| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in a different thread about trying to find the damage cap on focus spells, and Flury of claws was presented as top damage one for targeting 2 creatures, but looking at it, it lacks any language suggestion it does double damage on a critical hit. By RAW, spells have to say what they do on a critical hit, so currently Flury of Claws only does regular damage on any result of a success or better.
This absolutely could be an accident in need of errata. It also feels like it is possible the usual line about doing double damage on a crit got removed on an editing pass by someone looking at the math and dealing the damage output of the rank one focus spell was too high. A lot of players do not like doing the tactical shenanigans to maximize crit potential and I could see the appeal in having a focus spells that just does as much damage as possible once you get a success. Not doubling on a critical hit is a way to offer that. However, I think very many players will feel like the lack of other spells that do the same will mean this HAS to be an accident and will assume the spell should just be played assuming the doubling language is there.
I understand this impulse and house ruling things that feel like mistakes is a great way to play, but I don’t think it is good for people to use their assumed errata house rules when putting that spell forward as an example of what current game expectations are.
1d8+1dd4 per rank without doubling on a critical damage is significantly less than 2d6 per rank that does double on a critical.
Maybe this will get addressed in an errata or a FAQ, and for home play, I think people should do whatever they want, but I don’t thing PFS can make any assumptions about it, nor should probably 3rd party developers designing new abilities intended to balance with existing options.
There's really no way to know if its intentional or not. There's no clue in the text, and AFAIK no legacy version to compare to.
It might be an error/omission, or it might be deliberate. It would be nice if it could be confirmed, but we all know how likely that is. I'd put it in the errata thread anyway because that's about all we can do, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Unfortunately given the lack of any clues, I don't see any way to come up with a good RAI answer.
but I don’t thing PFS can make any assumptions about it
PFS GMs absolutely can't: they're specifically not allowed to. Barring a PFS ruling, the spell does what it says so no extra crit damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking around there are a few other spells with the same issue:
Glutton's Jaws (also PC2), Sticky Fire (battlecry), and Vindicator's Mark (War of Immortals) all lack any crit benefits.
Three are a handful of other spells that don't double on a crit (like hydraulic press) but still have defined benefits for critical success.
... It's so haphazard it definitely feels like someone forgot.
PFS GMs absolutely can't: they're specifically not allowed to. Barring a PFS ruling, the spell does what it says so no extra crit damage.
Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error.
Flurry of Claws feels like they wanted to do something like "Make a pair of Strikes, using your spell attack modifier, both attacks contribute to your multiple attack penalty, but do not increase until after both attacks."
And they just forgot to use the magic word Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking around there are a few other spells with the same issue:
Glutton's Jaws (also PC2), Sticky Fire (battlecry), and Vindicator's Mark (War of Immortals) all lack any crit benefits.
Three are a handful of other spells that don't double on a crit (like hydraulic press) but still have defined benefits for critical success.
... It's so haphazard it definitely feels like someone forgot.
PFS GMs absolutely can't: they're specifically not allowed to. Barring a PFS ruling, the spell does what it says so no extra crit damage.Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error.
Unless this is some new direction for spell attacks (which would be an insane decision), this is very unlikely to be anything more than a mistake. It goes against basic ideas of the game and against common wisdom. But who knows, Rogue still upgrades fortitude saves.
Yeah the shortcut language would be if it said you make a strike(then you use the strike degrees of success) or if it causes a basic save(then you use the basic save degrees) and spell attacks don't have a defined block of degree outcomes on their own to refer to so its always whatever the spell itself details.
Unless there is a spell attack degree of success reference somewhere.
I mean, maybe! Everything could double, just the slashing damage could double, there are many ways the spell could have incorporated a critical success element. Doubling everything increases the potential damage output of Flury of claws a lot because you are getting two opportunities to crit. That is why I think it is also possible the spell originally did have the double crit language and it got removed on an editorial balance pass. Strikes don’t get 2 damage dice increases every other level on attacks where you get to make 2 attacks with no map at 30ft range.
All I am saying is that the upper end of possible damage on this spell makes speculation particularly difficult.
