|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstrike does not say that the spell is delivered through another type of attack than a spell attack roll. So, way I read it, there is indeed a spell attack roll to determine the degree of success of the spell and Spellstrike uses your Strike attack roll result to determine the effects of the spell.
Basically, we should roll twice : once for the Strike and once for the spell. And then ignore the result of the roll used for the spell since it is the Strike attack roll result that is used to determine the effect according to Spellstrike.
At its basis, Spellstrike is only about action economy. IIRC, it was the results of the playtest that added the idea of using the result of a single roll to check the success of both Strike and spell attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One last restatement.
The SpellStrike and the Eldritch Shot are both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack. Two Attacks. Two damage resolutions. I think we agree here.
If you see it as a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack then potentially it is two cases for Sneak Attack to apply
If you see it as two Weapon Attacks then Sneak Attack is definitely up twice.
If you see it as a Weapon Attack, and something wierd that is a Weapon Attack Roll but not a Spell Attack Roll and despite the fact that it is a Spell Attack it is somewhow neither a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack Roll, then OK Sneak attack only applies once.
This third option is what Darksol the Painbringer is saying. I find it to be a bit much of a contortion of the logic to accept it.
I do object to the TGTBT arguments as being unreasonable. There are plently of other powers like Flurry of Blows, Swipe, Penetrating Fire, etc that can do the same thing. We are only taking about 1d6 damage, or once per encounter.
Though who knows what Paizo will say. Likely nothing.
Spellstrike does not say that the spell is delivered through another type of attack than a spell attack roll. So, way I read it, there is indeed a spell attack roll to determine the degree of success of the spell and Spellstrike uses your Strike attack roll result to determine the effects of the spell.
Basically, we should roll twice : once for the Strike and once for the spell. And then ignore the result of the roll used for the spell since it is the Strike attack roll result that is used to determine the effect according to Spellstrike.
At its basis, Spellstrike is only about action economy. IIRC, it was the results of the playtest that added the idea of using the result of a single roll to check the success of both Strike and spell attack roll.
That argument makes no sense for two simple reasons: True Strike and Guidance. If I cast True Strike or Guidance, and then Spellstrike, which dice roll gets the benefit of True Strike/Guidance? If it's two attacks, as you claim, then there is no statement telling us which dice roll resolves first. Does the strike come first? Does the spell come first? Are they simultaneous, and thus the player gets to choose which resolves first? We're simply not told (compared to PF1's Spell Combat, for example), which leads it to GM FIAT. To suggest that it's two attacks, and thus two dice rolls, means effects which only work on one dice roll don't operate properly unless you actually either express which dice roll comes first in the ability, or you completely ignore the fact that the spell comes with a roll in the first place, thus leaving us to only affect a single roll, which is the obvious one that should be affected. These are also not the only abilities that affect a single dice roll, meaning it would require this same adjudication for all of those abilities as well, should they come into play.
Even if we say that it's a choice (which means players will pick the better one) or it should be obvious that the weapon strike comes first (because the spell doesn't discharge otherwise, even though Expanded Spellstrike proves that's false), since that's the only important dice roll, the simple fact of the matter is that you're now letting True Strike/Guidance affect two dice rolls instead of one by proxy of True Strike/Guidance affecting the result and copying it to the other roll, something that I honestly feel isn't intended, unless we simply remove the other roll completely and just transfer spell effects onto the strike, which means True Strike/Guidance still only affects one roll, which is intended.
And really, this just adds further complications to an already somewhat complicated ability (especially like it was back in PF1). For an edition that's all about keeping things simple, it sure does complicate things almost needlessly (as you guys like to say is insignificant), like treat things as rolls, but aren't actually rolls that matter. This isn't Schrodinger's Dice, where you roll it and then decide that it's irrelevant because the only dice roll and result that matters is the one that expressly tells you to make a strike; if the spell making a roll is so significant. That sounds like cheese of the highest grade, just to benefit from an ability that requires a roll twice. Channel Smite does this correctly and simply; why couldn't Spellstrike?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The SpellStrike and the Eldritch Shot are both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack. Two Attacks. Two damage resolutions. I think we agree here.
