With Magical Trickster, would Sneak Attack apply only once to an Eldritch Shot or twice (once on the Ranged strike and once on the spell)?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
At no point do you make a spell attack roll so magical trickster never comes into play. This came up a while ago with magus, I'm sure you can find more if you can find that thread.
With Magical Trickster, would Sneak Attack apply only once to an Eldritch Shot or twice (once on the Ranged strike and once on the spell)?
As Gesalt says, Eldritch Shot functions identical to Spellstrike (which functions identical to Channel Smite), which uses a weapon attack roll with a spell effect attached to it, meaning you only apply Sneak Attack once. Even if somebody argued that it actually would function that way, it would fall under the Too Good to Be True clause, since you're getting, essentially, double Sneak Attack benefits from a single strike, which is obviously not intended. There are already feats which enhance your Sneak Attack damage (or provide other abilities with it), giving it more with this method is too powerful and not the intended scope of said abilities.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
it would fall under the Too Good to Be True clause, since you're getting, essentially, double Sneak Attack benefits from a single strike, which is obviously not intended.
A spell and strike both benefitting from sneak attack just like they normally do would hardly be TGTBT. Not saying it isn't reasonble to rule that it doesn't work in these circumstances, but it's a stretch to call it overpowered when that's just how those things operate to begin with.
it would fall under the Too Good to Be True clause, since you're getting, essentially, double Sneak Attack benefits from a single strike, which is obviously not intended.A spell and strike both benefitting from sneak attack just like they normally do would hardly be TGTBT. Not saying it isn't reasonble to rule that it doesn't work in these circumstances, but it's a stretch to call it overpowered when that's just how those things operate to begin with.
If they were their own separate effects done with their own activities, sure. A Rogue with Magical Trickster that casts a spell and then strikes an enemy with a weapon would both benefit from Sneak Attack, no different than two distinct strikes. But in both of these cases, there are actions being spent on independent activities, where one is happening separately from another; when both are combined into the same activity, one of these things takes precedence (usually the weapon attack), and simply applies the "effects" of the other (usually the spell), thus the odds of this coming up are practically zero. After all, when it was initially proposed with the Magus, people were up in arms about its reliability (as they should be), but it was a double-edged sword, which is why the Magus maintained its bounded spellcasting (even if it gets some magical help with its class features).
Just as well, Magical Trickster only works on Spell Attack Rolls, and not just any spell that deals damage (like Fireball), so unless we are making both Spell Attack Rolls and Weapon Attack Rolls in the same activity (which again, are non-existent), I'm not seeing this as being the case. All I'm saying is that the Strike + Spell Effect combo getting double sneak attack, even if the rules technically permitted it, falls under the TGTBT clause in my book, especially if they're combined into the same activity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Magical Trickster, would Sneak Attack apply only once to an Eldritch Shot or twice (once on the Ranged strike and once on the spell)?
Despite what others have said, it applies twice per RAW.
You make both an attack and a spell attack roll (using the attack result instead of rolling the dice) and as such it applies to both the Bow attack and the Spell attack.And Eldritch Shot works like a Strike and a spell, both entirely separated and handled separately. As a side note, one can hit and the other can miss, if the enemy has a miss chance for example.
|
With Magical Trickster, would Sneak Attack apply only once to an Eldritch Shot or twice (once on the Ranged strike and once on the spell)?Despite what others have said, it applies twice per RAW.
You make both an attack and a spell attack roll (using the attack result instead of rolling the dice) and as such it applies to both the Bow attack and the Spell attack.And Eldritch Shot works like a Strike and a spell, both entirely separated and handled separately. As a side note, one can hit and the other can miss, if the enemy has a miss chance for example.
Good point. Eldritch Trickster with Magus MC might be worth something after all then.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Magical Trickster, would Sneak Attack apply only once to an Eldritch Shot or twice (once on the Ranged strike and once on the spell)?Despite what others have said, it applies twice per RAW.
You make both an attack and a spell attack roll (using the attack result instead of rolling the dice) and as such it applies to both the Bow attack and the Spell attack.And Eldritch Shot works like a Strike and a spell, both entirely separated and handled separately. As a side note, one can hit and the other can miss, if the enemy has a miss chance for example.
I didn't think I was going to have to post this...
You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell do not occur immediately but are imbued into the bow you're wielding. Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the penalty until after you've completed both attacks.
When you succeed at a spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC and the spell deals damage, you can add your sneak attack damage to the damage roll. If your single spell leads to multiple separate damage rolls, apply your sneak attack damage only once per target.
You only make a Strike, which triggers Sneak Attack. You do not make a spell attack roll, which is required for Magical Trickster to apply.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At no point do you make a spell attack roll so magical trickster never comes into play. This came up a while ago with magus, I'm sure you can find more if you can find that thread.
I had a look and couldn't find that thread. The discussions I did find didn't really have much to say except they thought it should be played like... but if you can find it that would be helpful.
The only real question is are the two attacks distinct or not?
The answer seems to be the same for the Magus as well as the Eldritch archer as the text is very similar.
Magical Trickster says When you succeed at a spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC and the spell deals damage, you can add your sneak attack damage
Spellstrike says You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell don't occur immediately but are imbued into your attack instead. Make a melee Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack. Your spell is coupled with your attack, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell
Eldritch Shot says You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell do not occur immediately but are imbued into the bow you're wielding. Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell
In both cases its pretty clear the spell is a spell attack, and that it still has its effect assuming it hits a flatfooted target. The spell is dealing damage.
