| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a human elemental (fire) bloodline sorcerer who is currently level 3. My primary question is I want to know if taking Arcane Strike would work on rays. Particularly the bloodline ray as it would give my basic rays some additional scaling power between arcane strike, sorcerer level, and bard preformance.
With Precise Shot and Arcane Strike you would have Ray of Frost deal 3-5 damage, with a bard it would be 4-6. Not too bad for an 'auto attack' that hits touch AC. Sorcerer bloodline ray would be 5-10 with the bard.
If anyone wants to help optimize my character here are the rest of my stats, using elite NPC array (which is a 15 point buy I believe)
My sorcerer build is this-
8 str
14 dex
13 con
12 int
10 wis
17 cha
My spells chosen are
Grease, Mage Armor, Burning Hands (bloodline), and Magic Missle.
I'm not allowed to take the alternate bonous of an additional spell per level, but it is something I am trying to talk my DM into.
I've trying to build my sorcerer as a blaster but with some battlefield control. My planned spells at 4th and 5th level - identify, flame orb, pryotechnics, scorching ray (bloodline). If I can convince my DM to let me get more spells per level and rebuild I would get true strike, shield, and feather fall, with the future level two spells being glitterdust and invisibility.
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?[
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11
So, yeah, it works with Rays and certain other spells that act like weapons, but not all touch spells.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started a thread a couple of months ago with a title like "What's a weapon?" for questions such as this. At the time, the agreement was that stuff like Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot apply to any ranged attack where you have to roll to hit, but we never got official confirmation from anyone at Paizo. The FAQ request got a response along the lines of "No need to answer", which bugged the heck out of me.
But that doesn't answer the question for Arcane Strike. I just double checked the wording to see what I can determine from that:
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
My opinion is that this feat doesn't work on rays, though I could be wrong. I have two reasons for this.
First, you're supposed to be imbuing a physical object with arcane energy, and a ray isn't a physical object. So from a logical standpoint, it would seem to not apply.
Second, and more technically, it's a swift action. Your ray doesn't actually exist until you use a standard action to cast the spell to create it, and you can't use a swift action in the middle of a standard action. If you try to use the swift action before the standard action of casting the spell, then the ray doesn't exist yet to be boosted. If you try to use it after the standard action of casting the spell, then the ray has already been discharged, so it's too late.
That's my two coppers worth.
Fromper: How would you handle someone using Arcane Strike at the start of their turn, THEN drawing a weapon OR picking one up off the ground?
I see it more as you "charge up" and then that energy is transferred into your attacks as you go for a round. In that sense, you could charge up, then add the arcane energy to a ray attack as you cast it.
Just my idea tho, I don't really know the answer to this question.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current official interpretation (as I understand it) is that melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks are always considered weapons for anything that does not explicitly require a particular type of weapon (manufactured, natural, etc). Some effects do (like magic fang), and some do it sneakily (like magic weapon, which works on any weapon except that it can only target an object, and your spells are not objects). Others apply more generally (inspire courage).
This means you can take weapon focus (ranged touch), inspire courage works on those spells, etc. However, things that give damage bonuses only work for HP damage, though non-HP damage will still multiply on a critical (stat damage, drain and negative levels are considered damage).
This also goes the other direction, as things like sickened can reduce your damage or to-hit.
I find this perfectly okay, as it makes sense that if it requires an attack roll it should be possible to specialize in, and it should be boosted by effects that makes attack rolls easier, etc. Damage is harder to conceptualize, but saying "it's magic" doesn't really remove the possibility of being in good spirits boosting the energy throughput of the spell you cast, or preclude being able to use an ability that lets you add extra power to a sword attack to add extra power to a spell attack too (with the same action and other costs, of course).
TL;DR - They're weapons, yo.
Too bad it doesn't with melee touch spells.
Fromper has it right on his second point. Since your ray does not exist until you cast your or use your spell-like ability, you can not use a swift action before hand to imbue it with the feat's effects. This would, however work for spells like flame-blade (you would need to be a multi-class character, druid/sorcerer or the like, since flame blade is a druid only spell), or other spells which work similarly, creating a persistent weapon-like effect with a duration longer than instantaneous.
His first point is off the mark, though, as there is nothing about the feat that specifies a manufactured weapon.
|
|
Apparently, I'm in the minority on this one.
But the wording of the feat says "you can imbue your weapons with...". The object of that sentence is "your weapons". So it's the weapon itself that's receiving the boost, not the spellcaster. To me, this reads like those spells StabbittyDoom mentioned that specifically target an object, like Magic Weapon.
