tut-tut and elemental blast

[Waldham]

Hello, can a kineticist use tut-tut feat if the character hits with a melee elemental blast ?

Thanks for your future answer.

[Xenocrat]

The trigger counts ("you hit a creature with a melee attack roll") but the text refers to a Strike, which would bar elemental blast.

The clear intent of making elemental blast not a strike seems to be to avoid it interacting or benefiting from martial feats at all for what I consider good reasons, so as a GM I personally would stick with the Strike reference and not allow it. In PFS they'd have to not allow it.

[Finoan]

I would agree with that. The Tut-Tut feat has a bit of an internal contradiction where the trigger lists "melee attack roll" and the feat text says "the triggering Strike".

It feels like whoever wrote the feat forgot that more things than Strike use melee attack rolls. Elemental Blast is one of them, but there are some spells that do also, such as the Ignition cantrip.

So for a home game, it is up to the table to decide which to go with - any melee attack roll, or only Strike actions.

Personally, I don't think the Tut-Tut feat is intended to be used with spells or Impulses.

[Easl]

Finoan wrote:

It feels like whoever wrote the feat forgot that more things than Strike use melee attack rolls. Elemental Blast is one of them, but there are some spells that do also, such as the Ignition cantrip.

Firebrands was published 5 months before Rage of Elements. Ignition (PC1) is later too. So it's not a forgetting. It's that the range of things which are melee attacks but not strikes has grown since the tut-tut feat was developed and published.

I'd agree that the care taken to separate impulses from spells and weapon strikes gives us an RAI reason not to allow weapon or unarmed strike feats to assist impulse attacks. Even if, like in this case, some "old" feat text uses 'strike' and 'melee attack' interchangeably. (I'm calling March 2023 'old'...kill me now lol...)

[Captain Morgan]

Easl wrote:

Finoan wrote:

It feels like whoever wrote the feat forgot that more things than Strike use melee attack rolls. Elemental Blast is one of them, but there are some spells that do also, such as the Ignition cantrip.

Firebrands was published 5 months before Rage of Elements. Ignition (PC1) is later too. So it's not a forgetting. It's that the range of things which are melee attacks but not strikes has grown since the tut-tut feat was developed and published.

I'd agree that the care taken to separate impulses from spells and weapon strikes gives us an RAI reason not to allow weapon or unarmed strike feats to assist impulse attacks. Even if, like in this case, some "old" feat text uses 'strike' and 'melee attack' interchangeably. (I'm calling March 2023 'old'...kill me now lol...)

It's not like spell attacks were a new thing until those books were published. Ignition may have been published in PC1, but Produce Flame was around since the CRB, as was shocking grasp, ray of frost, etc.

I think it'd be more accurate to say Firebrands wasn't proofread as closely as a "primary" book like Rage or Player Core was. Not only are there mistakes like this, but it generally shows a degree of power creep that Paizo tends to avoid.

[Finoan]

Yeah, "Strike" and "Melee attack roll" have never been equivalent. Which is why it is an internal contradiction in the feat to have the trigger say 'melee attack roll' and the feat description say 'the triggering strike'.

From the narrative description of the feat and other such things, I am thinking that the intended use is for the trigger to be 'you succeed at the attack roll for a Melee Strike'. So it wouldn't work with ranged attacks, or Impulse/spell attacks.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Xenocrat wrote:

The trigger counts ("you hit a creature with a melee attack roll") but the text refers to a Strike, which would bar elemental blast.

The clear intent of making elemental blast not a strike seems to be to avoid it interacting or benefiting from martial feats at all for what I consider good reasons, so as a GM I personally would stick with the Strike reference and not allow it. In PFS they'd have to not allow it.

That's grounds for errata then, since if the feat is intended to only work with Strikes (and not all melee attack rolls), having a trigger that doesn't even match up to what the feat description implies seems silly.

[Errenor]

Finoan wrote:

It feels like whoever wrote the feat forgot that more things than Strike use melee attack rolls. Elemental Blast is one of them, but there are some spells that do also, such as the Ignition cantrip.