So can we split hairs on When you succeed at a spell attack roll because it was actually a weapon attack?
Well in both cases it tell us to use the attack roll result from the weapon to determine the effects of the spell.
So what is a attack roll result? It is defined for us Melee attack roll result = d20 roll + Strength modifier (or optionally Dexterity modifier for a finesse weapon) + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties.
There is another similar entry for ranged and for spells if you look around.
So what do you do next? You determine the result (which is a number) to the DC. Then determine the level of Success.
From the rules on checks p443
Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply
Step 2: Calculate the Result
Step 3: Compare the Result to the DC
Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success
So it is very clear that the spell attack hasn't succeeded and hasn't been resolved by the weapon attack roll. Rather we plug that result into the spell attack, and then you work out if the spell attack succeeded or not.
The spell attack has not been negated or replaced, just modified. So the spell attack still occurs. It still succeeds or not. So every condition for Magical Trickster can be satisfied.
Therefore the combination works and Sneak Attack damage can apply to both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You only make a Strike, which triggers Sneak Attack. You do not make a spell attack roll, which is required for Magical Trickster to apply.
Succeeding at a spell attack roll, is the step after the attack roll is substituted in. Thats when you determine success. You compare the result to the DC , that is determining the success. Even though you are using a weapon attack number ( the result) in it, success is determined after the subsitution.
The key is succeeding, not rolling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
it would fall under the Too Good to Be True clause, since you're getting, essentially, double Sneak Attack benefits from a single strike, which is obviously not intended.A spell and strike both benefitting from sneak attack just like they normally do would hardly be TGTBT. Not saying it isn't reasonble to rule that it doesn't work in these circumstances, but it's a stretch to call it overpowered when that's just how those things operate to begin with.
The Rogue can normally get two sneak attacks per round just by swinging twice. It can also get it with no MAP example Double Strike. So I'm not going to accept TGTBT here. In fact with Whirlwind Strike, or some of those high level archery feats you can sneak attack a large number of targets in a round.
There is no real reason your sense of TGTBT has to end up favouring the Fighter over the Rogue all the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Gortle for the very long and detailed answer. I'd not have been so thorough in mine.
Also, it seems you have quoted Squiggit instead of Darksol for your last message (or at least it's how I read it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find it either which leads me to believe it may have been a sub discussion in some other thread or on another forum entirely. I'll keep looking though.
From what I remember the logic being, you make your strike, determine the result, and then look up the corresponding result in the spell and apply that as well.
At no point does the activity ever ask you to make a spell attack, instead only asking you to [Cast a Spell] that meets certain conditions and to replace the normal means of determining the spell's outcome with the outcome of a [Strike].
While it is important to remember that the effects of both attacks are calculated separately, allowing multiple procs of weaknesses or resistance, only a single roll has been made, and it wasn't a spell attack roll.
If it means anything, spell attacks are also under a separate header in the rules and spell attack results are given their own specific formula the same way melee and ranged attack roll results are spelled out. So by that definition you still aren't making one, replacing it entirely with a melee or ranged attack roll result.
it would fall under the Too Good to Be True clause, since you're getting, essentially, double Sneak Attack benefits from a single strike, which is obviously not intended.A spell and strike both benefitting from sneak attack just like they normally do would hardly be TGTBT. Not saying it isn't reasonble to rule that it doesn't work in these circumstances, but it's a stretch to call it overpowered when that's just how those things operate to begin with.The Rogue can normally get two sneak attacks per round just by swinging twice. It can also get it with no MAP example Double Strike. So I'm not going to accept TGTBT here. In fact with Whirlwind Strike, or some of those high level archery feats you can sneak attack a large number of targets in a round.
There is no real reason your sense of TGTBT has to end up favouring the Fighter over the Rogue all the time.
Did you mean Double Slice? The feat which only applies precision damage once despite rolling two Strikes...
Swipe might be a better example, as it'd be hard to imagine not applying Sneak Attack to both (if qualified to) though that does compare to two different ACs so it's not quite the same either.|
|
If the target is concealed, do you use a single flat check for both Strike and spell, or do you use one for Strike and one for Spell ?
The answer is the same as the number of times you apply sneak attack here.
I guess it would be better for the Magus if the answer was one.
Haven't we already had to deal in the Rules forum with succeeding at a roll vs succeeding at a check already (say, something that involved Assurance) ?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NB : using Assurance implies a roll being done (and replaced with the result of Assurance) because it has the Fortune trait, which alters a roll.
It does seem then that substituting a given result for that of a roll still counts as a roll.
So, that makes 2 flat checks and sneak attack applied twice.
And if both Strike and spell dealt bludgeoning damage and the target had resistance to it, I guess it would apply twice. Which is what I would have intuitively done anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you mean Double Slice? The feat which only applies precision damage once despite rolling two Strikes...
Swipe might be a better example, as it'd be hard to imagine not applying Sneak Attack to both (if qualified to) though that does compare to two different ACs so it's not quite the same either.
My mistake there.
But as you say there are others like Dual Finisher| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At no point does the activity ever ask you to make a spell attack, instead only asking you to [Cast a Spell] that meets certain conditions and to replace the normal means of determining the spell's outcome with the outcome of a [Strike].
Roughly, you consider that you are no more making a spell attack roll because its result is fixed. It means also that you are no more making an attack roll when using Devise a Stratagem (it's the same wording) and as such don't apply weapon critical specialization to a critical hit with Devise a Stratagem (and everything that asks for an attack roll).