Glutton’s Jaws are pretty bad without a critical success element effect, but what exactly is getting doubled needs clarification there too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error.
I am not taking that bet, because I know people who absolutely think that's how it works. It makes sense: attacks double on a crit, and spell attacks are attacks. I totally get how someone could think that. You have to read a specific part of the rulebook to realize it's not true.
And even then, back in the CRB days there were very few spell attacks that didn't double on a crit so it just almost never came up outside of Disintegrate doing its own thing.
Unless this is some new direction for spell attacks (which would be an insane decision), this is very unlikely to be anything more than a mistake. It goes against basic ideas of the game and against common wisdom. But who knows, Rogue still upgrades fortitude saves.
It's always worked that way. The "critical hits double damage" rule is Strike specific, and Spell Attacks are not Strikes:
When you make a Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack and succeed with a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target’s AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit). If you critically succeed at a Strike (page 418), your attack deals double damage.
If a spell doesn't have a "critical success: double damage" callout somewhere, it does not double damage on a crit. It's always been that way.
Most spells do so it doesn't come up that often, which makes these more recent ones stand out. There seems to be more of them recently than in the past, for sure. It would be absolutely wild if Paizo just forgot about this and that's why they stopped including it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a thing though with tabletop game rules.
Suppose you're the developer of this spell, and in your mind it deals double damage on a crit because it's an attack. You playtest it a bit, and you realize that having the enemies standing within 10 feet of each other actually is somewhat restrictive, so the spell feels pretty balanced. You send in your draft and it gets published.
Except that you wrote attack, not strike, and you didn't explicitly write that it doubles on a crit. So strictly speaking it wouldn't be doubled. But it did in your mind, and when you were playtesting it. There wasn't a claxon that went off with "YOU'RE PLAYTESTING IT WRONG".
Now if you were doing this in Foundry and coded in the spells, that might have made you notice it, that it wasn't doubling like you expected it to. (On the other hand, you might have given up in screaming frustration trying to get the two-target selection thing as well as multiple damage types thing properly automated for something you're just trying to playtest.)
I guess I never paid close enough attention before, but Tridus is correct.
I thought spell attacks just generally defaulted to double damage, but most of them explicitly call out what happens on a crit in the spell description.
And barring something I missing, if the spell doesn't call out what happens on a crit, nothing extra happens by default.
However, I would argue that based on the quantity of spells that do call out an effect on a critical hit, that the spells that don't call it out might be in error or overlooked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. That's why you need to playtest it with other people. Because the odds go up dramatically that someone else does know that rule and says "hey it doesn't do that" when you try and double it.
One would hope that would certainly be true for playtesting at the company that literally writes the rules.
But let's be honest: how much of this stuff actually was playtested at all? We know stuff gets released without it.
We also know this could get through editing easily even if someone does know the rule, because they don't know the writer intended it to double on a crit. They see it doesn't, go "that's valid", and move on. And of course, the writers/editors are human and stuff happens. That's just how it is.
A robust errata process can fix those kinds of things...
Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error.
Yup. That is my biggest problem and concern with this in general.
With the rules text as it is, Attack roll spells do not double their damage on a critical spell attack result. But that is done by silent omission. So, many players don't realize this.
Saving throw spells have the Basic Save shortcut that can be used. But spell attack roll spells don't.
And it is really difficult to cite a rule that isn't printed. There is errata needed here too. We need to have some clarifying note in spell attack roll results that explicitly states as reminder text that if a spell does not list a critical success result, it uses the normal success result by default without any doubling of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve gotten to the point now that I’m no longer particularly concerned with what was *intended* and only tangentially interested - if being informed of the reasoning could help me understand why the rule was made and how it interacts with similar rules for similar spells/feats/items/class functions etc. that would be great. Sadly, the devs are mostly absent and twice as incommunicative. While Mark Seifter *might* have been forthcoming in Arcane Mark or similar (though having never seen it I have no idea) nowadays I see no devs explaining *anything* whatsoever. And, again, sadly, without some ideas as for the reasonings, there’s little in the way of theory for the community to use.
