The rogue thing has gone in circles before, but there's nothing special rules-wise about amplified imaginary weapon and eldritch shot/spellstrike
Yeah, imaginary weapon(whether amped or not) and eldritch shot spell strike work fine as far as I can tell.
As to whether rogues get sneak attack with it...imaginary weapon isn't a finesse or agile weapon. In general, imaginary weapon isn't very different from shocking grasp for how it actually functions. If you ignore the fluffy bits about evoking force in the shape of a weapon and look at the mechanics, the only way it makes sense to me is if you'd let a rogue get sneak attack with shocking grasp.
Personally, I don't think it qualifies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the only way it makes sense to me is if you'd let a rogue get sneak attack with shocking grasp.
There's a feat for that.
The issue is there's a subsection of the community that thinks it's cheating to apply sneak attack twice for an ability that lets you combine an attack and a spell, even if both would be eligible for sneak attack individually.
the only way it makes sense to me is if you'd let a rogue get sneak attack with shocking grasp.There's a feat for that.
The issue is there's a subsection of the community that thinks it's cheating to apply sneak attack twice for an ability that lets you combine an attack and a spell, even if both would be eligible for sneak attack individually.
I’m pretty sure precision damage from sneak attack cannot apply twice to the same attack. Most descriptions under sneak attack list that it cannot be doubled up from multiple sources.
|
Yes, with Magical Trickster you would apply Sneak Attack to both the weapon damage and the spell attack damage, assuming the target is flat footed.
To those who complain, you are using all three of your actions for an all or nothing attack. Getting two instances of Sneak attack is a fair reward. (Plus Amped Imaginary Weapon damage is insane, dealing 5d8 at level 6 +2d6 per spell level, so that extra 2d6 isn't going to make that much of a difference)
I’m pretty sure precision damage from sneak attack cannot apply twice to the same attack.
So you'd only allow sneak attack once for hunted shot? Both hunted shot and eldritch shot have 2 subordinate actions that are attacks.
I’m pretty sure precision damage from sneak attack cannot apply twice to the same attack.So you'd only allow sneak attack once for hunted shot? Both hunted shot and eldritch shot have 2 subordinate actions that are attacks.
It hasn’t come up in any game I have ran so I couldn’t say for sure. Maybe I would due to the feat investiture, but I would also worry about opening up an unintended exploit. Hunted Shot is two separate attacks for one action just like Flurry of Blows, so I most likely would be okay with it. However, I am less inclined if it is one strike total with applying sneak attack twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m pretty sure precision damage from sneak attack cannot apply twice to the same attack.So you'd only allow sneak attack once for hunted shot? Both hunted shot and eldritch shot have 2 subordinate actions that are attacks.
Hunted Shot still follows the rules for MAP and requires two separate attack rolls. Eldritch Shot only requires one attack roll and applies that result to the rider effect.
I'd allow Sneak Attack on both shots for the former, because you are making two attempts to strike an enemy, each with their own modifiers and chances of failure. I wouldn't allow it to apply to both on the latter, even if you have a feat that says you can apply Sneak Attack to spell attack rolls, simply because you're not actually making two attempts, you are making one attempt and applying its result to determine the effectiveness of a rider effect; the feat was written before archetypes like Eldritch Archer and classes like Magus were in print, so the idea that the feat was written to expressly allow this sort of combination to work is absurd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hunted Shot still follows the rules for MAP and requires two separate attack rolls. Eldritch Shot only requires one attack roll and applies that result to the rider effect.
Irrelevant to my comment as I asked a specific question about a statement made: all that mattered was that there are 2 attacks, as that statement was on number of attacks not the number of rolls.
I'd allow Sneak Attack on both shots for the former, because you are making two attempts to strike an enemy, each with their own modifiers and chances of failure.
But they are making 2 attempts just with 1 roll: it can actually be worse than one that uses MAP's as you could be targeting different target numbers [say with spellstrike and expansive]. Add to that that you aren't adding damage together for resistances/immunities/ect and they SEEM like 2 different attacks. IMO, an Eldritch Shot/Spellstrike seem more like 2 attacks than Hunted Shot where you combine damage together but make 2 rolls than rolling 1 roll and rolling damage and applying it separately.