And Sylvanite, I'd assume someone using this would draw the weapon, then charge it up with Arcane Strike, then make an attack. Not a big deal to just reverse the order of actions if you were going to do it before picking up the weapon. But the feat only applies to attacks in the current round, so why bother using it if you're not wielding the weapon?
The current official interpretation (as I understand it) is that melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks are always considered weapons for anything that does not explicitly require a particular type of weapon (manufactured, natural, etc). Some effects do (like magic fang), and some do it sneakily (like magic weapon, which works on any weapon except that it can only target an object, and your spells are not objects). Others apply more generally (inspire courage).
This means you can take weapon focus (ranged touch), inspire courage works on those spells, etc. However, things that give damage bonuses only work for HP damage, though non-HP damage will still multiply on a critical (stat damage, drain and negative levels are considered damage).
This also goes the other direction, as things like sickened can reduce your damage or to-hit.
I find this perfectly okay, as it makes sense that if it requires an attack roll it should be possible to specialize in, and it should be boosted by effects that makes attack rolls easier, etc. Damage is harder to conceptualize, but saying "it's magic" doesn't really remove the possibility of being in good spirits boosting the energy throughput of the spell you cast, or preclude being able to use an ability that lets you add extra power to a sword attack to add extra power to a spell attack too (with the same action and other costs, of course).
TL;DR - They're weapons, yo.
If you can take Weapon Focus (ranged touch), which is not specified as allowed in the CRB, why on earth would you take Weapon Focus (Ray), which is specifically allowed? For that matter, why would you have to limit yourself to ranged touch spells? Couldn't you just take Weapon Focus (Touch Attacks)? Where is this clarified?
|
|
Mabven, I never meant that it had to be a manufactured weapon. Only that the feat seems to be targeting an object that exists, not a spell whose affect only exists for a couple of seconds while casting it. The target could be a sword, a bow, a fist, a flame blade, or a hand with shocking grasp already cast on it waiting to touch someone. But a ray doesn't exist long enough to sit around waiting to be targeted by this feat.
Mabven, I never meant that it had to be a manufactured weapon. Only that the feat seems to be targeting an object that exists, not a spell whose affect only exists for a couple of seconds while casting it. The target could be a sword, a bow, a fist, a flame blade, or a hand with shocking grasp already cast on it waiting to touch someone. But a ray doesn't exist long enough to sit around waiting to be targeted by this feat.
Then we are in total accord.
|
|
Mabven, I never meant that it had to be a manufactured weapon. Only that the feat seems to be targeting an object that exists, not a spell whose affect only exists for a couple of seconds while casting it. The target could be a sword, a bow, a fist, a flame blade, or a hand with shocking grasp already cast on it waiting to touch someone. But a ray doesn't exist long enough to sit around waiting to be targeted by this feat.
Go chill touch.
|
|
If you can take Weapon Focus (ranged touch), which is not specified as allowed in the CRB, why on earth would you take Weapon Focus (Ray), which is specifically allowed? For that matter, why would you have to limit yourself to ranged touch spells? Couldn't you just take Weapon Focus (Touch Attacks)? Where is this clarified?The current official interpretation (as I understand it) is that melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks are always considered weapons for anything that does not explicitly require a particular type of weapon (manufactured, natural, etc). Some effects do (like magic fang), and some do it sneakily (like magic weapon, which works on any weapon except that it can only target an object, and your spells are not objects). Others apply more generally (inspire courage).
This means you can take weapon focus (ranged touch), inspire courage works on those spells, etc. However, things that give damage bonuses only work for HP damage, though non-HP damage will still multiply on a critical (stat damage, drain and negative levels are considered damage).
This also goes the other direction, as things like sickened can reduce your damage or to-hit.
I find this perfectly okay, as it makes sense that if it requires an attack roll it should be possible to specialize in, and it should be boosted by effects that makes attack rolls easier, etc. Damage is harder to conceptualize, but saying "it's magic" doesn't really remove the possibility of being in good spirits boosting the energy throughput of the spell you cast, or preclude being able to use an ability that lets you add extra power to a sword attack to add extra power to a spell attack too (with the same action and other costs, of course).
TL;DR - They're weapons, yo.
Ranged Touch -> Ray, sorry. I'm pretty sure those two terms are synonymous when it comes to spells.
This FAQ touches on, but does not completely elucidate the issues. It talks about weapon spec (Ray) being legal, which requires that weapon focus (ray) is legal.
It does not explicitly state that weapon focus (melee touch) is legal, but given that (Ray) is legal and of equal usefulness, it is logical to assume that (melee touch) is legal.
This FAQ explicitely talks about Ray being enhanced by Inspire Courage and similar effects as well. It also notes that "weapon-like spells" like flame blade fall under this category (which all state 'treat as X' weapon, rather than being a simple melee touch).
