|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) So, is the title combo "Too good to be true?"
2) Does the extra wording in Invoke the Crimson Oath separate it from HOTA?
3) Were the forums wrong about the Rogue combo?
4) Does HOTA work with Sneak Attack(Without the need to take Magical Trickster)?
1) No, it is not. With a multispell wind-up, and one if the spells dependent upon your focus points, it has a cost. Also, it is a spell attack roll.
2) ItCO does not include the language "Strike", therefore it does not work with sneak attack. HotA does, so it does work.
3) Yes, they were wrong.
4) Yes
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack...
You do not Strike with HotA, you make a spell attack roll. You only deal damage as if you hit with a strike, but that would ignore the modifier of Sneak Attack since that relies on the Strike action in a specific circumstance, and the spell attack wouldn't be able to meet those conditions. You still need Magical Trickster to sneak with HotA, since the spell is a spell attack roll.
Why you may ask? Balance. If you want to sneak attack with spells you need the feat. You can't get around it with word play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule similar to Leomund:
1) Not too good to be true. The cost is relevant and not any different than if you were using Draw the Lightning and a weapon normally. Hand of the Apprentice does mention being equivalent to making a strike, and the ability is single-target.
2) Yes Invoke the Crimson Oath and Hand of the Apprentice are very different effects and have mechanically different wording. Invoke the Crimson Oath is an AOE that doesn't involve making a Strike and doesn't say that the damage is based on making a successful Strike. It just references the weapon damage for determining the spell's damage. It would use any damage bonuses that you have on the weapon itself, but it wouldn't trigger other effects from making a Strike - because you didn't actually make a Strike. It isn't even an Attack trait spell. Targets make a Fortitude Save.
3) Yes. Invoke the Crimson Oath does not invoke Sneak Attack damage.
4) Maybe. This one is still a bit on the fence. Because you aren't actually making a Strike you just deal damage as though you succeeded at a Strike. I would probably run it as though it was a thrown weapon ranged Strike. So flanking wouldn't work, but if the weapon otherwise qualify for Sneak Attack and the target was flat-footed to your attacks, I would probably allow it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) I say yes for 3 reasons. One, the language of HotA says as if you had made a successful strike. Sneak Attack adds extra damage, thus could easily qualify as weapon damage. Two, Sneak Attack requires an agile or finesse weapon, so there are limitations as to what can be used to sneak attack with. And three, HotA has a cost, so it cannot be done over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard to be sure.
you deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike
Striking runes on the weapon change the weapon so they work
The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike
So it seems safe to agree that works.
If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage.
Eh there is a little gap there. Yes it is tied to a Strike. But the weapon is not explicitly doing the damage there the Rogue is. The precision damage is the same type as the weapon. It is a harsh semantic point to spearate it though.
I could go either way on that. Which for me means I'd let it work as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue could always just take Magical Trickster for Hand of the Apprentice sneak attacks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This feels a bit like trying to argue the point on really fine wording. If you want to convince your GM, it's good to also step back and look at the bigger picture.
What does the spell describe as flavor, and how does it embed that in rules?
Flavor: you got some static electricity that you can use each round to do some extra damage. Okay, I can see that working with hand of the apprentice. And the wording seems to work too. Fine.
Now let's look one step further. What would happen if you first did hand of the apprentice, and then made a regular strike in the same round? Would you ask the GM for extra damage on that strike too, since it's the first "real Strike" in the round?
That would be the point where I'd start waving a rolled up newspaper at the player. That's weaselly language and when we look back at the flavor, that clearly doesn't hold up either, because you just used that electrical charge and it hasn't powered up again yet.
So, conclusion: I'd probably allow it, with a limit of 1x extra damage per round like the spell intends, but it's okay if you deliver it in a creative way.