And if you rule it your way, which attack gets the sneak attack? For instance, if the target has resistance and/or weakness to the damage of one damage type but not the other, can I add the sneak attack to whichever one I wish? Say it has a weakness to piercing damage from my arrow but a vulnerability to fire from my produce flame and I roll low enough damage on my arrow damage that it reduces it's damage to 0 and then some: can I just say it's added to the spell so I don't have to reduce the sneak attack damage by the amount left from the resistance [like a 4 total damage on the arrow and it has resistance piercing].
the feat was written before archetypes like Eldritch Archer and classes like Magus were in print, so the idea that the feat was written to expressly allow this sort of combination to work is absurd.
I mean, it wasn't a secret that the feat existed when both were made so it seems absurd to me that it wasn't taken into account when one came out, it was pointed out and then ANOTHER version was made and no errata, FAQ or explanation text given to exclude it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I am less inclined if it is one strike total with applying sneak attack twice.
I agree with your premise, sneak attack should never apply twice to a singular attack.
But it's worth noting the ability in question here isn't one attack, it's unambiguously two, just with a single roll for both of them.
However, I am less inclined if it is one strike total with applying sneak attack twice.I agree with your premise, sneak attack should never apply twice to a singular attack.
But it's worth noting the ability in question here isn't one attack, it's unambiguously two, just with a single roll for both of them.
Hmmm, I hadn’t thought of it as two separate attacks on one roll. That would increase my inclination to allow sneak attack to happen twice. I don’t know if I am convinced it is two separate attacks, however. Although, a spellstrike is using a weapon attack in combination with a spell attack, it still seems like one total attack.
HOW DOES THE INTERACTION OF ELDRITCH SHOT + AMPLIFIED IMAGINARY WEAPON WORK?
There's a point I'm the only one advocating: Eldritch Shot lacks the language about spell range like Spellstrike does. So I personally only allow it at melee range, but I'm quite alone on that so you will certainly not face a GM focusing on that point.
Hunted Shot still follows the rules for MAP and requires two separate attack rolls. Eldritch Shot only requires one attack roll and applies that result to the rider effect.Irrelevant to my comment as I asked a specific question about a statement made: all that mattered was that there are 2 attacks, as that statement was on number of attacks not the number of rolls.
I'd allow Sneak Attack on both shots for the former, because you are making two attempts to strike an enemy, each with their own modifiers and chances of failure.But they are making 2 attempts just with 1 roll: it can actually be worse than one that uses MAP's as you could be targeting different target numbers [say with spellstrike and expansive]. Add to that that you aren't adding damage together for resistances/immunities/ect and they SEEM like 2 different attacks. IMO, an Eldritch Shot/Spellstrike seem more like 2 attacks than Hunted Shot where you combine damage together but make 2 rolls than rolling 1 roll and rolling damage and applying it separately.
And if you rule it your way, which attack gets the sneak attack? For instance, if the target has resistance and/or weakness to the damage of one damage type but not the other, can I add the sneak attack to whichever one I wish? Say it has a weakness to piercing damage from my arrow but a vulnerability to fire from my produce flame and I roll low enough damage on my arrow damage that it reduces it's damage to 0 and then some: can I just say it's added to the spell so I don't have to reduce the sneak attack damage by the amount left from the resistance [like a 4 total damage on the arrow and it has resistance piercing].
the feat was written before archetypes like Eldritch Archer and classes like Magus were in print, so the idea that the feat was written to expressly allow this sort of combination to work is absurd.I mean, it wasn't a secret that the feat existed when...
And that statement disregards the number of rolls made, which is precisely where the disagreement lies. The feat specifies "spell attack roll." With Eldritch Shot, Spell Strike, et. al., it's a spell attack, but doesn't use a roll, it simply uses the result of a roll made on a Strike. It's basically no different than if you casted Maze on an enemy with Eldritch Shot.
How is that any different than if somebody used True Strike or a Hero Point to reroll it? You're getting 2 attempts with that roll, so why not two sources of Sneak Attack? Should that mean I will always apply Double Sneak Attack damage every time I True Strike or Hero Point it? As for the resistances point, that would really only matter if they were the same damage types being resisted, and it would require the GM is consistent on applying those resistances, instead of blanketing them like I always see it ran (which is technically wrong).