So without dev input as to what the rule is supposed to be, I’d rather such threads posit some rules/pivots/approaches/hacks about contentious or misunderstood rules that we *can* put to use, and as a community identify the strengths and weaknesses of such options, particularly with a view to how they might affect a few different types of games.
Position: Flurry of Claws *does* do double damage on a crit. What are the implications?
I don’t know if I will have time to deep dive the math, but a quick look tell me that flurry of claws that does double damage on a crit is equal to fire ray damage wis, but would be trading 30ft of range for the ability to do twice as much damage when you can manage a second target. So the decision is, is that a fair trade off?
Another point of comparison would be to look at where flurry of claws with double damage on a crit compares directly to a spell slot spell like Breathe Fire, which is also pretty likely to hit 1 or 2 targets most of the time it is used. The damage is the same base but I would look at the accuracy map in a couple of different situations, including where there is are bonuses to attack in the party. Focus spells should come in better than a cantrip, but not as good as an equal ranked spell slot spell that is heightened to a top slot.
Fire ray is not nearly as good as Thunderstrike or Horizon Thunder Sphere.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am thinking it was an oversight, I am not sure balance is the concern.
There should be crit effects in a general sense for things, otherwise they dont really interact with the that area of the four degrees of success and that's just not as fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it should do something on a crit even if that something isn't double damage. It's just plain boring otherwise.
It's always worked that way. The "critical hits double damage" rule is Strike specific, and Spell Attacks are not Strikes:
I am aware that the general rule does not apply to spell attacks. I thought that was pretty clear from my comment seeing as I never said otherwise. But no it hasn't "always worked this way", because no spell attack prior to these examples has had no difference between a critical success and success as far as I am aware.
You say it would be wild for Paizo to make such a basic mistake, but it's not like basic mistakes like this haven't been occurring recently like that one Kineticist Impulse not having an area.
Seeing as these spell attacks are not exactly that much more powerful than normal ones, if at all, it seems very strange for there to be nothing more on a critical success for these spells.
A core aspect of this game is how rolling 10 over or under the DC of something is either a critical success or failure. It's strange for new spells to not interact with this aspect at all, and it goes against core tactical assumptions of the game.
The fact that it's easy for someone to make a mistake and think these spells do, in fact, have a critical success effect shows this pretty well. The design is unintuitive to the overall way the game functions and is played, and is confusing because of this.
I don’t know if I will have time to deep dive the math, but a quick look tell me that flurry of claws that does double damage on a crit is equal to fire ray damage wis, but would be trading 30ft of range for the ability to do twice as much damage when you can manage a second target. So the decision is, is that a fair trade off?
Another point of comparison would be to look at where flurry of claws with double damage on a crit compares directly to a spell slot spell like Breathe Fire, which is also pretty likely to hit 1 or 2 targets most of the time it is used. The damage is the same base but I would look at the accuracy map in a couple of different situations, including where there is are bonuses to attack in the party. Focus spells should come in better than a cantrip, but not as good as an equal ranked spell slot spell that is heightened to a top slot.
Fire ray is not nearly as good as Thunderstrike or Horizon Thunder Sphere.
The question after then becomes whether it's worth it to trade no crit effect and less range for a potential extra target. I would say it's not worth it.
But I'd also take issue with your base question, because Fire Ray does more damage than Flurry of Claws due to the burn effect on the floor, or it forces the enemy to spend an action to move. The spells need to be compared fully to eachother, and Fire Ray is a rare spell attack with an effect on a failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am aware that the general rule does not apply to spell attacks. I thought that was pretty clear from my comment seeing as I never said otherwise. But no it hasn't "always worked this way", because no spell attack prior to these examples has had no difference between a critical success and success as far as I am aware.
It's always worked that way. The "critical hits double damage" rule is Strike specific, and Spell Attacks are not Strikes:
I think I implied something there I didn't mean. Apologies for the confusion.
You say it would be wild for Paizo to make such a basic mistake, but it's not like basic mistakes like this haven't been occurring recently like that one Kineticist Impulse not having an area.
It would be wild if they're making that mistake because the people writing the rules don't know about that rule, yeah. I find that pretty crazy.