I forgot why we parse melee attack rolls as <melee> <attack> rolls when there's a category of rolls named exactly that: <melee attack rolls>.

And various bits and pieces:
"Melee attack rolls use Strength as their attribute modifier by default."
"Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately..."
There's nothing on melee spell attack rolls in "Spell Attack Rolls" section.
"Some of your impulses require you to attempt an impulse attack roll to see how effective they are. Your impulse attack roll uses the same proficiency and attribute modifier as your kineticist class DC."
"Choose one of your kinetic elements and a damage type listed for that element, then make a melee or ranged impulse attack against the AC of one creature."
SAPPING SYMBOL feat: "Trigger While you have your symbol raised, you are about to
take damage from a melee attack. ... Critical Success The creature is enfeebled 2"
FLINGING CHARGE FEAT 10: "If the Strike hits, the target is off-guard against the next melee attack that you attempt against it"
Rogue, Scoundrel: "When you successfully Feint (page 239), the target is off-guard against your melee attacks until the end of your next turn."
LEAVE AN OPENING FEAT 14: "Whenever you critically hit an off-guard opponent with a melee attack and deal damage, the target triggers a Reactive Strike reaction..."
Do you think all these feats are meant to work for spells and impulses?

[Finoan]

Errenor wrote:

Finoan wrote:

It feels like whoever wrote the feat forgot that more things than Strike use melee attack rolls. Elemental Blast is one of them, but there are some spells that do also, such as the Ignition cantrip.

I forgot why we parse melee attack rolls as <melee> <attack> rolls when there's a category of rolls named exactly that: <melee attack rolls>.

There are <melee> <attack> <non-attack> rolls. Such as a grapple check.

Melee because grapple is done at melee range.
Attack because grapple has the Attack trait.
non-attack because it is not an attack roll - it is still a skill check.

With a ranged trip weapon you would make a <ranged> <attack> <non-attack> roll.

[Captain Morgan]

Gods do I hate that maneuver distinction errata.

[Finoan]

I don't have a problem with the skill check rolls not being an 'attack roll'.

I hate the errata that says "Actions with the Attack trait are attacks."

But I guess that is two sides of the same coin.

[Errenor]

Finoan wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Finoan wrote:

It feels like whoever wrote the feat forgot that more things than Strike use melee attack rolls. Elemental Blast is one of them, but there are some spells that do also, such as the Ignition cantrip.

I forgot why we parse melee attack rolls as <melee> <attack> rolls when there's a category of rolls named exactly that: <melee attack rolls>.

There are <melee> <attack> <non-attack> rolls. Such as a grapple check.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Gods do I hate that maneuver distinction errata.

Maneuvers I can deal with. But it's spells and impulses that trip me up. Do these feats cited above with 'damage from melee attack' really work for them too? The feats really look like intended for normal attacks with weapons.

[Waldham]

Does tut-tut function with the following spells ?
_ Lashing rope (spell attack modifier ?)
_ Dancing Blade (spell attack modifier)
_ Forceful Hand (?)
_ Weapon of judgment (spell attack modifier)

[Waldham]

Nobody ?

[graystone]

Waldham wrote:

Nobody ?

Except for Forceful Hand (Punch), none of those are Strikes, so no... For Forceful Hand, it's questionable if it's "you" that "hit a creature with a melee attack roll" or that it's "your Strike".

[Themetricsystem]

Sorry Wald, the silence sort of speaks for itself, it's not been addressed yet and the latest errata, from what I have seen, doesn't touch on the subject at all so it's all down to a GM call.

Attack, Attacks, attack, Action, Actions, action, and various combinations of those with the term Check and Roll/Rolls using shared language instead of it all being strictly codified with distinct mechanical names/terms with crystal clear delineation of what the all are and when they are meant to be used remains my biggest gripe about the system with an honorable mention of the ambiguity surrounding the question of what "Activities" are and are not.