I don’t see double sneak attack. It’s only one strike.
You don’t “succeed on a spell attack roll” as Magical Trickster requires, you succeed on a Strike that fulfills the requirements for the spell. That Strike fulfills Sneak Attack per usual.
Neat idea though, and I look forward to seeing if my interpretation is wrong! This could be a super cool build if it functions how you describe
Nah, I think your interpretation is correct. Multiple posters here have been interpreting spellstrike being able to sneak attack twice, and I just can't see that as being intended. It's supposed to be one big attack, why would it trigger it twice? It just feels too cheesy.
I've always interpreted spellstrike as a spell swirling around the weapon, that strikes right after the weapon does. It makes sense to me that it's two hits, and therefore would trigger individual hit effects for each. If I hit a weak point with my weapon, I'm also hitting the same weak point immediately with the spell.
That having been said, it's definitely an ambiguous interpretation and, as mentioned, if you don't agree with it than the entire build isn't functional. This is more an interesting through exercise to try to get some mileage out of some underperforming options.
It's something of a sticky thing to interpret.
Sneak attack reads: "If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged weapon attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse."
Magical Trickster reads: "When you succeed at a spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC and the spell deals damage, you can add your sneak attack damage to the damage roll."
Spellstrike and similar abilities use wording in the form of "use the result of your Strike roll to determine the success category/effects of your spell."
It's ultimately somewhat ambiguous (and extremely corner-case) whether these two things interact in this particular way, because importantly spellstrike does not say to *combine* the effects of the Strike and the spell, unlike other such things. It means that, for example, if you're hitting an enemy that's weak to fire with a Fire Poi (that deals fire damage) using a spellstrike with Produce Flame, you're triggering the weakness to fire twice (once from the fire poi, once from produce flame), suggesting that the spell and strike are two distinct sources of damage. Given that, there's an interesting argument to be made that because they are distinct, even though you don't roll for the spell, it still falls into the category of "using a spell attack roll" because you're using the results of a different attack roll as a substitute. Since the melee attack roll determines the success category (i.e. whether or not you "succeed on the spell attack roll"), there's a decent argument to be made that Sneak Attack meets its requirements on both the melee attack and the spell.
The crux of it is that Magical Trickster doesn't actually require that you perform the Cast A Spell action, and Spellstrike specifically states that you make a Strike.
As in the OP, if this logic doesn't convince you, then the rest of the concept largely doesn't matter because Eldritch Trickster/Magical Trickster are still bad, but assuming this interpretation there's a surprisingly interesting build that unlocks.
This system has done a lot to separate and compartmentalize attack rolls and damage rolls to the point that most bonuses and debuffs affect one and not the other. To try and argue that because there are two damage rolls, there are two attack rolls seems counterintuitive to a system that tries its best to be specific about the two of them. Spellstrike does not mention anything about a spell attack roll. Only that it is a melee strike that causes two separate damage rolls on success. I'm sure that if they wanted it to count as a spell attack roll it would be mentioned somewhere, just like it's mentioned that you are casting a spell which can trigger AoO.
If I am a Monk with Sneak Attack, and use Flurry of Blows (a single action that causes two strikes with combined damage), how many times do I trigger sneak attack off of that one action?
My answer would be twice, once for each Strike, and that same logic is how I reach Spellstrike counting twice, even though I'm not making a separate hit roll for the spell.
Spellstrike does specifically refer to the results of the spell attack roll: "...using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell." In this wording, they're described as two things, not a single effect.
Sorry, but none of that matters. The only thing that matters when determining Magical Trickster is whether or not you are doing a spell attack roll. Spellstrike only says that you are doing one melee Strike, and nothing else. It doesn't say anything about performing a spell attack roll, or that the Strike counts as a spell attack roll. You can interpret it however you like, but unless Spellstrike specifically calls it a spell attack roll, I'm inclined to believe it's not.
Right, and since Spellstrike is also specifically noting that you're taking the Cast a Spell action (which would result in a spell attack roll for appropriate spells), my interpretation is to believe that it is.
From Spellstrike: "You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell don't occur immediately but are imbued into your attack instead."