I mean, it'd also be kind of par for the course these days, considering Oracle archetype not having a way to remove Cursebound, Champion archetype not having an aura, Oracle repertoire size (still)...
A core aspect of this game is how rolling 10 over or under the DC of something is either a critical success or failure. It's strange for new spells to not interact with this aspect at all, and it goes against core tactical assumptions of the game.
The fact that it's easy for someone to make a mistake and think these spells do, in fact, have a critical success effect shows this pretty well. The design is unintuitive to the overall way the game functions and is played, and is confusing because of this.
Agreed.
I think I implied something there I didn't mean. Apologies for the confusion.
All good, sorry I jumped at the throat a bit.
It would be wild if they're making that mistake because the people writing the rules don't know about that rule, yeah. I find that pretty crazy.
I mean, it'd also be kind of par for the course these days, considering Oracle archetype not having a way to remove Cursebound, Champion archetype not having an aura, Oracle repertoire size (still)...
Personally it doesn't surprise me, recent QA seems to be much worse than before. For me, forgetting an area is worse than forgetting exactly how a basic rule applies because 99% of spells function the same way as that rule.
It's shocking to me that they barely buffed the Psychic for it's remaster and even nerfed some parts.
Eh, Psychic Dedication was kind of a must-pick for many spellcasters. And must-picks are a big no-no in this game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, Psychic Dedication was kind of a must-pick for many spellcasters. And must-picks are a big no-no in this game.
Psychic itself got nerfed, though. The dedication needed reining in, but the class itself wasn't exactly at the top of the curve performance wise.
I mean, Thaumaturge started off in a better spot than Psychic and seems to have fared better in the changes themselves as well.
The disconnect between how Paizo seems to view these things and how the community views them is really big and I'm not really sure why.
The disconnect between how Paizo seems to view these things and how the community views them is really big and I'm not really sure why.
There's probably an inherent disconnect between designing and playing, and Paizo seem to have a very strict method for creating features, leaning towards making things underpowered.
Doesn't help that their rationale is rarely explained.
I also suspect that over the years the intentions of the original designers got lost a bit, and newer designers have their own interpretation of things. But that's just baseless speculation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Flurry of Claws and Gluttonous Jaws writer conflated rules when they wrote them. That could be an honest mistake and especially if they are well trusted it could be overlooked on second or third editorial passes.
I'm sure it will get an errata pass if its added to the errata thread.
|
|
I don’t know if I will have time to deep dive the math, but a quick look tell me that flurry of claws that does double damage on a crit is equal to fire ray damage wis, but would be trading 30ft of range for the ability to do twice as much damage when you can manage a second target. So the decision is, is that a fair trade off?
Another point of comparison would be to look at where flurry of claws with double damage on a crit compares directly to a spell slot spell like Breathe Fire, which is also pretty likely to hit 1 or 2 targets most of the time it is used. The damage is the same base but I would look at the accuracy map in a couple of different situations, including where there is are bonuses to attack in the party. Focus spells should come in better than a cantrip, but not as good as an equal ranked spell slot spell that is heightened to a top slot.
Fire ray is not nearly as good as Thunderstrike or Horizon Thunder Sphere.
I don't really agree here. I'm playing a couple of dragon sorcerers and the 10 foot range really is quite restrictive. Even enemies who happen to be diagonally flanking one of your friends are already 15 feet apart.
And I think the spell to compare against is the dragon breath focus spell that the same bloodline can get at level 6. That one easily outpaces Breathe Fire, just by area. It would be really poor design if it also left dragon claws so far behind that the new focus spell meant you'd never bother with the old one anymore.
That 10ft restriction doesn't play nice with how they partitioned diagonal costs. that is pretty restrictive. IF they made if 15ft or at least allowed the distance to increase at some heightened level that would be better.
I disagree that a rank 3 focus spell and a rank 1 focus spell are supposed to be the same power level. PF2 is not a game where you are supposed to use the same spells or items all the time.
I don’t know what the ideal answer is or what the original intent was. I still think it is possible that it was originally written to double and then an editor removed the doubling line and didn’t have time to come up with something different. We know that there is probably a second round of errata that hasn’t been finished for player core 2 yet. So we could see changes yet. Gluttony’s Jaws is in a rough spot without doubling. It is worse than the preremastered version. I wouldn’t say the same about flurry of claws.