The ruling would implement that the effect that actually had to roll gets the sneak attack; in this case, the Strike. If it was a spell attack roll instead, then the Spell would get it. It's not really complicated: Did you have to actually roll for it? Then it gets it.
Plenty of existing rules are spelled out on how they combine if they are common enough. Look at Magi and Wizard dedications, they literally spell out that you can combine multiple spellbooks together instead of having to track them separately, because Paizo knew it would be a very popular archetype selection. Saying that they did this here and that they didn't adjust anything means that it's obviously supposed to work is, again, absurd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the question of whether someone spell striking with imaginary weapon gets two instances of sneak attack or not...it's definitely two separate attacks/sources of damage, albeit using one attack roll.
I lean towards both the weapon attack and spell attack getting sneak attack damage.
Consider that if you were next to an enemy you could strike as a single action, and cast imaginary weapon for two actions. And assuming you had the magical trickster feat the spell would qualify for sneak attack. So you could definitely get both things to have sneak attack. The total action cost is 3 actions.
Spell strike allows you to cast the spell and make the strike as a two action activity and allows it to only have one attack roll instead of two, as you deliver the spell attack through your weapon.
Again, I lean towards both strike and spell getting sneak attack, although thematically I can understand why someone would say since it's a single "strike" you only get sneak attack once. As a GM I would probably let a player go at it with both getting sneak attack, and if I felt it to be too much scale it back (making sure to tell the player in advance that is the plan). Remember spell strike does require another action to recharge, so they (probably) can't do it every turn as an intelligent enemy is likely to stride away from you. And in any event, the overall action cost works out to 3 actions before you can do it again. So it's not very different from striking and casting separately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is that any different than if somebody used True Strike or a Hero Point to reroll it? You're getting 2 attempts with that roll, so why not two sources of Sneak Attack?
So I realize you're just saying this to try to mess with graystone since it's not even remotely relevant or similar, but oddly enough this is closer to your own position, since it's been your assertion that the number of times you roll a die is the defining factor here.
Obviously that comparison is nonsense either way, but you knew that before you made it, so it's just interesting to point out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the question of whether someone spell striking with imaginary weapon gets two instances of sneak attack or not...it's definitely two separate attacks/sources of damage, albeit using one attack roll.
I lean towards both the weapon attack and spell attack getting sneak attack damage.
Consider that if you were next to an enemy you could strike as a single action, and cast imaginary weapon for two actions. And assuming you had the magical trickster feat the spell would qualify for sneak attack. So you could definitely get both things to have sneak attack. The total action cost is 3 actions.
Spell strike allows you to cast the spell and make the strike as a two action activity and allows it to only have one attack roll instead of two, as you deliver the spell attack through your weapon.
Again, I lean towards both strike and spell getting sneak attack, although thematically I can understand why someone would say since it's a single "strike" you only get sneak attack once. As a GM I would probably let a player go at it with both getting sneak attack, and if I felt it to be too much scale it back (making sure to tell the player in advance that is the plan). Remember spell strike does require another action to recharge, so they (probably) can't do it every turn as an intelligent enemy is likely to stride away from you. And in any event, the overall action cost works out to 3 actions before you can do it again. So it's not very different from striking and casting separately.
To bring up the differences between your example:
In your first one (1 action strike, 2 action spell), you are making two attempts to attack an enemy, with two attack rolls, and performing two separate activities to do so. These have different modifiers (one uses Strike rules, the other uses Spell Attack rules, and MAP is in play), and different potential dice roll outcomes, meaning you can hit with both, or miss with both, or get a mixture of each.
In your second one (1 3 action special activity), you are making one attempt, with one attack roll, and performing a conjoined activity of two separate subordinate actions. These have universal modifiers, doesn't suffer MAP, and has no potentially differing outcomes, meaning if you hit with one, you hit with the other, so on and so forth; there is no other possibility.
I would allow Sneak Attack in the first one, because there are separate attempts being made, with separate rolls (and modifiers) determining their outcomes. I wouldn't allow Sneak Attack in the second one, because there is only one attempt being made, with a single roll determining the outcome.