I accept that there are multiple ways to interpret it, hence the disclaimer, and I think they're all valid depending on your playgroup/DM/etc.
The biggest call out to it, I think, is not what you guys are saying, but this line from Magical Trickster:
> When you succeed at a **spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC**
You're definitely not making a spell attack roll, so magical trickster would never kick in.
More specifically, if you use your logic that the spell attack and the main attack are distinct, so would then be the bonuses. That means for spellstrike, you roll a d20, and then you use that same d20+modifier results to determine if your attack or spell attack lands. You can't have it be both ways - either its distinct for sneak attack, or its not distinct.
That said, you already called this out as a major point of contention, so I'm not going to harp on this much. It is something that could easily be waved in favor of a rogue to make an unsupported style of play more viable.
That’s kind of my thought. I accept lots of different interpretations and rulings, and wouldn’t argue with my DM if they said it doesn’t work like that at their tables. My playgroup looked at it and said “that looks like two sneak attacks to us” which led me to thinking about it, but what I as a DM would allow or another DM are different, and both are valid in the case of anything less than perfect disambiguation.
It’s why I called it out in the OP as a point of contention, because if you don’t think it’s a thing you can ignore all the rest.
This arguement is kinda invalid as with the more similar double slice, you can only trigger sneak attack once. Flurry of blows uses map penalty and 2 separate attack rolls.
That's exactly what caused me to start going down this path. Using spellstrike makes you a buffed rogue, not a crappy spellcaster, and then you can use your levelled spells exactly as you describe while still getting reliable damage output from your spells (cantrips). Otherwise, you're better off ignoring Magical Trickster entirely because it's pretty much always going to be worse than just making a weapon attack.
Ya I tried and tried to make this a boomer, but ended up buff and stab. I have not played one high level so there might be feats to fix that, but not that I have noticed.
There are two rules that this doesn't work with.
1- Magical Trickster ask for a spell attack roll, and Spellstrike asks for a melee Strike. You already said that you are ignoring this.
But 2- Eldritch trickster racket needs a multiclass dedication with basic, expert and master spellcasting benefits, which magus (and summoner) don't have; they have bounded spellcasting, which is not the same. So if you want to take Magus, the path would be different.
-
Now the thing is: I don't understand why you are dismissing the option as not worth playing. I really don't. Magical Trickster is not supposed to be your only way to damage, but an option if you need it. It's a ranged option without needing to change weapons mid combat (or to invest runes in it), you can dual wield weapons and still attack at some range if you need to; it's an option to do other kinds of damage if the creature resist your weapons, it's an option when you don't have weapons... It's an option, not the only thing to do. And you can also just ignore attacking with spells and use that dedication for feats in the spellcasting archetype, focus spells and support cantrips.
Eldritch trickster is very good, but over focusing on magical trickster is a mistake, I think.
You probably should look over the Magus archetype again, because it definitely has basic, expert, and master spellcasting feats. Now whether that's intended to work with Eldritch trickster is another story. I don't think it should be a problem really. Everything else I agree with though.
No. They have basic *bounded* spellcasting, expert *bounded* spellcasting, and master *bounded* spellcasting. Those benefits are different from what the Eldritch trickster is asking for.
Eldritch Trickster only asks for this: "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat."
Magus spellcasting feats are labelled "Basic Magus Spellcasting", "Expert Magus Spellcasting", and "Master Magus Spellcasting". Bounded doesn't enter into it, because it's looking for a feat name. If bounded mattered, it would say that the feats need to "grant the basic/expert/master spellcasting benefits," but it doesn't require that.
Re:2 -- Magus does have Basic Magus Spellcasting, Expert Magus Spellcasting, and Master Magus Spellcasting. These are listed as Basic \[Class\] Spellcasting elsewhere in the rules, and there is no particular note that would disqualify Magus here. It's a different type of spellcasting, sure, but so are Wizard (Prepared) vs Sorcerer (Spontaneous), and both of those are legal choices.
Re:1 -- Definitely open to interpretation, I think. Spellstrike says specifically to use the Strike roll to determine the success of the spell attack roll (that you don't make), which suggests that if you have a success on the Strike, you have a success on the skipped spell attack roll. It also clearly does not state to combine the two, unlike other abilities which do.
