|
The sword Flametongue has this:
Activate Two Actions command, Interact; Effect You cast the produce flame cantrip from the sword as a 7th-level arcane spell, using your melee attack modifier with flametongue as your spell attack modifier.
Produce Flame’s damage is “1d4 fire damage plus your spellcasting ability modifier.”
1) What is your “spellcasting ability modifier for this purpose, particularly if you aren’t an arcane spellcaster otherwise?
2) Does Weapon Specialization apply to the Produce Flame cantrip from the sword?
You’ve learned how to inflict greater injuries with the weapons you know best. You deal 2 additional damage with weapons and unarmed attacks in which you are an expert. This damage increases to 3 if you’re a master, and to 4 if you’re legendary.
This doesn’t specify strikes, which would pretty clearly not include the Produce Flame cantrip, but it is still a use of a “weapon with which you are an expert” or above.
What about the Critical Specialization effect? That rule specifies that it applies “ when you make a Strike” so I think it’s clear it doesn’t apply to the cantrip, but does that argue that Weapon Specialization does?
While Flametongue doesn't call out the Produce Flame as being an innate spell, I believe it counts. So your spellcasting ability would be Charisma as with other innate spells.
Certain spells are natural to your character, typically coming from your ancestry or a magic item rather than your class. You can cast your innate spells even if you aren't a member of a spellcasting class. The ability that gives you an innate spell tells you how often you can cast it—usually once per day—and its magical tradition. Innate spells are refreshed during your daily preparations. Innate cantrips are cast at will and automatically heightened as normal for cantrips (see Cantrips) unless otherwise specified.
You're always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren't otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified.
If you have an innate spell, you can cast it, even if it's not of a spell level you can normally cast. This is especially common for monsters, which might be able to cast innate spells far beyond what a character of the same level could use. Since this magic is innate, you can replace any material component with a somatic component (see Spell Components).
You can't use your spell slots to cast your innate spells, but you might have an innate spell and also be able to prepare or cast the same spell through your class. You also can't heighten innate spells, but some abilities that grant innate spells might give you the spell at a higher level than its base level or change the level at which you cast the spell.
As to Weapon specialization, I'd say that it would not count for produce flame. While the produce flame is tied to the sword it is not an attack directly using the weapon, so wouldn't benefit from abilities and effects that would affect the weapon.
1. Good question. I'd default to Charisma as even though it's Arcane, the spell's not tied to a class. This is a matter of being less-wrong, since I can't see any other stat working, even if the wielder's a caster since Produce Flame isn't being linked to their class.
2. No. That argument seems tenuous. It would also have such a ramification on Staves that Paizo would've needed to mention it.
2b. And no Critical Specialization either, since it's not the sword itself hitting, it's a spell being fired off, albeit one the sword gave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the 'melee attack modifier' the entire calculated bonus for a melee attack? The proficiency, ability score, and any other bonuses.
It doesn't say to use just your weapon proficiency with the sword for the spell attack.
And no, I wouldn't allow weapon specialization either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the 'melee attack modifier' the entire calculated bonus for a melee attack? The proficiency, ability score, and any other bonuses.
...
Yes.
Melee attack modifier = Strength modifier (or optionally Dexterity for a finesse weapon) + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
You don't have the option to use your Spell Attack Modifier instead so it doesn't matter whether or not you have an "ability modifier used for spellcasting."
My searches haven't yielded anything about the damage calculation. Like beowulf99 and Castilliano I think I'd use Charisma.
I just realized that the question of which stat adds to damage also applies to Spellhearts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to Weapon specialization, I'd say that it would not count for produce flame. While the produce flame is tied to the sword it is not an attack directly using the weapon, so wouldn't...
That's my sense, but I don't think RAW backs us up, because it is an attack, it uses the sword, and Weapon Specialization says "attack" not "strike." This is literally the reason the designers built in a distinction between "attack" and "strike," so the fact that they chose to write "attack" rather than "strike" can't be ignored.
Unless I am horribly mistaken, both Flametongue and Weapon Specialization were written before the errata that made clear the distinction between a Strike and a non-Strike Attack with a weapon. So that errata that makes trip attacks with a finesse weapon not use Dex would also make spell attacks with Flametongue not qualify for Weapon Specialization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably also default to Charisma. There's no support for using any other stat, so it's either Charisma, or nothing.
There is the oddball possibility that it's Strength. Before Eldritch Archer and Magus, I can't think of a case where you weren't using the same stat for a Spell Attack roll and the damage from the spell.
|
|
I wasn't aware that the distinction only came about through an erratum. "Strike" is defined as a basic action on page 471 of the Core Rulebook, and "Attack" is not defined as a basic action in that section of the Core Rulebook, but the Glossdex defines it as a trait, and states that "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."
This from my Core Rulebook PDF downloaded Aug 1, 2019, which appears to be pre-errata. That looks like the distinction is pretty reasonably drawn.
The Attack of Opportunity feat in that same PDF specifies "Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature."
Flurry of Blows in that same PDF specifies "Make two unarmed Strikes." And though, later, Flurry of Maneuvers states "You may replace one or both of your attacks during a Flurry of Blows with Grapples, Shoves, or Trips[,]" which indicates some sloppiness with the terminology, if there were not already a distinction between Strikes and attacks, Flurry of Maneuvers would do nothing.
This is also interesting:
Page 283: In Critical Specialization Effects, it uses the generic term attack but should specifically refer to Strikes. In the first sentence, change "when you make an attack with certain weapons" to "when you make a Strike with certain weapons"
The fact that the designers issued a specific erratum on this issue for Critical Specialization Effects, but not for Weapon Specialization arguably supports the position that "the generic term attack" is intended for Weapon Specialization.
The fact that the designers issued a specific erratum on this issue for Critical Specialization Effects, but not for Weapon Specialization arguably supports the position that "the generic term attack" is intended for Weapon Specialization.
I think it is more likely that they fixed the one and didn't see the other.
How would it work if Flametongue was an axe instead? You aren't rolling any weapon damage dice when you cast Produce Flame.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is more likely that they fixed the one and didn't see the other.
That's possible, but the designers chose to make PF2 a keyword-dependent system, so the first choice should probably be to treat those keywords as meaningful.
How would it work if Flametongue was an axe instead? You aren't rolling any weapon damage dice when you cast Produce Flame.
Why would it matter if Flametongue were an axe? Weapon specialization isn't limited to swords, nor does it specify that it only adds to weapon damage.
How would it work if Flametongue was an axe instead? You aren't rolling any weapon damage dice when you cast Produce Flame.Why would it matter if Flametongue were an axe? Weapon specialization isn't limited to swords, nor does it specify that it only adds to weapon damage.
Because the Axe specialization effect is to deal the rolled weapon damage dice value to an adjacent creature. If you are casting Produce Flame from the weapon, you aren't rolling any weapon damage dice.
And I am sure that there are other really strange or broken interactions between the two too.
Weapon Specialization doesn’t vary by weapon, it varies by proficiency level. What you’re talking about is the Critical Specialization Effect, which varies by weapon, but it’s also explicitly limited to Strikes, so there are absolutely no interactions.
Hmm... Yeah, looks like I am getting my terms crossed.
But other than Dangerous Sorcery, Inspire Courage, and a few other spells like Elemental Zone very little adds damage to spells. Not sure why it would be intended for Weapon Specialization to be included in that list.