Because the activity automatically resolves the result of the spell for you (based on your attack roll), and because there is no roll involved, a feat like Magical Trickster whose premise is based on a spell attack roll falls apart, in the same way people with Assurance try to do things like Auto-Crit Crafting checks with the likes of Impeccable Crafting, for example.
Unless there is a rule that states that an effect which generates a specific value or result counts as rolling that value or result, I have a hard time believing it to work as you say.
How is that any different than if somebody used True Strike or a Hero Point to reroll it? You're getting 2 attempts with that roll, so why not two sources of Sneak Attack?So I realize you're just saying this to try to mess with graystone since it's not even remotely relevant or similar, but oddly enough this is closer to your own position, since it's been your assertion that the number of times you roll a die is the defining factor here.
Obviously that comparison is nonsense either way, but you knew that before you made it, so it's just interesting to point out.
To a point. It was a demonstration of comparative reducto ad absurdum, which as you say, would actually disprove my assertion as well. (Looking back, I don't think it even makes sense to discuss, since you still have 2 attempts and 2 rolls, but it only takes one action to do, so who knows.) It ultimately boils down to the number of attempts/activities more than it does the number of dice rolls, since again, you can just Hero Point or True Strike things and get more dice than attempts.
I'm of the opinion, though, that something this significant would either have an exception rule listed or an example presented that would prove how it works, not unlike the Resistance to All Damage rules presenting how it affects each damage type for a given instance of damage, which is almost always ran to be worse than how it's supposed to be, largely for ease of play and for reducing its overall power. Until that comes or we get errata with clarification, I'm not buying it or assuming that's how it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's sort of how I feel, except in the other direction. Two attacks, two chances to trigger sneak attack, and if abilities like Swipe, Eldritch Shot, or Spellstrike were intended to only trigger such effects once it would have to be spelled out somewhere in the same way that Flurry spells out it only triggers weakness and resistance once.
Resistance to All Damage gets elaborated on because it works differently than other types of resistance.
To note I don't think this:
and has no potentially differing outcomes
Is necessarily accurate either. An ability like Spellbreaking or Spell Parry that gives an AC bonus against magic could cause the strike to hit and the spell to fail, or the strike to crit and the spell to only succeed.
That's sort of how I feel, except in the other direction. Two attacks, two chances to trigger sneak attack, and if abilities like Swipe, Eldritch Shot, or Spellstrike were intended to only trigger such effects once it would have to be spelled out somewhere in the same way that Flurry spells out it only triggers weakness and resistance once.
Resistance to All Damage gets elaborated on because it works differently than other types of resistance.
To note I don't think this:
and has no potentially differing outcomesIs necessarily accurate either. An ability like Spellbreaking or Spell Parry that gives an AC bonus against magic could cause the strike to hit and the spell to fail, or the strike to crit and the spell to only succeed.
I would agree with that premise with things like Inspire Courage, since they are indeed two separate damage rolls, which also means differing resistances can apply to either one. But I'm just not convinced that they count as two attacks otherwise. It also gets weird when you factor in things like a Champion Reaction, which only works on one set of triggering damage, but that's maybe for another thread.
If that were true, then why spell out that it counts as two attacks for MAP if the mechanics already make this true? I'd understand saying the MAP doesn't apply until after the action resolves, in case you are Hasted and want to make an additional Strike, but even that ultimately doesn't make sense either, because things like MAP doesn't affect the result of the other subordinate action: It follows the same result as your Strike.
So if I make a Strike with my full modifiers, and I use that result to determine the effects of my spell attack, then why specify it counts as two attacks when 1. It's already two attacks anyway, and 2. The MAP doesn't affect the spell attack anyway (unless it already also affected the strike attack roll)?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's "using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell." Not "using your die roll to determine both the attack roll result and spell attack roll result." You refer to the same degree of success in the spell effects entry that you got on the Strike, because the "attack roll result" is calculated with all the modifiers that would affect that result, among which AC bonuses against spells are not present because it is a Strike and NOT a spell attack
This is partially incorrect. Per the CRB (page 445):
Step 2: Calculate the Result
This step is simple. Add up all the various modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you identified in Step 1—this is your total modifier. Next add that to the number that came up on your d20 roll. This total is your check result.
The "result" is the d20 + all modifiers to your check, not the degree of success.