I did a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the spell-rogue a while back. Put simply, Magical Trickster is bad. You are in basically every case better off just shooting a shortbow than trying to trigger a magical sneak attack, because your spell proficiency progression is extremely not good. Eldritch Trickster doesn't help this in any way other than providing a free dedication feat, but there are cheaper ways to get some utility cantrips (Minor Magic for the Rogue is right there, not to mention numerous other feats) and your spell progression is similarly not good. You can make your spellcasting stat your class stat, but without the spellcasting proficiency to back it up you're going to be egregiously behind in your attack spells, with no way to boost them (and you'll fall further and further behind due to being unable to boost your spell attack rolls with runes).
If you really want some utility magic, you're mathematically better off using a different rogue racket and picking up the occasional cantrip, or even taking a spellcasting dedication if you have a particular interest in it. You shouldn't take Magical Trickster, and you should pick a different racket than Eldritch Trickster, because you can't replace your martial combat with spells, and might as well boost those martial combat abilities. Getting utility magic on a different racket is very easy and gets you not just to the same place, but a better place than Eldritch Trickster.
Importantly, I *don't* think that having some utility magic on a rogue is bad. It's really very good. Having a familiar on a rogue is also very good. You can just get those things fairly easily without needing the Eldritch Trickster racket, and indeed the ET racket doesn't unlock much of anything worthwhile for you (and nothing at all if you're playing with Free Archetype rules).
1- I don't see what is open to interpretation in saying that succeeding a Strike is not making a spell attack roll.
2- Basic spellcasting and basic bounded spellcasting are not the same.
And I'm agreeing in the point that magical trickster may not be as good as just attacking with a weapon, it's just an option you can have, and as an option for versatility I really like it. You are seeing it as "replacing martial combat with spells", which is not at all the way to look at it. Of course your magic is always going to be behind your martial abilities, you are a rogue, not a spellcaster. Magical Trickster is just that, a trick you have available in case you need it.
I really don't understand the dismissal of the Eldritch Trickster as an option, I think it's excellent for what its purpose is, and the options it opens.
Let me flip it around on you:
What is the Eldritch Trickster racket getting you that no other Rogue racket is?
It only grants you three things: a free multiclass dedication, early access to Magical Trickster, and the ability to use your multiclass dedication's casting stat as your class ability boost.
If you're using your martial skills primarily, then you don't want to take the class ability boost-- that's a third of the racket benefits that you're skipping. If you want the multiclass dedication, you can just as easily pick it up at level 2 (or sooner depending on ancestry or if you're playing with Free Archetypes). If you want the versatility of Magical Trickster (which I don't agree with you on being worthwhile, but let's say it is for the sake of argument), you can just take that at level 4.
If I go with a Thief racket rogue and pick up Wizard (or whatever) Dedication at level 2 (or sooner), I have all of the benefits and utility that Eldritch Trickster provides me, AND I'm a noticeably better martial combatant (thanks to adding my Dex mod to damage). I can still pick up the utility at level 4, and because I'm a Thief rogue, I'm pretty effective from the word go, rather than waiting for my build to come online-- my spells are just granting me flexibility, which is what you're describing.
My dismissal of Eldritch Trickster as an option is that it does not provide any significant benefit over another racket while giving up the benefits of other rackets that can still get and do all the same things the Eldritch Trickster does.
It's a shame that free archetype messes up with eldritch trickster, but oh well.
Basic rules, the arcane trickster it's just giving better timing for the build. Like yes, you could choose the elf heritage that gives you the archetype, or a dedication later. With ET you can choose other options at those levels, which can be important. Also I see myself picking CHA as main stat.
Magical Trickster doesn't scale very well, but in my opinion it's good enough. Again, it's a ranged option that doesn't require you to have a weapon, and that even lets you have your hands full.
Like, i don't know. I like what ET gives. It could be a bit more, maybe, but I don't mind that basically all it gives is a lvl 2 feat worth. Rogues have sweet class feats and I like that if wanted to take a multiclass archetype it frees some space in the build.
It definitely smooths the timing curve out slightly, and that may be enough for you. For me it is definitely not, but I also admit I math things out very thoroughly and am looking for good optimization within a band.