And as Raven Black reports it, it would also affect Assurance that would not be a skill check anymore.I think your interpretation is wrong. Substituting the result doesn't remove the roll, you are still making a spell attack roll, it's just that its result is fixed by the Strike attack roll.
You only make a Strike, which triggers Sneak Attack. You do not make a spell attack roll, which is required for Magical Trickster to apply.Succeeding at a spell attack roll, is the step after the attack roll is substituted in. Thats when you determine success. You compare the result to the DC , that is determining the success. Even though you are using a weapon attack number ( the result) in it, success is determined after the subsitution.
The key is succeeding, not rolling.
I disagree.
Taking the whole sentence into account, you need to succeed at a Spell Attack roll. If you're simply having a successful Spell Attack (because its result is determined by your Strike's roll, which occurs regardless of your adjusted modifiers, concealment miss chances, etc.), but didn't need to roll for it, you haven't, in fact, succeeded at a Spell Attack roll, thus you don't meet the qualifications for it to trigger via the feat.
It's the same reasoning why you couldn't, for example, use effects which give you a specific result (such as Juggernaut/Evasion/Resolve) with other effects that increase/decrease the result by one step; since those are tied to rolling, you couldn't benefit from it. **EDIT** Removed Assurance example because Fortune/Misfortune effects expressly alter a roll, implying a roll is still being done.
I would also probably choose to invoke the final sentence of the feat, since, even though it's a single spell, it still leads to multiple damage rolls (one from the spell, one from the weapon strike). Thus, you're double-tapping the Sneak Attack here, which the clause explicitly would forbid (since it says "once per target," not "once per target per effect"). Even if we argue that it's obviously intended to be for spells only, such as area of effect spells, persistent effects, etc. nothing discounts it from being a source tied to the spell, but likewise separate from it (such as a weapon strike).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At no point does the activity ever ask you to make a spell attack, instead only asking you to [Cast a Spell] that meets certain conditions and to replace the normal means of determining the spell's outcome with the outcome of a [Strike].Roughly, you consider that you are no more making a spell attack roll because its result is fixed. It means also that you are no more making an attack roll when using Devise a Stratagem (it's the same wording) and as such don't apply weapon critical specialization to a critical hit with Devise a Stratagem (and everything that asks for an attack roll).
And as Raven Black reports it, it would also affect Assurance that would not be a skill check anymore.I think your interpretation is wrong. Substituting the result doesn't remove the roll, you are still making a spell attack roll, it's just that its result is fixed by the Strike attack roll.
You aren't making a roll because you're not using its modifiers (which are separate from the Strike's, which is what the result is being based off of), therefore for it to qualify as a Spell Attack roll does not compute.
An error on my part with the Fortune/Misfortune thing, sure, but effects like Juggernaut/Evasion/Resolve aren't Fortune/Misfortune effects, and neither is this substitution, meaning the argument that it functions identical to a Fortune/Misfortune effect is just plain wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of those feat examples are comparable to loading all of your potential damage for a round onto a single roll at the higher (in the vast majority of cases) modifier that gets doubled on a crit; those feats all target different enemies with each instance of attack and/or add a penalty on the extra attack not to mention those with extra attack rolls that were proposed as similar effects.
Question: Creature with multiple (unlimited for this question) reactions and Attack if Opportunity is standing in reach of the eldritch archer. How many AoOs does he receive for making an Eldritch Shot?
1 vs. Cast a Spell + 1 vs. ranged attack + 1 vs. ranged spell attack?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those feat examples are comparable to loading all of your potential damage for a round onto a single roll at the higher (in the vast majority of cases) modifier that gets doubled on a crit; those feats all target different enemies with each instance of attack and/or add a penalty on the extra attack not to mention those with extra attack rolls that were proposed as similar effects.
That's a completely different question: You are talking about balance. I also agree that Eldritch Shot is out of bounds, but that's a very different subject.
As a side note, when talking about balance, the Fighter adds its +2 to both attacks technically, why would the Rogue add its Sneak Attack to only one?Question: Creature with multiple (unlimited for this question) reactions and Attack if Opportunity is standing in reach of the eldritch archer. How many AoOs does he receive for making an Eldritch Shot?
1 vs. Cast a Spell + 1 vs. ranged attack + 1 vs. ranged spell attack?
Yes. Why would it be an issue? If you make a Strike and a spell attack roll spell you get the same number of AoOs.
Actually, I think Paizo chose to make the equivalent of a Strike followed by a spell because it is the most conservative ruling. It would have been very easy to say something like "Add the spell success effects to the Strike success effecs and the spell critical success effects to the Strike critical success effects". And you would have had exactly what you want: A single roll to handle both the spell and the Strike. But that would generate a lot of weird rule interactions, like the fact that you could affect a golem with your spell for example. I think that's why they chose to be as close as possible to something everyone can do: Strike and then cast a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At no point does the activity ever ask you to make a spell attack, instead only asking you to [Cast a Spell] that meets certain conditions and to replace the normal means of determining the spell's outcome with the outcome of a [Strike].Roughly, you consider that you are no more making a spell attack roll because its result is fixed. It means also that you are no more making an attack roll when using Devise a Stratagem (it's the same wording) and as such don't apply weapon critical specialization to a critical hit with Devise a Stratagem (and everything that asks for an attack roll).
And as Raven Black reports it, it would also affect Assurance that would not be a skill check anymore.I think your interpretation is wrong. Substituting the result doesn't remove the roll, you are still making a spell attack roll, it's just that its result is fixed by the Strike attack roll.
