands and cast Hand of the Apprentice, but you could hold it in 1 hand and you'd be fine? Or is the Greatsword itself the Focus, and so you would be fine holding it in 2 hands?
I ask because my Champion is about to pick up the Hurtling Stone Focus spell, and I was hoping to use it with weapon and shield in hand.
Nefreet wrote: Sigfried mcWild wrote: CRB p303 wrote: Focus
A focus is an object that funnels the magical energy of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to either have a free hand to retrieve the focus listed in the spell or already be holding the focus in your hand. As part of Casting the Spell, you retrieve the focus (if necessary), manipulate it, and can put it away again if you so choose.
Okay, so, you couldn't hold a Greatsword in 2 hands and cast Hand of the Apprentice, but you could hold it in 1 hand and you'd be fine? Or is the Greatsword itself the Focus, and so you would be fine holding it in 2 hands?
I ask because my Champion is about to pick up the Hurtling Stone Focus spell, and I was hoping to use it with weapon and shield in hand. Neither of those focus spells require a focus component to cast. They are both somatic only.
HumbleGamer wrote: Indeed it's magic, but I imagine the wizard being able to hurl it with 1 or 2 hands.
A throw improved by the power of magic.
It isn't improved by magic, it is made by magic, says so right in the text tbh.
I always imagined it more like holding (or even almost levitating) the weapon in place before it zips off through the spell. But then again my Wizard uses a dagger so it fits visually for him.
HumbleGamer wrote: Or else I imagine I could simply carry a greatsword around with only 1 hand, letting it scar the ground while being carried around. You know, I have no issues with that visual tbh. If you want to spend the feat to carry around a sword that's likely bigger than you then go ahead, just remember to check your bulk limit. =D
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game. No it actually says "On a critical success, you deal double damage, and you add the weapon's critical specialization effect.". So of course stuff like fatal or deadly would apply.
Nefreet wrote: I ask because my Champion is about to pick up the Hurtling Stone Focus spell, and I was hoping to use it with weapon and shield in hand. Well the spell is somatic only and that can be done with a weapon in hand.
However the spell says "You evoke a magical stone and throw it". So thematically it seems like you'd need to hold the stone at some point but DMs might rule otherwise (I could see a visual of doing sort of a tennis serve perhaps).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Thezzaruz wrote: theservantsllcleanitup wrote: On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game. No it actually says "On a critical success, you deal double damage, and you add the weapon's critical specialization effect.". So of course stuff like fatal or deadly would apply. But fatal and deadly are not critical specialization effects? Not sure why you are so confident in that ruling. Crit spec is a specific thing based on the weapon group of whatever weapon you are using. Fatal and deadly have nothing to do with it.
If they wanted you to apply everything that triggered on a crit, I think they would have written, "as if you had crit with a melee attack".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: If they wanted you to apply everything that triggered on a crit, I think they would have written, "as if you had crit with a melee attack". Why would they need to do that? Fatal and Deadly aren't limited to melee attacks only, if you crit and the weapon has the trait then you apply it.
I still don't get why you are trying to add extra limitations to it, I mean it even explicitly allows the use of the crit spec effects even if you normally haven't got access to it so why would Deadly and Fatal (that everyone can use) be limited?
The spell says "You deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike," so traits that affect damage apply, and those that don't don't. So fatal and deadly should apply, but agile and backswing shouldn't.
Yes but fatal and deadly don't apply to hits, only crits, and the spell specifically goes out if its way to say that you don't treat a crit spell attack as a crit melee attack. Doubling the damage of a hit is not the same as scoring a crit, because crits apply fatal, deadly, crit spec, and potentially other things.
This is why they had to carve out crit spec specifically. They would have had to do that anyway even if you DID treat a HotA crit as a melee crit, because they want even a level 1 wizard to apply crit spec.
Look I'd personally allow fatal and deadly on a crit cause why not, but the rules seem to me to bend over backwards to exclude them, when it could easily say "as if you had crit with a melee attack" which would unambiguously apply everything associated with a crit.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: Yes but fatal and deadly don't apply to hits, only crits, and the spell specifically goes out if its way to say that you don't treat a crit spell attack as a crit melee attack. I don't see it doing that, it says "you deal double damage" which is exactly the same as what the critical hit rule says you do. Of course it is possible that they meant that to be a distinct difference to the "As success, but you deal double damage" of the generic strike action but considering that PF2 is meant to use casual language I sincerely doubt it.
.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: when it could easily say "as if you had crit with a melee attack" which would unambiguously apply everything associated with a crit. But it doesn't need to. None of the special effects require it to be a melee attack, just that the hit that took place was a critical one.
.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: Look I'd personally allow fatal and deadly on a crit cause why not, but the rules seem to me to bend over backwards to exclude them, I really don't see the rules as doing anything close to that. It seems to me that you are though.
.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: Doubling the damage of a hit is not the same as scoring a crit, because crits apply fatal, deadly, crit spec, and potentially other things. True. But this is also, I think, where you go wrong. Scoring a critical hit happens when you roll well enough, it's the cause not the effect. It doesn't matter what the critical success entry says (or even if there is one) because the fact that you are even looking for it means that it has already been decided that a critical hit was made.
And the extra effects of Deadly and Fatal trigger because a critical hit was made, not because of anything that the critical success entry of the attack says.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: Yes but fatal and deadly don't apply to hits, only crits, and the spell specifically goes out if its way to say that you don't treat a crit spell attack as a crit melee attack... The main point I wanted to make was that non - damage definitely don't apply, since it seems that OP thought they do and no one corrected them.
That being said I do think that reading the spell such that crit traits don't apply is a valid RAW approach, but probably unintended due to the subtlety of the phrasing it hinges on. A good candidate for an FAQ or errata.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