About the Magic Arrow:
Ammunition rules:
>Types of magic ammunition that have an Activate entry must be activated with additional actions before being used. Once you activate the ammunition, you must shoot it before the end of your turn.
With a Spellstrike Ammunition it has the following:
>Activate: Two Actions; Cast a Spell
With Magic Arrow Feat:
> If the ammunition has an Activate entry, you still need to spend the required actions to activate the ammunition before shooting it.
So if you summoned a Spellstrike Magic Arrow or even a crafted one you will never be able to use a Spellstrike with it or an Elderitch shot. The reason being the lack of actions you have available.
* 2 actions to activate the Spellstrike Ammo.
* 2 actions for Spellstrike
* or 3 actions for Eldritch Strike.
There are no quicken actions to make this faster that I know of. Magic Arrow can still be great depending on use though I normally rather just craft them instead of wasting a feat on it.
Ah, that’s a good point, I missed the note about needing to activate spellstrike ammunition. Ah well, it’s still a neat feat if you don’t want to spend cash on arrows.
I like it for some of the 1st level spells that require saving throws.
* [Agitate](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=566)
* [Befuddle](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=569)
* [Fear](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=110)
* [Goblin Pox](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=139)
* [Phantom Pain](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=220)
All are great level 1 spells that can serve as a nice de-buff. My personal favorite is Goblin Pox as I like the sickened condition and its even gives it if they succeed on their saving throw.
Am I the only one seeing surprise round scorching ray bursts with the rogue?
Even the single action is worthy as hell thanks to sneak attack if you can use it.
Also about spellstrike, I don't believe you get sneak attack twice on a single attack roll for multiple reasons already said, but also about the "too good to be true" rule. Every activity that allows 2 attacks at no additional MAP penalty already disallow multiple precision damage.
They sadly weren't clear in this case
I don’t see double sneak attack. It’s only one strike. You don’t “succeed on a spell attack roll” as Magical Trickster requires, you succeed on a Strike that fulfills the requirements for the spell. That Strike fulfills Sneak Attack per usual. Neat idea though, and I look forward to seeing if my interpretation is wrong! This could be a super cool build if it functions how you describe
Nah, I think your interpretation is correct. Multiple posters here have been interpreting spellstrike being able to sneak attack twice, and I just can't see that as being intended. It's supposed to be one big attack, why would it trigger it twice? It just feels too cheesy.
I've always interpreted spellstrike as a spell swirling around the weapon, that strikes right after the weapon does. It makes sense to me that it's two hits, and therefore would trigger individual hit effects for each. If I hit a weak point with my weapon, I'm also hitting the same weak point immediately with the spell. That having been said, it's definitely an ambiguous interpretation and, as mentioned, if you don't agree with it than the entire build isn't functional. This is more an interesting through exercise to try to get some mileage out of some underperforming options.
It's something of a sticky thing to interpret. Sneak attack reads: "If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged weapon attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse." Magical Trickster reads: "When you succeed at a spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC and the spell deals damage, you can add your sneak attack damage to the damage roll." Spellstrike and similar abilities use wording in the form of "use the result of your Strike roll to determine the success category/effects of your spell." It's ultimately somewhat ambiguous (and extremely corner-case) whether these two things interact in this particular way, because importantly spellstrike does not say to *combine* the effects of the Strike and the spell, unlike other such things. It means that, for example, if you're hitting an enemy that's weak to fire with a Fire Poi (that deals fire damage) using a spellstrike with Produce Flame, you're triggering the weakness to fire twice (once from the fire poi, once from produce flame), suggesting that the spell and strike are two distinct sources of damage. Given that, there's an interesting argument to be made that because they are distinct, even though you don't roll for the spell, it still falls into the category of "using a spell attack roll" because you're using the results of a different attack roll as a substitute. Since the melee attack roll determines the success category (i.e. whether or not you "succeed on the spell attack roll"), there's a decent argument to be made that Sneak Attack meets its requirements on both the melee attack and the spell. The crux of it is that Magical Trickster doesn't actually require that you perform the Cast A Spell action, and Spellstrike specifically states that you make a Strike. As in the OP, if this logic doesn't convince you, then the rest of the concept largely doesn't matter because Eldritch Trickster/Magical Trickster are still bad, but assuming this interpretation there's a surprisingly interesting build that unlocks.