In other words: What I said in the quoted text is verifiable RAW for Rays and spells that describe themselves in terms of a normal weapon (like flame blade), but unverified for melee touch (whether for or against). Note that melee touch and weapon-like spells are different because melee touch will say "Range: Touch; Target: Creature Touched" while a weapon-like spell will say "Range: Close/Medium/Far; Effect: Creates a weapon-like thing". I choose to interpret those as extending to melee touch, but it was never explicitly stated.
Ranged Touch -> Ray, sorry. I'm pretty sure those two terms are synonymous when it comes to spells.
For spells they are basically the same thing, but also consider things like nets. I wouldn't use 'ranged touch attacks' to be synonymous with rays.
Anyway, back to Arcane Strike and Rays. Sounds like a solid 'maybe??'- if I may ask how does PFS handle this. I would have to imagine that it has come up before there. Anyway to find out?
Ranged Touch -> Ray, sorry. I'm pretty sure those two terms are synonymous when it comes to spells.
There are spells that use a ranged touch, but are not rays.
Acid Arrow
Acid Splash
Deafening Song Bolt
Dread Bolt
Produce Flame
Shard of Chaos
Spear of Purity
Spit Venom
Also a great many spell-like abilities, monster abilities, splash weapons, etc.
Ranged Touch -> Ray, sorry. I'm pretty sure those two terms are synonymous when it comes to spells.There are spells that use a ranged touch, but are not rays.
Acid Arrow
Acid Splash
Deafening Song Bolt
Dread Bolt
Produce Flame
Shard of Chaos
Spear of Purity
Spit VenomAlso a great many spell-like abilities, monster abilities, splash weapons, etc.
I think I'd disagree with this. Any single target spell that is a ranged touch attack qualifies a ray. Are you really saying that Weapon Focus (ray) would affect Ray of Frost but not Acid Orb?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd disagree with this. Any single target spell that is a ranged touch attack qualifies a ray. Are you really saying that Weapon Focus (ray) would affect Ray of Frost but not Acid Orb?Ranged Touch -> Ray, sorry. I'm pretty sure those two terms are synonymous when it comes to spells.There are spells that use a ranged touch, but are not rays.
Acid Arrow
Acid Splash
Deafening Song Bolt
Dread Bolt
Produce Flame
Shard of Chaos
Spear of Purity
Spit VenomAlso a great many spell-like abilities, monster abilities, splash weapons, etc.
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Weapon Focus says you have to pick a weapon type. You can't pick swords and then try to use it with an axe, just because they're both melee weapons. So why should you be able to pick ray and use it with a non-ray spell, just because they're both ranged touch spells?
If the "Effect" part of the spell's description doesn't have the word "ray" in it, then it's not a ray. I'm sure "one missile of acid" (the Effect of Acid Splash) flies differently than a ray, so you'd have to pick which one to focus in.
*** Warning: Thread Necromancy ***
Going back to the question before: Arcane Strike and Rays, it's actually very clear that it does indeed work.
1) RAW/RAI state that rays are weapons. This has been confirmed several times.
2) Arcane Strike states that you imbue your weapons, regardless of how many you have, or where they are. There is no requirement stating "weapon touched" or "one melee weapon, or 50 ammunition" or "wielded weapon".
3) The effect lasts for one round. (It does not specify that you target a weapon, and that weapon then is imbued for one round. It simply states all weapons - even ones you pick up, conjure or acquire that round).
I can, if I wish, use Arcane Strike and Spiritual Weapon. Or Flame Blade. No distinction is drawn as to when the ability is used, nor when the weapon appears. You are drawing on your arcane power to imbue your weapons, and the feat is not written as a SLA with targets and durations and limitations; how it happens is deliberately handwaved.
No distinction is ever made how it functions. One could read the text "As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power" to mean "As a swift action, you commence something similar to a Bardic Performance that will imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power".
So for all anyone here knows, it could be calling up some sort of internal power that then reaches out through your weapons as you swing/fire/stab/thrust with them. In this way, you could consider your skillful spell casting fingers are the weapon being imbued. Hence, you can choose whichever spell you want and your little stubby weaponised fingers get a little boost from magicland when you flick your wrist....
...Or it could be a pulsating invisible aura, constantly feeding you with magical energy that arcs along lines of force generated by anything you swing, send out or fire....
...Alternatively it could be a sparkly cloud of ethereal fairies that surround you, always throwing pixie dust around that coalesces around anything that you use as a weapon and boosts them with rainbow energy...
...or whatever else turns your crank.
The point is, it's not a spell effect or something that requires you to target a weapon, and the way it works was handwaved to make it simple. It just happens, and that is that.
