One of my more recent PFS GMs ran a combat in which ranged attack rolls were impossible. Despite this, he ruled that creatures could still cast hydraulic push on the basis that it's a ranged spell attack roll and that there is no overlap between melee, ranged, and spell attack rolls. This is false, right? I've been under the impression that melee spell attacks (like gouging claw) can benefit from flanking and ranged spell attacks can still suffer penalties to ranged attacks.
My understanding is the same as yours, with a caveat. Ranged spell attack roll spells might take a little more GM fiat for determining what penalties apply to it as often ranged attack penalties in PF2 are built on the assumption of a physical object traveling from attacker to target and spell attack roll spells might be that, or might involve other means of attacking that wouldn’t necessarily be affected the same way, even if mechanically they are ranged attacks.
In the case you mention, it is hard to imagine a penalty that would apply to an arrow but not magic water blast, but it isn’t breaking the rules for a GM to give spell attack roll spells an exception that makes sense to them for something like this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to RAW, as far as Attack Rolls are concerned : "there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls".
And then "Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page."
So, "ranged attacks" are indeed separate from "spell attacks" (even ranged spell attacks) in the RAW.
Note, for example, that ranged attacks can suffer from a Range penalty, when attacking beyond the first range increment, while ranged spell attacks cannot.
Also Flanking gives a penalty to the target's AC through the off-guard condition, not a bonus to the Attack Roll.
|
|
As another example, the Wall of Wind spell also makes a distinction : "Ammunition from physical ranged attacks—such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, and other objects of similar size—can't pass through the wall. Attacks with bigger ranged weapons, such as javelins, take a –2 circumstance penalty to their attack rolls if their paths pass through the wall. Massive ranged weapons and spell effects that don't create physical objects pass through the wall with no penalty."
This is one of those things that is inconsistent and ambiguous throughout the system. Spell attacks are a different kind of attack than a melee/ranged attack, because they're not strikes... but they can also be melee spell attacks or ranged spell attacks.
The counterexample here is Ignition, which explicitly does something different if you're making a "melee spell attack" (the spell's term).
Do things that penalize ranged attacks penalize ranged spell attacks? Well, Wall of Wind doesn't because it says "physical ranged attacks". But in other cases it's not so clear.
So the answer to this really depends on another question: why were ranged attacks impossible?
I mean, as a GM, I would apply wall of wind to needle darts or telekinetic projectile for sure, and might apply it to hydraulic push, it probably depends on whether it helps the party or hurts them the first time and then stick with whatever I picked previously. Spells are much more fiddly for figuring out what bonuses apply and don’t.
You have to jump through some crazy hoops to justify calling a "ranged spell attack" not ranged.
It is literally in the name.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you just need to read the RAW I quoted above. Which differentiates between a ranged attack and a spell attack.You have to jump through some crazy hoops to justify calling a "ranged spell attack" not ranged.
It is literally in the name.
Assuming you completely ignore the part how spell attacks can be melee or ranged, sure. Of course, it's not nearly so simple if you don't ignore that part.
And if you do, then what's a 'melee spell attack' as described by Ignition, which is also RAW?
I think the scenario was
The effect was nasty. Everything was difficult terrain, everyone's Speeds were halved, and any move action was disrupted unless one passed an Athletics check.
One of my more recent PFS GMs ran a combat in which ranged attack rolls were impossible.
And we jump right off the deep end into homebrew territory immediately.
I mean, as a GM, I would apply wall of wind to needle darts or telekinetic projectile for sure, and might apply it to hydraulic push
Not calling you out for criticism, but for providing the perfect example.
None of these make attack rolls impossible. They make the ranged attack not able to be successful. There is a difference there.
For Wall of Wind specifically, it lists out which types of ranged combat effects can go through the wall. Hydraulic Push is in a bit of a grey area. I would rule that it is blocked by Wall of Wind since the spell effect does create a physical projectile. I could be persuaded to treat it as a large projectile and allow the effect to pass the Wall, but with penalties.
** spoiler omitted **
Good to know.
But that doesn't mean that we aren't deep into houserule territory. It just means that the houserule was created by a scenario author and published.
Which leaves it up to the PFS GM running the table to do their best to figure out what to do with that.
okay, sure. Do you have the impression I'm disputing your conclusion?** spoiler omitted **Good to know.
But that doesn't mean that we aren't deep into houserule territory. It just means that the houserule was created by a scenario author and published.
Which leaves it up to the PFS GM running the table to do their best to figure out what to do with that.
No, I don't. That isn't my intent with quoting you. If anything, I am quoting you because your post supports what I am saying.
My point is that since this is a custom homebrew effect created for a creature in a PFS scenario, that we on the rules forum here aren't really going to be able to give a definitive ruling on the matter. We can't say for certain how it should be run, and therefore we can't say that this GM in question ran it incorrectly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know it has never been fully cleared up by Paizo.
For example, it's general consensus that Tempest Oracles don't have their spell attacks impeded by their cursebound 2+ condition.
Though at the same time Reach Spell + Gouging Claw would still be a melee spell attack roll at 30 ft distance and would thus benefit from flanking.
