Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9781178" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Fictionally that would be because said fighter is worse at magic than he is at attacking normally.  So it kind of makes sense if you view it as a spell attack.  And regardless this interaction should really highlight that it's not simply a buff spell, because buffs improve the situation regardless and this makes it worse in some scenarios.I think we can rule out buff and i've already made my case for that.For transforming - what is it transforming the 'normal weapon attack' into?  I would say a spell attack with the weapon.  What would you say?*I think from a practical writing standpoint that calling it a 'spell attack with the weapon' would be just as ambiguous. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't think it would make the interaction with true strike any clearer.  One could still argue that it's a spell attack with the weapon and not a spell attack with the spell for example. (Innate Sorcery requires 'attack rolls with spells you cast').</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">But also, the damage die of the hit would be less clear.  I know how hit damage works on an attack with the weapon that uses casting stat instead of str/dex for damage.  I don't know how hit damage works with spell attacks with the weapon as that's not a defined term anywhere.</li> </ul>What specifically is a 'regular' attack?  I would say it's an attack that behaves normally for attack and damage.  What would you say it is?I think it's cool the way it is.I once was too <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification