|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey folks,
After seeing the text for the Dancing Blade cantrip in Dark Archive, I'm wondering if it might actually benefit from Potency runes. Here are some relevant text snippets
You telekinetically animate a weapon that’s unattended or on your person. It brandishes itself at a foe of your choice as if wielded by an invisible duelist. When you first Cast the Spell, the weapon automatically flies to the target and Strikes. It moves along with its target, always remaining within reach. Each time you Sustain the Spell, the weapon either Changes Partners or Strikes. The weapon’s attacks use and contribute to your multiple attack penalty.
Strike (attack) The weapon attacks its target using your spell attack roll. On a hit, the weapon deals damage equal to 2d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier, of a type determined by the weapon (if the weapon has the versatile trait or can otherwise deal multiple types of damage, you choose each time you attack).
In addition, the spell itself doesn't actually have the attack trait, nor does it actually call for you to make an attack as part of the casting of the spell. Instead it seems like you are making an actual weapon strike with the weapon itself.
Its language and setup from any other spell that using a weapon to strike.
Pulling up the text for Spell Attack Rolls, we get the following
If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack rolls, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your ability modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty.
Following on from that, if we look at the text of the runes themselves, it looks like because this is a weapon attack, made with the weapon itself, then it would trigger relevant runes.
Magical enhancements make this weapon strike true. Attack rolls with this weapon gain a +1 item bonus, and the weapon can be etched with one property rune.
So what do we think, might potency runes actually apply in this instance? Being the first example I can think of where an item bonus might actually apply to spell attack roll.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go with no - the weapon's runes (potency and otherwise) have no effect on the Dancing Blade attacks.
The only reason the spell itself does not have the Attack trait is because the attack is an optional and conditional part of the spell - the trait was removed from spells like spiritual weapon for the same reason.
The spell only uses the weapon for the purposes of determining what damage the attack does and nothing more. You are dealing damage with the weapon, but I would not say the attack roll is with this weapon in the intended, mechanical sense in the weapon potency rune.
|
|
Spiritual Weapon is actually a great point, as it has a lot of text that I would have expected to see in something like Dancing Blade
When you cast the spell, the weapon appears next to a foe you choose within range and makes a Strike against it. Each time you Sustain the Spell, you can move the weapon to a new target within range (if needed) and Strike with it. The spiritual weapon uses and contributes to your multiple attack penalty.
The weapon's Strikes are melee spell attacks. Regardless of its appearance, the weapon deals force damage equal to 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. You can deal damage of the type normally dealt by the weapon instead of force damage (or any of the available damage types for a versatile weapon). No other statistics or traits of the weapon apply, and even a ranged weapon attacks adjacent creatures only. Despite making a spell attack, the spiritual weapon is a weapon for purposes of triggers, resistances, and so forth.
The weapon doesn't take up space, grant flanking, or have any other attributes a creature would. The weapon can't make any attack other than its Strike, and feats or spells that affect weapons do not apply to it.
Also, lets forgo that a spiritual weapon can't have a rune etched on it, as it only exists for a minute.
Spirtual weapon contains a lot of text which defines its parameters a spell driven weapon attack. None of these are present on Dancing Blades, and, since its an actual item and conjured, it would have the properties it has regardless of if you used the spell or not.
I'm not going to be heart broken if its a no, it just feels less cut and dry than what we've seen before.
|
|
Without having the book in front of me to see if there's any additional text or context missing here, my gut says to follow the lead of the Dancing rune combined with the rules for spell attacks since that's what this spell appears to be. "Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description." CR 305
I would say that the item bonus from a potency rune would apply, but not the additional die from a striking rune because the damage is spelled out in the spell effects and does not appear to be influenced by the specific weapon except what type (S/P/B) of damage is dealt. I would still allow property runes that trigger on a hit, but nothing that requires activation
Its mainly potency I'm thinking about here. Striking is cut and dry I would say, as the spell effect overrides the damage of the weapon, as you've quoted.
I'm not going to be heart broken if its a no, it just feels less cut and dry than what we've seen before.
It is a bit of a question. Again because the spell is using an existing item like Telekinetic Projectile does. Spiritual Weapon doesn't have the problem because it conjures a weapon to use instead.
And to be clear, it looks like you are not arguing in favor of applying any Striking runes or other property runes that the weapon may have, correct? Because that definitely seems to be too good to be true and probably doesn't work given the quote from Spell Attacks that Baarogue found.
For balance purposes, I have heard that one of the main reasons that we don't see item bonuses to spell attack rolls is because of Shadow Signet that lets you target Reflex or Fortitude DC instead of AC. I don't think that Shadow Signet would work in this case because the spell isn't directly making a spell attack. It allows you make a Strike action with the weapon using your spell attack modifier. So if Shadow Signet is indeed the reason why spell attack item bonuses are non-existent, then allowing it for this spell wouldn't be a big problem.
|
|
I am pretty sure they would have mentioned it in a proper way ( resulting in some sort of global exception ) if it had worked that way.
I'm not certain what that might even look like, other than a line saying something like "Fundamental weapon Potency runes, but not Striking runes, apply to these attacks." But I feel like that would be a strange addition, as there is no fundamental restriction on spell attacks having rune support, they just don't, and are suitably "rare". For example, if they published runes tomorrow which boosted spell attack rolls, they wouldn't be making a rules exception, it would just be a new item that didn't exist before.
