While playing with my weekly group we encountered a confusing issue with the Molten Wire feat from the Kineticist class. A player asked if it incurs multiple-attack-penalties and pointed out it did not have the 'Attack' tag.
After some digging we discovered that the wording 'impulse attack' basically works the same was as something with the 'Attack' tag. Unless we missed something, the feat could easily have the 'Attack' or a Kineticist specific tag 'Impulse Attack' to clear this sort of confusion.
crimson-canine wrote: While playing with my weekly group we encountered a confusing issue with the Molten Wire feat from the Kineticist class. A player asked if it incurs multiple-attack-penalties and pointed out it did not have the 'Attack' tag.
After some digging we discovered that the wording 'impulse attack' basically works the same was as something with the 'Attack' tag. Unless we missed something, the feat could easily have the 'Attack' or a Kineticist specific tag 'Impulse Attack' to clear this sort of confusion.
Some Impulses have the Attack trait.
The Attack trait adds to your MAP.
I guess Impulses without the Attack trait do not increase MAP.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: Some Impulses have the Attack trait. Specifically, Elemental Blast and Whirling Grindstone. I'm not finding any others that do.
So yes, it is a bit strange to be making Impulse Attack Rolls and not interacting with MAP. But until errata or houserules, that would be how it works.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Interesting...no attack trait and not overflow. That's a nice combo with EB for opponents who have high saves or whose AC has been debuffed.
The Raven Black wrote: crimson-canine wrote: While playing with my weekly group we encountered a confusing issue with the Molten Wire feat from the Kineticist class. A player asked if it incurs multiple-attack-penalties and pointed out it did not have the 'Attack' tag.
After some digging we discovered that the wording 'impulse attack' basically works the same was as something with the 'Attack' tag. Unless we missed something, the feat could easily have the 'Attack' or a Kineticist specific tag 'Impulse Attack' to clear this sort of confusion.
Some Impulses have the Attack trait.
The Attack trait adds to your MAP.
I guess Impulses without the Attack trait do not increase MAP.
So if an ability specifies it is an attack in the description, but does not have the 'Attack' tag, it will not incur MAP?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
crimson-canine wrote: The Raven Black wrote: crimson-canine wrote: While playing with my weekly group we encountered a confusing issue with the Molten Wire feat from the Kineticist class. A player asked if it incurs multiple-attack-penalties and pointed out it did not have the 'Attack' tag.
After some digging we discovered that the wording 'impulse attack' basically works the same was as something with the 'Attack' tag. Unless we missed something, the feat could easily have the 'Attack' or a Kineticist specific tag 'Impulse Attack' to clear this sort of confusion.
Some Impulses have the Attack trait.
The Attack trait adds to your MAP.
I guess Impulses without the Attack trait do not increase MAP.
So if an ability specifies it is an attack in the description, but does not have the 'Attack' tag, it will not incur MAP? Unless it has a subordinate action that has that trait, yes.
As an example, whirling throw does not incure map, sudden charge does (because it contains a Strike)
For now, Molten Wire doesn't appear to interact with MAP. I expect that to change with that book's errata since it relies on an impulse attack roll, just as the remastered enfeeble and frostbite spells had their attack trait _removed_ because they _don't_ rely on a spell attack roll
Baarogue wrote: For now, Molten Wire doesn't appear to interact with MAP. I expect that to change with that book's errata since it relies on an impulse attack roll, just as the remastered enfeeble and frostbite spells had their attack trait _removed_ because they _don't_ rely on a spell attack roll It is a little inconsistent. But on the other hand, attack rolls and saves are interchangeable mechanics to determine abilities' success. Or at least could be. So maybe that was intentional as designers thought it would be appropriate that this ability interacted with off-guard and otherwise with AC.
At least it's definitely working as is.
> But on the other hand, attack rolls and saves are interchangeable mechanics to determine abilities' success. Or at least could be.
Except you can get an item bonus to your impulse attack modifier with a gate attenuator, but not to your impulse DC. Whether that is an advantage or merely brings parity, since monster save DCs are usually lower than their AC, to the typical reader it might look imbalanced
Baarogue wrote: > But on the other hand, attack rolls and saves are interchangeable mechanics to determine abilities' success. Or at least could be.
Except you can get an item bonus to your impulse attack modifier with a gate attenuator, but not to your impulse DC. Whether that is an advantage or merely brings parity, since monster save DCs are usually lower than their AC, to the typical reader it might look imbalanced
Another detail in addition to interaction with AC, yes. 'Interchangeable' doesn't mean 'identical'. Well, at least I certainly didn't mean that in this case.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