Not at all. After all, DaS explicitly replaces only the result of the d20 before using other modifiers to achieve the final result. Spellstrike and eldritch shot eschew the roll entirely instead substituting the entire process with the end result of the weapon strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Add the spell success effects to the Strike success effecs and the spell critical success effects to the Strike critical success effects". And you would have had exactly what you want: A single roll to handle both the spell and the Strike. But that would generate a lot of weird rule interactions, like the fact that you could affect a golem with your spell for example. I think that's why they chose to be as close as possible to something everyone can do: Strike and then cast a spell.
The problem with language is that I read Eldritch Shot to say exactly what you wrote in quotes except it's in natural language as written in the book.
The argument is being made that the Strike result is being substituted into a spell attack roll result a la Assurance.
You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).
But it isn't. No spell attack is occurring.
. . . using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell.
The activity does not refer to replacing the spell attack result with the Strike result, it only says to use the Strike's result to determine the effect, i.e., the effects described for failure, success, or critical success.
To use SuperBidi's method of argument, it would have been simpler and fewer words to write, ". . . using your attack roll result as the spell attack roll's result."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The activity does not refer to replacing the spell attack result with the Strike result, it only says to use the Strike's result to determine the effect, i.e., the effects described for failure, success, or critical success.
Spell attack roll spells say "Make a spell attack roll". Eldritch Shot doesn't alter that. Whatever the way you will apply the result of the attack roll, there's still a spell attack roll involved at some point and as such you qualify for Magical Trickster.
Assurance works similarly. And it is definitely altering a roll by substituting a value for the roll's result. So, it works the same here.
Assurance alters a roll via the Fortune trait, which is why a roll is still considered to take place.
Eldritch Shot, Spell-storing, Spellstrike, et. al. say they take the same result from a strike being done simultaneously (or previously), and don't possess a trait saying the roll is being altered.
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
|
|
Assurance works similarly. And it is definitely altering a roll by substituting a value for the roll's result. So, it works the same here.Assurance alters a roll via the Fortune trait, which is why a roll is still considered to take place.
Eldritch Shot, Spell-storing, Spellstrike, et. al. say they take the same result from a strike being done simultaneously (or previously), and don't possess a trait saying the roll is being altered.
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
The Fortune trait is there to avoid stacking and to adjudicate the Fortune/Misfortune interaction. I honestly do not see anything that would indicate the substitution works any differently except for this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as well, for everyone saying it's not TGTBT, let's do a fun little white room experiment:
We have a 12th level Thief Rogue with Magus Dedication, all the available Spellcasting feats, the Spellstriker feat, Precise Debilitation, and a +2 Greater Striking Flaming Spell-storing Rapier with a 3rd level Shocking Grasp attached to it. He and his party of friends (a Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter) are up against an Ancient White Dragon, an enemy 3 levels higher than them, and has a +23 to hit (16 Proficiency + 5 Dexterity + 2 Weapon).
Assuming he's next to the dragon, who is being flanked by his Fighter buddy (as he should), he decides to do a Spellstrike with a 3rd level Shocking Grasp, followed by spending 1 action to activate the Spell-storing weapon. Easy peasy, right? After all, he has a +23 on his attack roll, and the enemy is Flat-footed, making them at only an AC 34, meaning on average, the Rogue is going to hit the Dragon.
With that, on a basic hit, he deals 8D12 (Shocking Grasp) + 3D6 (Rapier) + 1D6 (Flaming) + 15D6 (Sneak Attack) + 7 (Dexterity/Weapon Specialization).
The total dice on that would be 8D12 (average 52) + 19D6 (average 66.5) + 7, or an assumed average roll of 125.5 damage. Against the Dragon's 330 HP, that is over 1/3 of its health.
Now, let's say the Rogue got really lucky and rolled a Natural 20 (the only way he can perform a Critical hit on the Dragon). If that attack is a Critical, we would add 2D8 from the Deadly (average 9) on top of doubling that previous value, for a total of 260 damage on average from a Critical. This is over 75% of the Dragon's health.
This isn't taking into consideration of triggering Weakness, or if we don't have a Flaming weapon, we may instead want to use Produce Flame in place of Shocking Grasp.
So by all means, tell me that it's not TGTBT.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So by all means, tell me that it's not TGTBT.
It doesn't matter in the least if it is or isn't TGTBT: it only comes in to play if you think it's ambiguous or unclear and if you don't think it's either...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as well, for everyone saying it's not TGTBT, let's do a fun little white room experiment:
We have a 12th level Thief Rogue with Magus Dedication, all the available Spellcasting feats, the Spellstriker feat, Precise Debilitation, and a +2 Greater Striking Flaming Spell-storing Rapier with a 3rd level Shocking Grasp attached to it. He and his party of friends (a Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter) are up against an Ancient White Dragon, an enemy 3 levels higher than them, and has a +23 to hit (16 Proficiency + 5 Dexterity + 2 Weapon).
Assuming he's next to the dragon, who is being flanked by his Fighter buddy (as he should), he decides to do a Spellstrike with a 3rd level Shocking Grasp, followed by spending 1 action to activate the Spell-storing weapon. Easy peasy, right? After all, he has a +23 on his attack roll, and the enemy is Flat-footed, making them at only an AC 34, meaning on average, the Rogue is going to hit the Dragon.
With that, on a basic hit, he deals 8D12 (Shocking Grasp) + 3D6 (Rapier) + 1D6 (Flaming) + 15D6 (Sneak Attack) + 7 (Dexterity/Weapon Specialization).