For balance purposes, I have heard that one of the main reasons that we don't see item bonuses to spell attack rolls is because of Shadow Signet that lets you target Reflex or Fortitude DC instead of AC. I don't think that Shadow Signet would work in this case because the spell isn't directly making a spell attack. It allows you make a Strike action with the weapon using your spell attack modifier. So if Shadow Signet is indeed the reason why spell attack item bonuses are non-existent, then allowing it for this spell wouldn't be a big problem.
I think your history is a bit off, but the overall point is sound. Dancing Blades simply doesn't work with Shadow Signet because Dancing Blades doesn't have the attack trait.
But to your other point, yes.
I'm suggesting that in this instance Potency runes would apply because you are actually making a weapon strike with the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to be heart broken if its a no, it just feels less cut and dry than what we've seen before.It is a bit of a question. Again because the spell is using an existing item like Telekinetic Projectile does. Spiritual Weapon doesn't have the problem because it conjures a weapon to use instead.
And to be clear, it looks like you are not arguing in favor of applying any Striking runes or other property runes that the weapon may have, correct? Because that definitely seems to be too good to be true and probably doesn't work given the quote from Spell Attacks that Baarogue found.
For balance purposes, I have heard that one of the main reasons that we don't see item bonuses to spell attack rolls is because of Shadow Signet that lets you target Reflex or Fortitude DC instead of AC. I don't think that Shadow Signet would work in this case because the spell isn't directly making a spell attack. It allows you make a Strike action with the weapon using your spell attack modifier. So if Shadow Signet is indeed the reason why spell attack item bonuses are non-existent, then allowing it for this spell wouldn't be a big problem.
I think Shadow Signet exists because item bonuses to spell attacks don't exist - not the other way around. The reason item bonuses for spell attacks don't exist is a more fundamental design decision, and also the reason why all full spellcasters get legendary in spell attacks and spell DCs (minus Warpriest).
Also, lets forgo that a spiritual weapon can't have a rune etched on it, as it only exists for a minute.
Just for the fun of mentioning it, there is a specialty wand that lets you etch a property rune onto it to affect your Spiritual Weapon. Wand of Spiritual Warfare iirc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, lets forgo that a spiritual weapon can't have a rune etched on it, as it only exists for a minute.Just for the fun of mentioning it, there is a specialty wand that lets you etch a property rune onto it to affect your Spiritual Weapon. Wand of Spiritual Warfare iirc.
Indeed. Wand of Spiritual Warfare. I hadn't seen that one before.
...
If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack rolls, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your ability modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty.
...
They call out item bonuses applying to spell attack rolls as unusual so it seems that not applying is the default. Since Dancing Blade doesn't have any text stating that this is an exception to the norm, my gut says that the potency runes don't apply. It's the same reasoning that I apply to potency rules not working with Hand of the Apprentice
I do hope that we get clarification that I'm wrong, though. :)
Yeah, I'd be inclined to allow it as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Dancing Blade says that the weapon does Strike (which is not the case for TKP or Hand of the Apprentice), I would say it applies.
Which is indeed a very rare thing.
Yeah, that's the part that does make me question my gut.
I haven't run any numbers yet, but with d6s and potency rune bonuses I'm guessing the cantrip would outpace the other single-target cantrips on average damage. But then it is a level 5 cantrip rather than a level 1 cantrip so I'd really expect it to be better than normal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Dancing Blade says that the weapon does Strike (which is not the case for TKP or Hand of the Apprentice), I would say it applies.
Which is indeed a very rare thing.
Yeah, that's the part that does make me question my gut.
I haven't run any numbers yet, but with d6s and potency rune bonuses I'm guessing the cantrip would outpace the other single-target cantrips on average damage. But then it is a level 5 cantrip rather than a level 1 cantrip so I'd really expect it to be better than normal.
Its certainly a strong option.
At 20th it would deal 7d6+mod, assuming a +7 mod, it would average around 32 damage per hit. Compared to the 11d6+mod of something like TPK, which averages around 46. So under a standard cantrip by a reasonable margin.
If you amp it, and roll 7d10 instead thats the same as rolling 11d6, so spending the focus point actually brings it up to the standard of a cantrip.
It would be more powerful however due to its (potentially) increased accuracy with potency runes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it underperforms a cantrip but that's only part of the story, since using Dancing Blade on subsequent rounds is only a single action to sustain it. The scaling is similar-ish to SW, one die size lower in cantrip form and one die size higher.
Although it also has three noticeable downsides compared to spiritual weapon: It lags behind a level on its scaling (SW is 3d8 at 6, DW is 3d6/3d10 at 7), it has a quarter of the range, and you have to choose whether to move it or attack with it, whereas spiritual weapon can move and attack freely with the same action.
|
|
Less damage and less efficent for a trade in accuracy seems reasonable.
Between levels 10-13, a potency runed Dancing blade would be on par with martial characters in terms of accuracy. Martials would then pull ahead until 15th, where they once again reach par. Then at 19th the Psychic would tie with the Fighter.
There is a lot of potential variance in martial damage between these levels for the various classes. Generally this looks to be falling within the upper 3rd of the spectrum.