As far as I know it has never been fully cleared up by Paizo.
For example, it's general consensus that Tempest Oracles don't have their spell attacks impeded by their cursebound 2+ condition.
Though at the same time Reach Spell + Gouging Claw would still be a melee spell attack roll at 30 ft distance and would thus benefit from flanking.
Yeah the Oracle one seems to be "general consensus because it benefits the players" more than anything actually RAW, given how inconsistent that is with spells getting melee benefits when that's helpful.
But there's no way to say that wasn't the actual intention given it isn't the only case of Oracle having a curse that does basically nothing (hi Cosmos!).
I don't think the GM's ruling had much to do with the effect itself. They were telling me that a "ranged spell attack roll" never counts as a "ranged attack roll" because it's a "spell attack roll", and never the two shall overlap.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know it has never been fully cleared up by Paizo.
For example, it's general consensus that Tempest Oracles don't have their spell attacks impeded by their cursebound 2+ condition.
Though at the same time Reach Spell + Gouging Claw would still be a melee spell attack roll at 30 ft distance and would thus benefit from flanking.
Only if the enemy is within your reach, per the Flanking rules.
Whip FTW.
Only if the enemy is within your reach, per the Flanking rules.As far as I know it has never been fully cleared up by Paizo.
For example, it's general consensus that Tempest Oracles don't have their spell attacks impeded by their cursebound 2+ condition.
Though at the same time Reach Spell + Gouging Claw would still be a melee spell attack roll at 30 ft distance and would thus benefit from flanking.
Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon.
Gouging Claw hits with a morphed appendage, i.e. is part of your body; thus the full 30 ft are now your reach for this one attack.
|
|
Only if the enemy is within your reach, per the Flanking rules.As far as I know it has never been fully cleared up by Paizo.
For example, it's general consensus that Tempest Oracles don't have their spell attacks impeded by their cursebound 2+ condition.
Though at the same time Reach Spell + Gouging Claw would still be a melee spell attack roll at 30 ft distance and would thus benefit from flanking.
Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon.Gouging Claw hits with a morphed appendage, i.e. is part of your body; thus the full 30 ft are now your reach for this one attack.
Interesting take. But AFAICT nothing says that Reach Spell actually increases your reach. Indeed, it is not part of the list of things that increase your reach in the text you linked to.
Should Gouging Claw, when cast as part of a ranged Spellstrike, be considered a melee attack that can benefit from Flanking too ?
I think it falls under the TGTBT rule, so expect table variance on this.
Anything that increases your body's ability to "reach" somewhere also increases your rules Reach. That's the very definition of Reach, and that is quoted there. And if a spell allows you to morph your arm into a clawed appendage and make a melee attack with it, then that is obviously this attack's reach:
Definition of Reach: Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon.Interaction with melee strikes: Melee Strikes rely on reach.
Typical creature size reach: Your reach is typically 5 feet, but weapons with the reach trait can extend this. Larger creatures can have greater reach; for instance, an ogre has a 10-foot reach.
Special reach rules: Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally. Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally: 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379
Should Gouging Claw, when cast as part of a ranged Spellstrike, be considered a melee attack that can benefit from Flanking too ?
No, that's nonsense. Neither Gouging Claw, nor any other attack spell, interacts with Spellstrike that way: Your Spellstrike is the determining attack, and that is either a melee attack or a ranged attack; it is not even a spell attack. The attack spell inside the Spellstrike just uses the Spellstrike attack's result for its own result.
So if a Starlit Span Magus had cursebound 2 from the Tempest Oracle archetype, then the penalty would affect his Spellstrike and thus, indirectly, even a Gouging Claw spell, regardless of that spell having itself a melee spell attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd let spells get through. Plus it'd be silly to give a big bad an ability to stop ranged attacks and then give him spells he couldn't use while using that ability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reach spell doesn’t say increase the reach of a touch spell, it increases its range. To me that makes it clear that it makes that a ranged attack, because it has a range value (not a reach value).
Ghostly carrier is the spell that delivers melee spell attacks at a distance.
Gouging Claw hits with a morphed appendage, i.e. is part of your body; thus the full 30 ft are now your reach for this one attack.
Reach Spell literally changes the spell range. It does not give you reach.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has a range, increase that spell’s range by 30 feet. As is standard for increasing spell ranges, if the spell normally has a range of touch, you extend its range to 30 feet.
In fact the word "reach" never appears in Reach Spell at all outside its name. A 30' spell is not a melee spell because you don't have 30' reach. It's now a ranged spell attack. Since the word "reach" never actually appears, it is by definition not giving reach.
It baffles me how this thread is simultaneously arguing that Tempest Oracle's curse doesn't convey its ranged penalty onto spell attacks while also trying to argue that reach spell can give you 30' reach melee spell attacks.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Insinuating that anyone in our community has struggles with literacy is ableist, and since it's also an insult, it's against our forum rules. Our books are long and lengthy for readers, our PDFs are formatted so they can be easily read with text to speech, and we have audiobook versions of all our novels. Anyone and everyone here on our forums can read, however valid way they choose or need to do so.