-
Even so, there is little excitement though - getting +4 damage to one or two spells in a round (assuming you are able to cast that many) isn't as exciting as stabbing someone three or four times with the +4 active. It's not completely overpowered, so there shouldn't be any crazy GM crackdown on GishAxeChuckerers being too OP. It requires you to perform an action, so it's not just 'free damage'.
As another point, I could have Quick Draw and a full set of attacks and wish to Arcane Strike. I could then draw any combination of daggers, throwing axes or even toss a longsword if I want, and all of those would be treated with the Arcane Strike ability, no matter if I had one stashed in my boot, or in my scabbard, or strapped to my forearm - or even in a Glove Of Storing. I don't have to choose which weapons, it is not limited in any way.
I could even activate Arcane Strike, perform a Disarm CM and snatch away an enemy weapon, and use it - with Arcane Strike active - in an AoO when he tries to grab it back. Of course it initially sounds absurd, but re-imagine that pulsating aura... the effect is active, it means it's happening, so stab away and get your extra couple of damage as some BBEG takes back his longsword and then fillets you with it.
Just wish to point in out my previous post, there are a couple of instances where I assume you can do more than one swift action a turn :o
Are you really saying that Weapon Focus (ray) would affect Ray of Frost but not Acid Orb?
The one is a ray and benefits from being a ray, the other is not affected by spell resistance.
Besides, it's not always a benefit to use a ray. While levitating for example you get penalties for attacking with a weapon (which a ray is). An acid splash would be fine though.
|
2 year old thread necro but are their anymore insights into this? I am interested in taking it for my PFS Wizard and using it to enhance rays.
Just wondering if there has been any new insights into this debate, I am on the side of Rays are considered weapons and since Arcane strike effects a weapon it should count. It may be cheese but that's how I'd rule it, but I can see both sides which is why I came here.
I tend to agree but not sure what the official response is. Always have to be careful when taking stuff for PFS, may even want to ask under PFS rules as they sometimes conflict with non-pfs.
If a maximum of 5 extra damage (at level 20 no less) on a shocking grasp or scorching ray spell is the line where your game breaks, perhaps things other than Arcane Strike are the issue.
Wait, if rays are weapons...
Does that mean a Myrmidarch Magus using Ranged spellstrike could deliver a ray spell... with ray attack?
I'm now imagining a magus using Reach Chill Touch and Scorching Ray to shoot multiple rays of ice with swirling beams of fire around each of them. That's it, I'm making this character.
|
|
I tend to agree but not sure what the official response is. Always have to be careful when taking stuff for PFS, may even want to ask under PFS rules as they sometimes conflict with non-pfs.
Okay, yeah the consensus seems to be pretty reasonable, the only gamebreaking element to that I see is combining this with Ray of Enfeeblement or Touch of Gracelessness. Honestly though I am just trying to improve my wizards to hit a little bit and this gives him a scaling to hit.
But I'll go make a thread down in the Society forum as well and link it to this one.
I tend to agree but not sure what the official response is. Always have to be careful when taking stuff for PFS, may even want to ask under PFS rules as they sometimes conflict with non-pfs.Okay, yeah the consensus seems to be pretty reasonable, the only gamebreaking element to that I see is combining this with Ray of Enfeeblement or Touch of Gracelessness. Honestly though I am just trying to improve my wizards to hit a little bit and this gives him a scaling to hit.
But I'll go make a thread down in the Society forum as well and link it to this one.
Arcane strike only increases damage, not to hit. It makes the attack magic though as well, which overcomes some DR, though thats not an issue on spells.
|
Seems like a solid application of the feat to me. It's definitely not a power issue, and it's going to be used primarily by sorcerers to shore up spammable abilities anyways. By late levels it's... unlikely that a Wizard is going to choose to Arcane Strike when he can cast a Quickened Spell instead.
I think they may have even errata'd the feat to make this more doable; I recall having this conversation a while back and it revolving around the fact that the feat used to reference weapons you wield, and you can't wield a ray... The fact that it no longer uses the wield terminology seems a good indicator that isn't only an allowable use, but an intended one.
**EDIT** Found the old thread, looks like the "wield" terminology was all in my head, but the consensus reached there was that rays absolutely did work with Arcane Strike.
There was also some really interesting conjecture about how since rays are treated as weapons a Myrmidarch Magus could potentially use Ranged Spellstrike to deliver a Ray of Enfeeblement through a Scorching Ray spell.
Pretty old thread for this post, but why not.
Unfortunately, Paizo decided two years after Mr. Sayre's post that Arcane Strike using rays isn't a thing. Not that it matters unless you're playing PFS or something.