The total dice on that would be 8D12 (average 52) + 19D6 (average 66.5) + 7, or an assumed average roll of 125.5 damage. Against the Dragon's 330 HP, that is over 1/3 of its health.
Now, let's say the Rogue got really lucky and rolled a Natural 20 (the only way he can perform a Critical hit on the Dragon). If that attack is a Critical, we would add 2D8 from the Deadly (average 9) on top of doubling that previous value, for a total of 260 damage on average from a Critical. This is over 75% of the Dragon's health.
This isn't taking into consideration of triggering Weakness, or if we don't have a Flaming weapon, we may instead want to use Produce Flame in place of Shocking Grasp.
So by all means, tell me that it's not TGTBT.
A Fighter in the same situation would have:
8d12 (Shocking Grasp) + 3d12 (Greatsword) + 1d6 (Elemental Runes) + 8 (Strength/Weapon Specialization) = 83 * 1.25 (+2 to hit gives 25% extra damage roughly) = 103.75. So in terms of average damage they are not that far away. Considering that you use a level 13 Uncommon Rune, all your 3 actions and 2 abilities restricted to once per fight.And if you compare with a Magus with Cleric Dedication who goes for True Trike + Spellstrike, both the Rogue and the Fighter are behind.
If you remove the Spell Storing Rune (because it's Uncommon and as such is really up to the GM), the Rogue deals 4d12 + 3d6 + 2d6 + 10d6 + 7 = 85.5. The Fighter deals 4d12 + 3d12 + 2d6 + 8 = 60.5 * 1.25 = 75.625. Pretty close. If you remove the second Sneak Attack, the Fighter ends up ahead. So, unless you tell me that the Fighter should always do more damage than anyone else, I think it's fine.
Now, the question is: Is Eldritch Shot or Spellstriker balanced? But as Graystone says it has nothing to do with RAW.
So by all means, tell me that it's not TGTBT.It doesn't matter in the least if it is or isn't TGTBT: it only comes in to play if you think it's ambiguous or unclear and if you don't think it's either...
The fact that there is disagreement in the thread suggests that it is indeed ambiguous and/or unclear, as such, TGTBT would come into play. In which case, TGTBT would take the conservative ruling, which is that you wouldn't double tap the Sneak Attack dice because it's too powerful to do (and thus is TGTBT).
The Fortune trait is there to avoid stacking and to adjudicate the Fortune/Misfortune interaction. I honestly do not see anything that would indicate the substitution works any differently except for this.Assurance works similarly. And it is definitely altering a roll by substituting a value for the roll's result. So, it works the same here.Assurance alters a roll via the Fortune trait, which is why a roll is still considered to take place.
Eldritch Shot, Spell-storing, Spellstrike, et. al. say they take the same result from a strike being done simultaneously (or previously), and don't possess a trait saying the roll is being altered.
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
Assurance having the Fortune trait makes no sense simply because there are already mechanics there that prevent stacking effects anyway, it's just doubled up for pointlessness like this.
If there are Fortune/Misfortune abilities that adjust the value of the result via penalties/bonuses, the ability already denies it by saying you don't include them in the result. If there are Fortune/Misfortune abilities that let you reroll, or roll twice and take the higher/lower, that's ignored too because you are forgoing rolling entirely, meaning the Fortune/Misfortune effect isn't affecting anything. There is literally no reason for the Fortune trait to be tied to Assurance.
That being said, you're now saying that a roll and a result are the same thing with this ruling, even if they have or use different modifiers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there is disagreement in the thread suggests that it is indeed ambiguous and/or unclear, as such, TGTBT would come into play.
Not for everyone as in fact Gortle has stated that they see it as a clear cut case: You saying it's ambiguous isn't going to alter that it's clear to others. As such, you need a actual factual reason for it to be ambiguous: pointing to others disagreeing with them only proves we are on the internet where people will argue about the moon landing and if the world is flat and not that there is an actual basis for ambiguity.
In which case, TGTBT would take the conservative ruling, which is that you wouldn't double tap the Sneak Attack dice because it's too powerful to do (and thus is TGTBT).
Even in this case, you have to have EVERYONE agree it's TGTBT and you've already lost that fight as I and SuperBidi don't think it is. And this of course assumes we agree that it's ambiguous to get to that point and I often do not see why some people don't see that's abundantly clear to me so it's a pretty big jump to assume we agree with you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no universe in which they intended Sneak Attack to apply twice in these kinds of circumstances.
As others have mentioned, the terminology of "roll" is key here, if one doesn't resolve an actual die roll then you are not making a roll, otherwise the boilerplate would have exploded on dozens of other features and feats in the system from other combinations already including applying unintended benefits to Assurance functions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there is disagreement in the thread suggests that it is indeed ambiguous and/or unclear, as such, TGTBT would come into play. In which case, TGTBT would take the conservative ruling, which is that you wouldn't double tap the Sneak Attack dice because it's too powerful to do (and thus is TGTBT).So by all means, tell me that it's not TGTBT.It doesn't matter in the least if it is or isn't TGTBT: it only comes in to play if you think it's ambiguous or unclear and if you don't think it's either...
I don't think it's unclear. It's actually extremely clear. But I think the concept of double Sneak Attack generates an opposition.
All spell attack roll spells say: Make a spell attack roll. With Eldritch Shot you use the result of the Strike to determine the effects of the spell. So the spell attack roll is still there, as Eldritch Shot doesn't alter the spell description, and it is considered a success if the Strike is a success as you use the result of the Strike to determine the effects of the spell.