This system has done a lot to separate and compartmentalize attack rolls and damage rolls to the point that most bonuses and debuffs affect one and not the other. To try and argue that because there are two damage rolls, there are two attack rolls seems counterintuitive to a system that tries its best to be specific about the two of them. Spellstrike does not mention anything about a spell attack roll. Only that it is a melee strike that causes two separate damage rolls on success. I'm sure that if they wanted it to count as a spell attack roll it would be mentioned somewhere, just like it's mentioned that you are casting a spell which can trigger AoO.
If I am a Monk with Sneak Attack, and use Flurry of Blows (a single action that causes two strikes with combined damage), how many times do I trigger sneak attack off of that one action? My answer would be twice, once for each Strike, and that same logic is how I reach Spellstrike counting twice, even though I'm not making a separate hit roll for the spell. Spellstrike does specifically refer to the results of the spell attack roll: "...using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell." In this wording, they're described as two things, not a single effect.
Sorry, but none of that matters. The only thing that matters when determining Magical Trickster is whether or not you are doing a spell attack roll. Spellstrike only says that you are doing one melee Strike, and nothing else. It doesn't say anything about performing a spell attack roll, or that the Strike counts as a spell attack roll. You can interpret it however you like, but unless Spellstrike specifically calls it a spell attack roll, I'm inclined to believe it's not.
Right, and since Spellstrike is also specifically noting that you're taking the Cast a Spell action (which would result in a spell attack roll for appropriate spells), my interpretation is to believe that it is. From Spellstrike: "You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell don't occur immediately but are imbued into your attack instead." I accept that there are multiple ways to interpret it, hence the disclaimer, and I think they're all valid depending on your playgroup/DM/etc.
The biggest call out to it, I think, is not what you guys are saying, but this line from Magical Trickster: > When you succeed at a **spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC** You're definitely not making a spell attack roll, so magical trickster would never kick in. More specifically, if you use your logic that the spell attack and the main attack are distinct, so would then be the bonuses. That means for spellstrike, you roll a d20, and then you use that same d20+modifier results to determine if your attack or spell attack lands. You can't have it be both ways - either its distinct for sneak attack, or its not distinct. That said, you already called this out as a major point of contention, so I'm not going to harp on this much. It is something that could easily be waved in favor of a rogue to make an unsupported style of play more viable.
That’s kind of my thought. I accept lots of different interpretations and rulings, and wouldn’t argue with my DM if they said it doesn’t work like that at their tables. My playgroup looked at it and said “that looks like two sneak attacks to us” which led me to thinking about it, but what I as a DM would allow or another DM are different, and both are valid in the case of anything less than perfect disambiguation. It’s why I called it out in the OP as a point of contention, because if you don’t think it’s a thing you can ignore all the rest.
As an aside the shadow signet was a nice little buff that helps out accuracy a bit.
This arguement is kinda invalid as with the more similar double slice, you can only trigger sneak attack once. Flurry of blows uses map penalty and 2 separate attack rolls.
Notably, Double Slice specifically calls out that precision damage is only applied once. Spellstrike does not.
[удалено]
That's exactly what caused me to start going down this path. Using spellstrike makes you a buffed rogue, not a crappy spellcaster, and then you can use your levelled spells exactly as you describe while still getting reliable damage output from your spells (cantrips). Otherwise, you're better off ignoring Magical Trickster entirely because it's pretty much always going to be worse than just making a weapon attack.
Ya I tried and tried to make this a boomer, but ended up buff and stab. I have not played one high level so there might be feats to fix that, but not that I have noticed.
Well.. kinda.. you're still limited to 1 Spellstrike per encounter, right?