Disagree.
If you see it as a Weapon Attack, and something wierd that is a Weapon Attack Roll but not a Spell Attack Roll and despite the fact that it is a Spell Attack it is somewhow neither a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack Roll, then OK Sneak attack only applies once.
No value judgement in that statement, no...
It is a weapon Strike that applies the effect of a spell based on the result (critical failure, failure, success, critical success) of the weapon Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One last restatement.
The SpellStrike and the Eldritch Shot are both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack. Two Attacks. Two damage resolutions. I think we agree here.
If you see it as a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack then potentially it is two cases for Sneak Attack to apply
If you see it as two Weapon Attacks then Sneak Attack is definitely up twice.
If you see it as a Weapon Attack, and something wierd that is a Weapon Attack Roll but not a Spell Attack Roll and despite the fact that it is a Spell Attack it is somewhow neither a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack Roll, then OK Sneak attack only applies once.
This third option is what Darksol the Painbringer is saying. I find it to be a bit much of a contortion of the logic to accept it.
I do object to the TGTBT arguments as being unreasonable. There are plently of other powers like Flurry of Blows, Swipe, Penetrating Fire, etc that can do the same thing. We are only taking about 1d6 damage, or once per encounter.
Though who knows what Paizo will say. Likely nothing.
I can agree with that, if the Weapon Attack and Spell Attack have their own rolls with their own modifiers being used to check against an enemy's AC. If I perform a 2 Action Spell Attack followed by a 1 Weapon Attack, each of these activities will trigger their own Sneak Attack against credible enemies, because these each have their own dice rolls with their own modifiers. If a Rogue is trying to trigger Fire weakness from a White Dragon, for example, they might 2 Action Produce Flame with a 1 action Strike, thus double dipping their 6D6 Sneak Attack (with one set being pure Fire damage, potentially triggering Persistent Fire damage on a critical hit). Though of course, this assumes the user doesn't have a Flaming weapon active, or perhaps that the Dragon pre-buffed with Resist Energy (Fire), making the Flaming weapon ineffective to triggering a weakness.
If I perform a 2 Action activity that has a Weapon Attack with the effects of the spell attached to it (because it doesn't fire off immediately like any other time you would cast the spell, hence the roll being justified), determined by how successful my Weapon Attack is instead, I would still only apply one Sneak Attack, because in this case, the damage of the spell and the strike are part of the same instance. It's not unlike where Magical Trickster states that a single spell damaging a foe multiple times means Sneak Attack only triggers once. (Though I'm unsure as to when this would come up. Maybe from persisting effects like a Wall of Fire?)
But really, the reason why it's not a roll is because there is no dice roll occurring. Even if we want to suggest that it does, but it means nothing, implies that we're wanting to cheese something not intended by the rules.
I mean, one is a slight boost of power, because 1D6 per strike in certain circumstances isn't any more OP than a (free) weapon elemental rune. The other can trivialize Level+3 Encounters on average, especially if Criticals come about. Just because it's 1/encounter doesn't mean that it's so OP that it can't be done on a regular basis against powerful enemies. This can be potentially double-dipped (though far weaker in the later levels) thanks to Spell-storing, and is an excellent use of a 2nd or 3rd action, since you don't need to make an attack roll for it.
For the record, Inspire Courage double-dipping from a single roll also counts as TGTBT in my opinion, in the same way double-dipping Sneak Attack sounds TGTBT.
Not exactly. Sneak Attack is not Inspire Courage.Inspire Courage directly adds bonus damage to the damage, it does not even require an attack roll to do this (e.g., magic missile).
Sneak Attack triggers on a conditional, successful attack roll (or making a successful spell attack roll for Magical Trickster).
Specifically Inspire courage triggers off damage rolls, not attack rolls, so a spellstrike double dips because you do make a damage roll for both the strike and spell.
But since it requires a damage roll it doesn't trigger off of flat damage like bomb splash or elemental betrayal.My ten cents on the overall discussion is that you don't get to double sneak attack, since only one die is rolled. Its pretty clear the intention is that the two are combined into the same attack (unlike playtest magus) even if the RAW is a bit confusing.