Even with Blake's tiger's reading you apply Magical Trickster.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no universe in which they intended Sneak Attack to apply twice in these kinds of circumstances.
Starting your sentence by "There is no universe" means that we are no more talking about facts but beliefs. It kills the debate entirely.
It's the same with the too good to be true rule, which is not speaking about the actual rules but how we perceive them.And I think it's the issue, here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there is disagreement in the thread suggests that it is indeed ambiguous and/or unclear, as such, TGTBT would come into play.Not for everyone as in fact Gortle has stated that they see it as a clear cut case: You saying it's ambiguous isn't going to alter that it's clear to others. As such, you need a actual factual reason for it to be ambiguous: pointing to others disagreeing with them only proves we are on the internet where people will argue about the moon landing and if the world is flat and not that there is an actual basis for ambiguity.
In which case, TGTBT would take the conservative ruling, which is that you wouldn't double tap the Sneak Attack dice because it's too powerful to do (and thus is TGTBT).Even in this case, you have to have EVERYONE agree it's TGTBT and you've already lost that fight as I and SuperBidi don't think it is. And this of course assumes we agree that it's ambiguous to get to that point and I often do not see why some people don't see that's abundantly clear to me so it's a pretty big jump to assume we agree with you.
Let's actually look at the TGTBT clause:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
This is more from the purview of a GM being presented arguments from the players, the fact of the matter is that the book defines what an ambiguous rule is, which is that it has multiple interpretations. So the relevant rules have had two (which counts as multiple) interpretations presented, one which says a result change is still a roll and things which require a roll work on it, even if the result is fixed; and one which says it still has to actually be a dice roll to apply effects which require rolling, and effects which substitute results don't count.
Sounds like, according to the rules, our discussion accurately relates to Ambiguous Rules, and by proxy, the TGTBT clause. With the two versions presented, I find your version is the one that's TGTBT
There is no universe in which they intended Sneak Attack to apply twice in these kinds of circumstances.
As others have mentioned, the terminology of "roll" is key here, if one doesn't resolve an actual die roll then you are not making a roll, otherwise the boilerplate would have exploded on dozens of other features and feats in the system from other combinations already including applying unintended benefits to Assurance functions.
Pretty much.
As another example, let's say I'm a Wizard with a Robes of the Archmagi equipped, and somebody casts Weird on me.
Now, I'm a pretty high level Wizard (17th Level), so I possess the Resolve class feature. Here's what it says:
You’ve steeled your mind with resolve. Your proficiency rank for Will saves increases to master. When you roll a success at a Will save, you get a critical success instead.
The Robes of the Archmagi has the following reaction:
You automatically succeed at your save against the triggering arcane spell.
So, let's say they sling the Weird spell at me. If I use this Reaction, I automatically succeed at the Arcane spell. Would my Resolve ability kick in and bump it to a critical success instead?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You only make a Strike, which triggers Sneak Attack. You do not make a spell attack roll, which is required for Magical Trickster to apply.Succeeding at a spell attack roll, is the step after the attack roll is substituted in. Thats when you determine success. You compare the result to the DC , that is determining the success. Even though you are using a weapon attack number ( the result) in it, success is determined after the subsitution.
The key is succeeding, not rolling.
I disagree.
Taking the whole sentence into account, you need to succeed at a Spell Attack roll. If you're simply having a successful Spell Attack (because its result is determined by your Strike's roll, which occurs regardless of your adjusted modifiers, concealment miss chances, etc.), but didn't need to roll for it, you haven't, in fact, succeeded at a Spell Attack roll, thus you don't meet the qualifications for it to trigger via the feat.
Well its refreshing to get a response which argues the point. Thanks.
Anyway your answer is here
From the rules on checks p443
Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply
Step 2: Calculate the Result
Step 3: Compare the Result to the DC
Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success
Guess what this procedure is? Its a check. The whole thing. This is a skill check and attack roll and a spell attack roll.
So is but pluggin in a different number for the result can you say that you have succeeded at a spell attack roll? Yes.I do get that you are arguing that the d20 rolled in Step 1 was not a spell attack d20. But what else can it be? We are at the stage where we haven't hit yet. Let alone applied sneak attack or worked out damage. This is a a whole separate process.
I'm not sure that you really want to show that its actually a weapon attack or then you don't even need Magical Trickster.
So are you proposing a new type of check? There are 6 checks type defined BTW, and I'll grant that the rules do leave it open for there to be more. But for my mind its simplest to consider this either as a spell attack roll or a weapon attack roll. Either way sneak attack applies.
It's the same reasoning why you couldn't, for example, use effects which give you a specific result (such as Juggernaut/Evasion/Resolve) with other effects that increase/decrease the result by one step; since those are tied to rolling, you couldn't benefit from it. **EDIT** Removed Assurance example because Fortune/Misfortune effects expressly alter a roll, implying a roll is still being done.
I don't really get what you are saying here. I thought this limit was just a sanity limit imposed by general principle that you don't advance things twice, just like you don't get to increase weapon die sizes twice.
I would also probably choose to invoke the final sentence of the feat, since, even though it's a single spell, it still leads to multiple damage rolls (one from the spell, one from the weapon strike). Thus, you're double-tapping the Sneak Attack here, which the clause explicitly would forbid (since it says "once per target," not "once per target per effect"). Even if we argue that it's obviously intended to be for spells only, such as area of effect spells, persistent effects, etc. nothing discounts it from being a source tied to the spell, but likewise separate from it (such as a weapon strike).