Then you go to step 3 where:
Whenever you attempt a check, you compare your result against a DC
AC in this case is the DC, which in this example are different for the strike and the spell. Again, this takes place after you've calculated the result. It's a separate step, so the DC being different for each component is fine.
So when you say
because the "attack roll result" is calculated with all the modifiers that would affect that result, among which AC bonuses against spells are not present because it is a Strike and NOT a spell attack
You're correct, not because AC bonuses don't apply, but because the "result" has nothing to do with AC at all. There are never any modifiers to AC in the attack roll result.
This is a common point of confusion, but in order to function that way Eldritch Shot would have to say "using the degree of success of the Strike to determine the effects of the spell" or something along those lines, not "attack roll result" which specifically only refers to the total numeric value of your roll.
tl;dr:
Result = Step 2 = d20 + modifiers
AC = Step 3 = Compared against Result.
So using the same result doesn't matter in terms of determining AC.
To note I don't think this:
and has no potentially differing outcomesIs necessarily accurate either. An ability like Spellbreaking or Spell Parry that gives an AC bonus against magic could cause the strike to hit and the spell to fail, or the strike to crit and the spell to only succeed.No, it's "using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell." Not "using your die roll to determine both the attack roll result and spell attack roll result." You refer to the same degree of success in the spell effects entry that you got on the Strike, because the "attack roll result" is calculated with all the modifiers that would affect that result, among which AC bonuses against spells are not present because it is a Strike and NOT a spell attack
this is why up to now I didn't agree with giving magical tricksters double-dip sneak attack damage on spellstrike/eldritch shot. They're not making the spell attack roll that magical trickster requires. I'm wavering in my conviction though, but not in a true changing-of-my-mind way. More in an I'm-tired-of-the-argument-and-how-good-is-it-really way. Feat investment, action investment, and experience with play (not theorycrafting) are weighing in favor of, "sure, why not. whatever"
A rogue MCed into magus is only going to be able to pull this stunt once, since the spellstrike given by the spellstriker feat can only be recharged with an activity taking 1 minute, so not in combat. One big all-or-nothing attack. yay
A rogue would have to wait until level 6 to get eldritch archer dedication, and then has to invest all 3 actions a turn to use eldritch shot. You can't impose flat-footed via flanking with a ranged weapon, so the flat-footed to trigger sneak attack would have to come from other sources. And not hide/sneak, because eldritch shot includes casting the spell to begin with, which breaks hidden. Overall a PITA to set up on any round except the first one (assuming the rogue has initiative),...
Squiggit is right about how the book defines "result" in the attack roll step process; most importantly, it doesn't treat the "result" as the same thing as a "degree of success," which means whatever definition "result" is (which is the numeric value of your total roll, most likely), it definitively doesn't refer to whether it's a success or not. I initially was going to argue this point, but after review, I'd have to concede that point, since the rules are explicit enough to deny this being the case. That being said, saying that Spellbreaking effects, or Spell Parry, or whatever the heck those abilities are, is a common occurrence, so you can expect it to come up on a regular basis is highly unlikely, since odds are you'd come across enemies with Spell Resistance bonuses instead, which doesn't affect their AC. In fact, I've never come across any enemy with the former benefits in actual play, but plenty of outsiders/fiends with the latter benefit, and Spell Resistance doesn't give a damn about AC, so fat chance that it'll impact a spell attack roll result.
That being said, the reason why I wouldn't allow it isn't just for things like Spellstrike or Eldritch Shot, as spell effects like the Spell-Storing weapon rune (which can be used any time you have a spell cast into it as an action which forgoes an attack roll), or other effects which are "auto-hits" (and not even necessarily spells) would trigger it as well. We can sit here and say "Well, Rogue MC Magus is 1/fight, and Rogue MC Eldritch Archer takes 3 actions to do, and Magus MC Rogue only gets 1D6 sneak, so it can't be overpowered," and in a lot of those cases, you'd be right (though in Rogue MC Magus' case, with a Spell-Storing Weapon, you could theoretically trigger Triple Sneak Attack). But it's not about whether it breaks the game or not, it's whether the game intended for this consequence to happen, and I personally don't think it did, because 1. It's not explicit enough to allow it, and 2. It can open the door to other unintended shenanigans, as I'm sure there are far worse ways to exploit Sneak Attack than this.