Your first questionning was interesting: we replace the result of a spell attack roll by the result of a bow attack roll, is it still a spell attack roll or is it now a bow attack roll?
But now, it feels you just want to disallow double Sneak Attack however you can, and I won't follow you in such a debate.
For Eldritch Trickster to be even moderately OK, for its stated purpose, the GM does need to allow Spell Attacks from stealth to actually work for this racket and deal sneak attack damage. This does seem to be the intent of the racket. So I would be supportive of GMs who choose to rule it this way.
Your first questionning was interesting: we replace the result of a spell attack roll by the result of a bow attack roll, is it still a spell attack roll or is it now a bow attack roll?
But now, it feels you just want to disallow double Sneak Attack however you can, and I won't follow you in such a debate.
Spell attack rolls and attack rolls are specific PF2 terms, which seem to be different. You'd have to demonstrate they're the same. A bow attack roll is not something which exists, so isn't a counterargument here.
And I've read here on the forums, not in the books so I can't cite a page, that Sneak Attack doesn't stack. This surprised me at the time, but since I couldn't think of when it could, I accepted it (and if I recall it was a reputable poster too).
---
As for Eldritch Trickster, it always seemed bound to melee or a helpful ally inflicting flat-footed. With 2-action casting, I think even sneaking would be a bad strategy, too difficult to pull off w/o Heightened Invisibility to be worthwhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I've read here on the forums, not in the books so I can't cite a page, that Sneak Attack doesn't stack. This surprised me at the time, but since I couldn't think of when it could, I accepted it (and if I recall it was a reputable poster too).
Strictly speaking, the issue here isn't stacking. There are two separate attacks, both of which independently could trigger sneak attack. With some users expressing concern over the wording of how Spellstrike delivers its second attack and whether or not that would disqualify it.
Strictly speaking, the issue here isn't stacking. There are two separate attacks, both of which independently could trigger sneak attack. With some users expressing concern over the wording of how Spellstrike delivers its second attack and whether or not that would disqualify it.
And I've read here on the forums, not in the books so I can't cite a page, that Sneak Attack doesn't stack. This surprised me at the time, but since I couldn't think of when it could, I accepted it (and if I recall it was a reputable poster too).
Are they separate attacks? Or separate effects bundled under one attack?
Are they separate attacks? Or separate effects bundled under one attack?Strictly speaking, the issue here isn't stacking. There are two separate attacks, both of which independently could trigger sneak attack. With some users expressing concern over the wording of how Spellstrike delivers its second attack and whether or not that would disqualify it.
And I've read here on the forums, not in the books so I can't cite a page, that Sneak Attack doesn't stack. This surprised me at the time, but since I couldn't think of when it could, I accepted it (and if I recall it was a reputable poster too).
They are separate attacks, resolved with the same attack roll result. That's why the default is for every bonus to be applied twice (Sneak Attack, Inspire Courage, etc...).
And there's no reason to raise an RAI concern, as every other similar activities apply Sneak Attack twice (but Double Slice, and it's specifically written).There could be a RAW reason to not apply it twice, off course, but I don't see in the wording something that suggest it shouldn't be the case.
What other effects which involves a single roll ( and is supposed to add twice the sneak attack ) do we have?
I can only think about multiattacks which involves map ( twin takedown, twin feint, flurry of blows, etc... ), different rolls and a note "you can combine these attacks".
Impaling Finisher and Swipe are the ones that come to my mind.
Now, if you ask me about a single roll on a single target, I don't have any. So, I see your concern, that's why I took time reading the rules more closely when you raised your point.As a side note, the Gunslinger ability Drifter's Wake allows you to make 3 no-MAP attacks that can all benefit from Sneak Attack. So it's not unseen to get 2 no-MAP attacks benefiting from Sneak Attack for 3 actions. I think it's not the biggest concern about this kind of abilities.
Are they separate attacks? Or separate effects bundled under one attack?Strictly speaking, the issue here isn't stacking. There are two separate attacks, both of which independently could trigger sneak attack. With some users expressing concern over the wording of how Spellstrike delivers its second attack and whether or not that would disqualify it.
And I've read here on the forums, not in the books so I can't cite a page, that Sneak Attack doesn't stack. This surprised me at the time, but since I couldn't think of when it could, I accepted it (and if I recall it was a reputable poster too).They are separate attacks, resolved with the same attack roll result. That's why the default is for every bonus to be applied twice (Sneak Attack, Inspire Courage, etc...).
And there's no reason to raise an RAI concern, as every other similar activities apply Sneak Attack twice (but Double Slice, and it's specifically written).There could be a RAW reason to not apply it twice, off course, but I don't see in the wording something that suggest it shouldn't be the case.
I was looking for evidence or a citation, not a reassertion. I suppose I should have made that clear.
The other abilities you're referencing involve either multiple rolls or multiple targets which makes them separate attacks by default. With one roll and one target, I have no inkling to consider either Spellstrike or Eldritch Shot to be two attacks, only two effects bundled into one attack. Unless you can verify your position that is.
I was looking for evidence or a citation, not a reassertion. I suppose I should have made that clear.
Ho, sorry, I didn't understand.
Well, what you call "2 effects bundled into one attack" is not exactly a precise thing in the game, so I have hard time finding you a citation that speaks about it. Maybe what you mean is something like Channel Smite? In that case, it's clearly explained how they combine into a single action.