They have separate effects. They would for example go through Resistance twice. The Eldritch Shot and SpellStrike are explicitly stacking two different actions together as one. It doesn't seem that unreasonable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's actually look at the TGTBT clause:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
I already did: did you miss the FIRST part of that: "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways." IMO, you have NOT overcome this requirement: thinking it's too good to be true so it must be wrong isn't a fact based argument or is a different reading IMO. It's starting off with the premise that it's wrong first and then trying to find a way to make it so.
Sounds like, according to the rules, our discussion accurately relates to Ambiguous Rules, and by proxy, the TGTBT clause. With the two versions presented, I find your version is the one that's TGTBT
Sure, as the person trying to find a way it doesn't work you think it fits: for someone that looks at it and only see one way to read it it doesn't. There isn't a meeting of the minds. Again, someone can tell me that it's ambiguous that the world if flat because people argue about it but it doesn't seem ambiguous to me no matter how hard they want to debate it: just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean I have to agree.
As others have mentioned, the terminology of "roll" is key here, if one doesn't resolve an actual die roll then you are not making a roll, otherwise the boilerplate would have exploded on dozens of other features and feats in the system from other combinations already including applying unintended benefits to Assurance functions.
A roll is made, it's just used in multiple places: you use the rolled number for your spell attack: nothing about a roll requires it only be used for a single purpose. You roll a d20 to determine the results of a strike attack roll and a spells spell roll... nothing stopped it from being a roll.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no universe in which they intended Sneak Attack to apply twice in these kinds of circumstances.
I mean maybe in this particular instance, but I'm really not sure getting sneak attack twice when you make two attacks is nearly as out of bounds as some people hare are making it out to be.
It also strikes me as a little odd to suggest that Paizo specifically designed the Eldritch Archer to apply a penalty to Magical Trickster rogues as part of its design.
I'm not saying it's impossible that it was Paizo's intention here, it just seems like a really bizarre place to draw a line in the sand given how the ability interacts with other martial mechanics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no universe in which they intended Sneak Attack to apply twice in these kinds of circumstances.
As others have mentioned, the terminology of "roll" is key here, if one doesn't resolve an actual die roll then you are not making a roll, otherwise the boilerplate would have exploded on dozens of other features and feats in the system from other combinations already including applying unintended benefits to Assurance functions.
Why not. Its two actions? A Rogue can normally just swing twice and apply sneak attack twice in that time. Why is you balance alarm going off?
A Flurry Ranger or similarily built Fighter can realistically apply it 4-5 times in a turn. Let me think a hasted Rogue, with Monks flurry of Blows and an agile unarmed attack, Gang Up, Opportune Backstab, a haste effect from a potion, and an ally to trigger Opportune Backstab, gives us 6 times full sneak attack against one target in a turn. With Preparation instead 3 of those have no MAP.
We are also clearly talking about multiclass combination here, so either the spell strike is limited to one per encounter or the sneak attack dice is just one d6. The Eldritch shot is not something that can be combined with DAS or True Strike.
You only make a Strike, which triggers Sneak Attack. You do not make a spell attack roll, which is required for Magical Trickster to apply.Succeeding at a spell attack roll, is the step after the attack roll is substituted in. Thats when you determine success. You compare the result to the DC , that is determining the success. Even though you are using a weapon attack number ( the result) in it, success is determined after the subsitution.
The key is succeeding, not rolling.
I disagree.
Taking the whole sentence into account, you need to succeed at a Spell Attack roll. If you're simply having a successful Spell Attack (because its result is determined by your Strike's roll, which occurs regardless of your adjusted modifiers, concealment miss chances, etc.), but didn't need to roll for it, you haven't, in fact, succeeded at a Spell Attack roll, thus you don't meet the qualifications for it to trigger via the feat.
Well its refreshing to get a response which argues the point. Thanks.
Anyway your answer is here
From the rules on checks p443
Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply
Step 2: Calculate the Result
Step 3: Compare the Result to the DC
Step 4: Determine the Degree of SuccessGuess what this procedure is? Its a check. The whole thing. This is a skill check and attack roll and a spell attack roll.
So is but pluggin in a different number for the result can you say that you have succeeded at a spell attack roll? Yes.I do get that you are arguing that the d20 rolled in Step 1 was not a spell attack d20. But what else can it be? We are at the stage where we haven't hit yet. Let alone applied sneak attack or worked out damage. This is a a whole separate process.
I'm not sure that you really want to show that its actually a weapon attack or then you don't even need Magical Trickster.
So are...
If that was true, then the rules supersede that entry with its own exceptions, to the point that it's not even the same thing anymore.
Step 1? You don't roll a D20, and you don't identify modifiers, bonuses, and penalties, because there are none. Step 2? You can't calculate a result because there is no number to calculate from Step 1. You also can't compare the result either, because there is no DC to compare it to, much less a result to compare it to from Step 2. All you do is determine the degree of success, which is determined instead by the result of your previous strike, which is a completely separate check from this one. That's why it can't reasonably be considered a check against a DC, because you're not even comparing any of it to anything other than a previous result from a previous check, which has its own modifiers that are determined separately from this one (which, as you even admitted in a previous post, is what distinguishes each type of check).
All I'm showing is that it can't be a roll based on its mechanics, which means effects which trigger on requiring a roll (such as Magical Trickster) don't function because what it's meant to function with (a spell attack roll) isn't taking place to begin with. The rules on checks essentially do not apply to these abilities, and are instead their own exceptions which supersede the general rules of determining checks.