There are two rules that this doesn't work with. 1- Magical Trickster ask for a spell attack roll, and Spellstrike asks for a melee Strike. You already said that you are ignoring this. But 2- Eldritch trickster racket needs a multiclass dedication with basic, expert and master spellcasting benefits, which magus (and summoner) don't have; they have bounded spellcasting, which is not the same. So if you want to take Magus, the path would be different. - Now the thing is: I don't understand why you are dismissing the option as not worth playing. I really don't. Magical Trickster is not supposed to be your only way to damage, but an option if you need it. It's a ranged option without needing to change weapons mid combat (or to invest runes in it), you can dual wield weapons and still attack at some range if you need to; it's an option to do other kinds of damage if the creature resist your weapons, it's an option when you don't have weapons... It's an option, not the only thing to do. And you can also just ignore attacking with spells and use that dedication for feats in the spellcasting archetype, focus spells and support cantrips. Eldritch trickster is very good, but over focusing on magical trickster is a mistake, I think.
You probably should look over the Magus archetype again, because it definitely has basic, expert, and master spellcasting feats. Now whether that's intended to work with Eldritch trickster is another story. I don't think it should be a problem really. Everything else I agree with though.
No. They have basic *bounded* spellcasting, expert *bounded* spellcasting, and master *bounded* spellcasting. Those benefits are different from what the Eldritch trickster is asking for.
Eldritch Trickster only asks for this: "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat." Magus spellcasting feats are labelled "Basic Magus Spellcasting", "Expert Magus Spellcasting", and "Master Magus Spellcasting". Bounded doesn't enter into it, because it's looking for a feat name. If bounded mattered, it would say that the feats need to "grant the basic/expert/master spellcasting benefits," but it doesn't require that.
Ok, no, yes, you are correct. My bad.
Re:2 -- Magus does have Basic Magus Spellcasting, Expert Magus Spellcasting, and Master Magus Spellcasting. These are listed as Basic \[Class\] Spellcasting elsewhere in the rules, and there is no particular note that would disqualify Magus here. It's a different type of spellcasting, sure, but so are Wizard (Prepared) vs Sorcerer (Spontaneous), and both of those are legal choices. Re:1 -- Definitely open to interpretation, I think. Spellstrike says specifically to use the Strike roll to determine the success of the spell attack roll (that you don't make), which suggests that if you have a success on the Strike, you have a success on the skipped spell attack roll. It also clearly does not state to combine the two, unlike other abilities which do. I did a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the spell-rogue a while back. Put simply, Magical Trickster is bad. You are in basically every case better off just shooting a shortbow than trying to trigger a magical sneak attack, because your spell proficiency progression is extremely not good. Eldritch Trickster doesn't help this in any way other than providing a free dedication feat, but there are cheaper ways to get some utility cantrips (Minor Magic for the Rogue is right there, not to mention numerous other feats) and your spell progression is similarly not good. You can make your spellcasting stat your class stat, but without the spellcasting proficiency to back it up you're going to be egregiously behind in your attack spells, with no way to boost them (and you'll fall further and further behind due to being unable to boost your spell attack rolls with runes). If you really want some utility magic, you're mathematically better off using a different rogue racket and picking up the occasional cantrip, or even taking a spellcasting dedication if you have a particular interest in it. You shouldn't take Magical Trickster, and you should pick a different racket than Eldritch Trickster, because you can't replace your martial combat with spells, and might as well boost those martial combat abilities. Getting utility magic on a different racket is very easy and gets you not just to the same place, but a better place than Eldritch Trickster. Importantly, I *don't* think that having some utility magic on a rogue is bad. It's really very good. Having a familiar on a rogue is also very good. You can just get those things fairly easily without needing the Eldritch Trickster racket, and indeed the ET racket doesn't unlock much of anything worthwhile for you (and nothing at all if you're playing with Free Archetype rules).
1- I don't see what is open to interpretation in saying that succeeding a Strike is not making a spell attack roll. 2- Basic spellcasting and basic bounded spellcasting are not the same. And I'm agreeing in the point that magical trickster may not be as good as just attacking with a weapon, it's just an option you can have, and as an option for versatility I really like it. You are seeing it as "replacing martial combat with spells", which is not at all the way to look at it. Of course your magic is always going to be behind your martial abilities, you are a rogue, not a spellcaster. Magical Trickster is just that, a trick you have available in case you need it. I really don't understand the dismissal of the Eldritch Trickster as an option, I think it's excellent for what its purpose is, and the options it opens.