I disagree that a rank 3 focus spell and a rank 1 focus spell are supposed to be the same power level. PF2 is not a game where you are supposed to use the same spells or items all the time.
I don’t know what the ideal answer is or what the original intent was. I still think it is possible that it was originally written to double and then an editor removed the doubling line and didn’t have time to come up with something different. We know that there is probably a second round of errata that hasn’t been finished for player core 2 yet. So we could see changes yet. Gluttony’s Jaws is in a rough spot without doubling. It is worse than the preremastered version. I wouldn’t say the same about flurry of claws.
Which Rank 3 Focus spell are we talking about? Did I miss something?
Flurry of Claws not being able to crit would likely be placing it on the weaker end of spell attack focus spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 2 above mine talked about how dragon breath (focus 3) is better than breathe fire (spell 1) I don’t tahini rank 3 focus spells need to be worse than heightened rank 1 spell slot spells. Dragon Breathe is a little worse than fireball though, so I think the pattern holds up well. Same rank focus spells shouldn’t be flatly better than spell slot spells.
I'm not sure it's valid to compare Flurry of Claws to every other focus spell with a spell attack, since in practice the sorcerer is only choosing between focus spells that have the sorcerer trait.
Actually, not even that. The sorcerer is choosing a bloodline, and a focus spell is only one factor in that decision. Someone could be picking the draconic bloodline just for the +1 status bonus to AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I will just houserule Flurry of claws and Gluttonous Jaws double on crit. I don't think we have shown had a good reason for them to not crit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I will just houserule Flurry of claws and Gluttonous Jaws double on crit. I don't think we have shown had a good reason for them to not crit.
Totally reasonable IMO. Hell, house ruling them makes them consistent with virtually everything else and that means people don't have to remember an exception. That just makes the game easier to play.
I think I will just houserule Flurry of claws and Gluttonous Jaws double on crit. I don't think we have shown had a good reason for them to not crit.Totally reasonable IMO. Hell, house ruling them makes them consistent with virtually everything else and that means people don't have to remember an exception. That just makes the game easier to play.
Unless it was somehow problematic, I would expect everything to have some effect on a crit (including the damage being doubled typically).
If double damage was too much damage compared to other options, I would expect the spell or effect to call that out explicitly and say something else happens.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's totally fair to compare them because they're spells from the same bloodline. I don't think the design intent is that once you got the second one you'd stop using the first one. I get that that's a thing for regular spells from slots - you're sort of nudged away from Breathe Fire when you get Fireball. But you can prepare something else in the Breathe Fire slot. Bloodline focus spells are a bit more precious, you can't trade them in for something else.
I think it's more like feats - Sudden Charge doesn't stop being a good feat at later levels either. You'll sometimes use other feats, but it wasn't design intent that you'd just forget about the low level feats.
Aren't higher rank focus spells stronger?
Things like aoe and range that the rank 1 spells dont get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't higher rank focus spells stronger?
Things like aoe and range that the rank 1 spells dont get.
Yes. Higher rank focus spells usually have better features like range, AoE and even riders or debuffs than rank 1 focus spells. Damage-wise they seem to stick to the same limits as the rank 1 ones though. Fire Breath, for example, is one die less damage up front than spell slot spells of the same rank, as well as having slightly smaller areas of effect than comparably ranked spell slot spells.
I don't think literally everything needs to do something on a crit. Sometimes, there just isn't a reasonable "crit" version of an outcome.
For instance, fumble tables for attack rolls are a maligned house rule in TTRPGs because a miss is already bad enough. You don't need need a critical failure to result in you stabbing yourself, and it doesn't even make sense to do so.
Similarly, you don't want cases where you look at the noncrit success effect and see that it objectively can't even be called a "success" in a plain English sense. For instance, Player Core's introduction to the four degrees of success describes an effort to cross a river. If you critically succeed, you cross the river. If you only succeed, you only cross half the river, which is to say that you didn't cross the river!