The point of mentioning Juggernaut/Evasion/Resolve is that they, not unlike Spellstrike/Eldritch Shot/Spell-storing, alter results that are rolled, and should also be affected by things which give a specific result (such as Robes of the Archmagi imposing a guaranteed success), because this ruling would affect much more than this specific instance, which questions the intention entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm showing is that it can't be a roll based on its mechanics, which means effects which trigger on requiring a roll (such as Magical Trickster) don't function because what it's meant to function with (a spell attack roll) isn't taking place to begin with. The rules on checks essentially do not apply to these abilities, and are instead their own exceptions which supersede the general rules of determining checks.
But it says to use your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the strike and the spell determining the effects is inside the standard procedure for a check. The two effects can have different degrees of success. Clearly the spell attack and the weapon attack both occur. There is not a need to create a new special type of check, just sub in the one number they say to do in the ability.
The point of mentioning Juggernaut/Evasion/Resolve is that they, not unlike Spellstrike/Eldritch Shot/Spell-storing, alter results that are rolled, and should also be affected by things which give a specific result (such as Robes of the Archmagi imposing a guaranteed success), because this ruling would affect much more than this specific instance, which questions the intention entirely.
I'm still not understanding yet why you are bringing these up. I mean yes they opperate at the next step in check resolution.
Anyway. I can't in good faith be definitive about the wider issue as there is a lot of interpretation involved. I do understand what your are saying. I just don't agree its the best reading. Sadly I consider this particular combination of abilities poorly defined.
Both SpellStrike and Eldritch Shot are essentially 3 action (spell strike has to be recharged) so the stronger interpretation is not unreasonable.
It could all have been simple with the extra wording such as what exists in Double Slice.
All I'm showing is that it can't be a roll based on its mechanics, which means effects which trigger on requiring a roll (such as Magical Trickster) don't function because what it's meant to function with (a spell attack roll) isn't taking place to begin with. The rules on checks essentially do not apply to these abilities, and are instead their own exceptions which supersede the general rules of determining checks.But it says to use your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the strike and the spell determining the effects is inside the standard procedure for a check. The two effects can have different degrees of success. Clearly the spell attack and the weapon attack both occur. There is not a need to create a new special type of check, just sub in the one number they say to do in the ability.
The point of mentioning Juggernaut/Evasion/Resolve is that they, not unlike Spellstrike/Eldritch Shot/Spell-storing, alter results that are rolled, and should also be affected by things which give a specific result (such as Robes of the Archmagi imposing a guaranteed success), because this ruling would affect much more than this specific instance, which questions the intention entirely.I'm still not understanding yet why you are bringing these up. I mean yes they opperate at the next step in check resolution.
Anyway. I can't in good faith be definitive about the wider issue as there is a lot of interpretation involved. I do understand what your are saying. I just don't agree its the best reading. Sadly I consider this particular combination of abilities poorly defined.
Both SpellStrike and Eldritch Shot are essentially 3 action (spell strike has to be recharged) so the stronger interpretation is not unreasonable.
It could all have been simple with the extra wording such as what exists in Double Slice.
They never have differing degrees of success, though, making that claim incorrect. Never has a spell attack from these abilities have a result different from the weapon attack being made. Just as well, at no point are you using your spellcasting ability modifier to determine results or success with your spell. The rules basically say "copy the result from your weapon strike to determine the effect of your spell attack," at which point we can't really constitute it being a check, but an effect with a pre-determined outcome that doesn't use modifiers, a dice roll, or a DC comparison, all of which is relevant to what constitutes a check to begin with by the book's definition.
Those alter outcomes the same as the mentioned abilities, but still require rolling (and not simply having) a specific result to receive their benefits. They are meant to be equals in this respect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They never have differing degrees of success, though, making that claim incorrect.
Of course they do. The attack can hit and not the spell, or vice versa.
You use the result of the attack roll, which is a number, to determine the effects. So you compare the number to the AC, and get the degree of success. If the enemy has a bonus to AC against spell attack rolls for example, the degrees of success can be different.What you're saying is that "attack roll result" is not the result of the check, but the degree of success of this same check. That's not RAW. Attack roll result has a definition and it's a number, not a degree of success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They never have differing degrees of success, though, making that claim incorrect.Of course they do. The attack can hit and not the spell, or vice versa.
You use the result of the attack roll, which is a number, to determine the effects. So you compare the number to the AC, and get the degree of success. If the enemy has a bonus to AC against spell attack rolls for example, the degrees of success can be different.What you're saying is that "attack roll result" is not the result of the check, but the degree of success of this same check. That's not RAW. Attack roll result has a definition and it's a number, not a degree of success.
Its not common. But there are ways to do it for example any of the Noqual armours: Sovereign Steel Armor has The noqual in sovereign steel armor provides protection against magic, granting you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC against spell attack rolls There are other items with this property
There are probably others.
These examples are a bit odd, and probably aren't that realistic but:
Emergency Targe could react to the second of the spell attack/strike and not the first.
What about Shielding Salve or even just Shield which potentially protects you against the first attack and not the second - note that the spell effects end when you use it so the AC bonus won't always last to the full round. I don't imagine most people will bother to split that open.
Then there are some things which might partially screw up a spell strike. I haven't thought about these yet:
Is counteracting the spell in a spell strike something that can happen?
Then you have Stupified, which might disrupt the spell cast.