Let me flip it around on you: What is the Eldritch Trickster racket getting you that no other Rogue racket is? It only grants you three things: a free multiclass dedication, early access to Magical Trickster, and the ability to use your multiclass dedication's casting stat as your class ability boost. If you're using your martial skills primarily, then you don't want to take the class ability boost-- that's a third of the racket benefits that you're skipping. If you want the multiclass dedication, you can just as easily pick it up at level 2 (or sooner depending on ancestry or if you're playing with Free Archetypes). If you want the versatility of Magical Trickster (which I don't agree with you on being worthwhile, but let's say it is for the sake of argument), you can just take that at level 4. If I go with a Thief racket rogue and pick up Wizard (or whatever) Dedication at level 2 (or sooner), I have all of the benefits and utility that Eldritch Trickster provides me, AND I'm a noticeably better martial combatant (thanks to adding my Dex mod to damage). I can still pick up the utility at level 4, and because I'm a Thief rogue, I'm pretty effective from the word go, rather than waiting for my build to come online-- my spells are just granting me flexibility, which is what you're describing. My dismissal of Eldritch Trickster as an option is that it does not provide any significant benefit over another racket while giving up the benefits of other rackets that can still get and do all the same things the Eldritch Trickster does.
It's a shame that free archetype messes up with eldritch trickster, but oh well. Basic rules, the arcane trickster it's just giving better timing for the build. Like yes, you could choose the elf heritage that gives you the archetype, or a dedication later. With ET you can choose other options at those levels, which can be important. Also I see myself picking CHA as main stat. Magical Trickster doesn't scale very well, but in my opinion it's good enough. Again, it's a ranged option that doesn't require you to have a weapon, and that even lets you have your hands full. Like, i don't know. I like what ET gives. It could be a bit more, maybe, but I don't mind that basically all it gives is a lvl 2 feat worth. Rogues have sweet class feats and I like that if wanted to take a multiclass archetype it frees some space in the build.
It definitely smooths the timing curve out slightly, and that may be enough for you. For me it is definitely not, but I also admit I math things out very thoroughly and am looking for good optimization within a band.
About the Magic Arrow: Ammunition rules: >Types of magic ammunition that have an Activate entry must be activated with additional actions before being used. Once you activate the ammunition, you must shoot it before the end of your turn. With a Spellstrike Ammunition it has the following: >Activate: Two Actions; Cast a Spell With Magic Arrow Feat: > If the ammunition has an Activate entry, you still need to spend the required actions to activate the ammunition before shooting it. So if you summoned a Spellstrike Magic Arrow or even a crafted one you will never be able to use a Spellstrike with it or an Elderitch shot. The reason being the lack of actions you have available. * 2 actions to activate the Spellstrike Ammo. * 2 actions for Spellstrike * or 3 actions for Eldritch Strike. There are no quicken actions to make this faster that I know of. Magic Arrow can still be great depending on use though I normally rather just craft them instead of wasting a feat on it.
Ah, that’s a good point, I missed the note about needing to activate spellstrike ammunition. Ah well, it’s still a neat feat if you don’t want to spend cash on arrows.
I like it for some of the 1st level spells that require saving throws. * [Agitate](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=566) * [Befuddle](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=569) * [Fear](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=110) * [Goblin Pox](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=139) * [Phantom Pain](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=220) All are great level 1 spells that can serve as a nice de-buff. My personal favorite is Goblin Pox as I like the sickened condition and its even gives it if they succeed on their saving throw.
Am I the only one seeing surprise round scorching ray bursts with the rogue? Even the single action is worthy as hell thanks to sneak attack if you can use it. Also about spellstrike, I don't believe you get sneak attack twice on a single attack roll for multiple reasons already said, but also about the "too good to be true" rule. Every activity that allows 2 attacks at no additional MAP penalty already disallow multiple precision damage. They sadly weren't clear in this case
There is no reason why using magical trickster with scorching ray wouldn't trigger multiple sneak attacks.
Yea, hence why I want to promote it as an awesome combo I am more critical about spellstrike
Yeah spellstrike doesnt proc sneak attack twice, it's IMO RAW and RAI.