Of course, some things just need multiple successes. That much becomes clear as you familiarize yourself with the game. But sometimes, you just want the player to actually succeed when they succeed. If someone rolled a success to Lie against an NPC, you don't need to tell them "OK, he almost believes you. Attempt one more Deception check to really sell it."
Looking around there are a few other spells with the same issue:
Glutton's Jaws (also PC2), Sticky Fire (battlecry), and Vindicator's Mark (War of Immortals) all lack any crit benefits.
Three are a handful of other spells that don't double on a crit (like hydraulic press) but still have defined benefits for critical success.
... It's so haphazard it definitely feels like someone forgot.
PFS GMs absolutely can't: they're specifically not allowed to. Barring a PFS ruling, the spell does what it says so no extra crit damage.Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error.
Glutton’s Jaws stands out to me as one of these that probably should have just doubled everything on a crit, but sticky fire and vindicator’s mark are weird enough that I could see that the omission of a critical effect is deliberate.
I don’t think every spell should do the same basic thing on a critical hit with a spell attack roll is the intended base assumption of the game or it would have saved a ton of space to condense that into something like the language of a basic saving throw and not had to repeat it all over the place.
At the same time, I don’t think Flury of claws is high enough damage to need nothing in a crit. I think maybe only doubling the base slashing damage but not the add on d4 would have put the spell in a good mathematical space, but that might have been complicated to say succinctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone rolled a success to Lie against an NPC, you don't need to tell them "OK, he almost believes you. Attempt one more Deception check to really sell it."
Actually I think that's a perfectly valid thing to do. Especially for a complex lie, or one that goes against the person experience/expectations.
In fact, I think more uses of things like Diplomacy and Deception ought to be multiple rolls to get "bigger" effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Complex skill actions do really well with VP systems, and it prevents one character for doing all the interacting with the challenge. Gabbing a generalized rule of Critical success =2 points, success 1, failure 0, and Crit Fail -1, actually avoids the complexity of how spells interact with 4 tiers of success.
I agree that if a single character is doing it, it's not great to make use a victory point system with a lot of rolls. It drags things out and everyone else is bored.
It's when you require the rest of the party to be involved in the conversation. Don't make the DC high, but everybody has to participate. Now you 10 charisma friend whos untrained is potentially a liability, in a high chance game.
Of course that has issues too, where the party goes "Hey, we're going to try diplomacy, please wait outside while we do". Which is also pretty bad.
To be honest I don't know what the best solution is. I feel like victory points and multiple rolls are an improvement for complex tasks, but also if you only have one person doing it then it doesn't make sense.
Unless you add some sort of time element. Like you need to accumulate a certain amount of points that one person alone couldn't possibly do in the number of turns allowed. And even then, you still end up with certain party members likely being excluded because they're more likely to crit fail than succeed thus removing them from the exercise is the best thing for the party.
So I kinda feel that that 'Maximum +5' is maybe a better typical DC than Maximum +10.
Yeah, if you're going to do a group thing it absolutely shouldn't be maximum +10 for the DC. Because you're basically telling anyone who has poured all possible upgrades into this skill that you shouldn't participate. So I think it's better to lower the DC a bit.
And wherever you have something that it doesn't make sense for the DC to scale with PCs, don't do that. Use a fixed DC. Like climbing a wall. The DC of the wall (ignoring things like weather) shouldn't change just because the PCs leveled up. Although it's not common that those kind of things are victory point based, but there might be some scenario where its appropriate.
Another option for victory point based challenges is to have multiple skills be useful in contributing points. Maybe you're trying to convince the king to do something. So you use some diplomacy, a little deception to present a scenario in which not doing it would be bad, and maybe even a puppet show (performance) of how the people of the kingdom would view him if he doesn't. There's room to be creative.
What happens on a critical hit for an attack roll is defined elsewhere. Absent any guidance that is the default. I see no reason to rule it otherwise. An attack roll with a spell is still an attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens on a critical hit for an attack roll is defined elsewhere. Absent any guidance that is the default. I see no reason to rule it otherwise. An attack roll with a spell is still an attack roll.
And for a spell attack (or this specific spell attack roll) that is?