Honestly even the edge case of missing one but hitting with the other because of a specialized AC bonus is questionable. My reading of it is that the "attack roll result" is the degree of success, not the number.
While I can understand how you came to that conclusion, and it makes sense by RAW, I still disagree with it simply because I view Spellstrike as a Weapon Attack + Spell Attack combined into one effect. If it's combined into a single effect, that means it's still only one damage roll taking place. Otherwise, if I can source damage rolls like that, that means every elemental rune or similar benefit would likewise gain a +1 from Inspire Courage.
A couple of things
[Attack roll result] is actually a defined property and not simply the degree of success you get at the end. It is typically the d20+any modifiers. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=321
Following that, true strike, etc would obviously apply to both as you are only copying the [attack roll result] which would have been determined after all such effects were applied. Similarly for damage, as you are copying the result and running through the resolution process a second time, it follows that you would have a second, separate damage calculation step.
A couple of things
[Attack roll result] is actually a defined property and not simply the degree of success you get at the end. It is typically the d20+any modifiers. Source
Following that, true strike, etc would obviously apply to both as you are only copying the [attack roll result] which would have been determined after all such effects were applied. Similarly for damage, as you are copying the result and running through the resolution process a second time, it follows that you would have a second, separate damage calculation step.
Linkified because reasons.
The point was that if you are really rolling 2 dice, True Strike/Guidance only affects one roll, not two, and the ability doesn't specify which roll comes first or is affected, which means it's not clear which roll these abilities affect, meaning it could do way too much compared to its intent, (affect the result of 2 rolls instead of just 1 roll), or way too little (which is effectively nothing, since again, the spell attack roll, or its result, doesn't matter with the ability).
Another point of note is that if it really is a separate roll with only a copied result, then rolling a Natural 20 with your Strike does not equate to your Spell Attack Roll benefitting from rolling a Natural 20. Conversely, if you do indeed roll twice for each ability, if you roll a 1 or 20 on one and not the other, just because you take the base result means you also do or do not adjust that result up or down for the spell (or do if that dice rolled a 1 or 20, and the strike roll did not).
Like I said, for a game wanting to keep things simple, this ability does not do itself any favors for that design goal compared to the likes of Channel Smite.
What? It is very clear that the weapon roll happens first. The ability tells you to make a strike and then use the result for the spell attack. True strike applies to the weapon strike, the result of that is used for spell strike, there was only a single use of True Strike.
Also using the weapon strike is using the weapon strike result. Any actual roll for spellstrike is meaningless, but you are still making a check as written. If a character has +1 vs spells say from a spell guard shield, then the result can be affected as nothing says that its not.
There is a way to write the rule such that the spell is delievered through the weapon attack roll. But that is not the wording that was used.
Let's review the actual text instead of just making things up to suit an interpretation:
You channel a spell into a punch or sword thrust to deliver a combined attack. 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. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the penalty until after you've completed the Spellstrike. The infusion of spell energy grants your Strike the arcane trait, making it magical.
So, the first thing that happens is you Cast a Spell. The effects aren't immediate, and are instead imbued into your weapon/body, but it does mean that it's the first thing being done. Then you Strike afterward. Sounds to me like the Casting of the Spell (which has an attack roll) would be the roll affected by True Strike, per RAW; the only thing is that its effects don't trigger immediately. At least, if we consider that the Spell associated with Spellstrike actually gets a dice roll, and comes with the Natural 1/20 rules and other baggage associated with it. Of course, if we did that, then no double-dip on Sneak Attack.
I would concede Guidance applying to the Weapon Strike, though, since I forgot that spell lets you choose which roll to affect; True Strike does not have that option, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a weapon Strike that applies the effect of a spell based on the result (critical failure, failure, success, critical success) of the weapon Strike.
OK so you are just not accepting that the Result of a check is defined in the game in nice one line highlighted equations (CRB p443,p446), and you are back at natural language reading of the Spellstrike choosing to underline the word effect instead. Well not much point in continuing this particular dicussion then. At least we know the difference.