Does point-blank shot apply to spell damage?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does point-blank shot apply to spell damage?

PRD wrote:

Point-Blank Shot (Combat)

You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.

Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.

Sovereign Court

Yes.


It depends.

Does the spell require an attack roll, and is it counted as a ranged attack?

Things like acid splash or scorching ray and the like, yes.

Things like magic missile, enervation, ray of exhaustion, and so on, then no.

You can even take weapon focus/specialization in rays.


as stated if the spell does hit point damage and requires a ranged attack (including ranged touch attacks) then yes, it works.

Grand Lodge

Eltacolibre wrote:
Yes.
Kolokotroni wrote:
as stated if the spell does hit point damage and requires a ranged attack (including ranged touch attacks) then yes, it works.

What weapon focuses would be applicable?


You would specifically need Weapon Focus (Ray).

Grand Lodge

Magic ray attacks would be a good candidate for weapon focus


I'm aware of this
FAQ.

Rays would get a bonus from Point Blank Shot, but that's it. I'm unaware of any ranged weapon-like spells, i.e. spells that function like ranged weapons in the same manner as flame blade functions as a scimitar, but if there are any, PBS would apply to them as well.

This FAQ wouldn't cover normal ranged touch attacks, just rays and weapon-like spells.

Does anyone have a source stating ranged touch attacks are treated as weapons?


There is nothing in Pathfinder to say for sure. There is nothing that says all touch spells work the same, and nothing that says they don't. But since Pathfinder uses the 3.5 rules for rays, I feel comfortable using the 3.5 rules for the other touch spells, in which all relevant weapon attack and damage modifiers apply to all touch spells. There is a nice write-up in Complete Arcane that can be summarized as "all touch spells are weapon attacks. They are divided into ranged touch and melee touch for feats that require a specific weapon."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Quantum Steve wrote:
Does anyone have a source stating ranged touch attacks are treated as weapons?

In the Weird Words Bard ability thread it was clarified that Point Blank Shot would work on it. It isn't listed as a ray, is a ranged touch attack, and deals hit point damage.


Work on it specifically? Or work for all range touch spells?

In pathfinder, there is a distinction between rays, which count as weapon-like for feats, and other attack spells which aren't rays.


James Risner wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Does anyone have a source stating ranged touch attacks are treated as weapons?
In the Weird Words Bard ability thread it was clarified that Point Blank Shot would work on it. It isn't listed as a ray, is a ranged touch attack, and deals hit point damage.

Could you link to that clarification? It always was my understanding only rays get the damage.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sean Post

It has always been my understand that any attack roll from any spell, ability, etc that deals damage can have any weapon enhancer like Point Blank Shot applied. The only exception is things that are restricted to special types (like "one handed weapon" or other limiters that would mean ranged attacks don't apply.)

I'm aware of the current debate over things that say "ray" and things that don't say "ray". I just ignore that debate because I don't agree with them. I consider Weapon Focus (Ray) to apply to any damage dealing ranged attack roll from any spell, ability or effect.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:

Sean Post

It has always been my understand that any attack roll from any spell, ability, etc that deals damage can have any weapon enhancer like Point Blank Shot applied. The only exception is things that are restricted to special types (like "one handed weapon" or other limiters that would mean ranged attacks don't apply.)

I'm aware of the current debate over things that say "ray" and things that don't say "ray". I just ignore that debate because I don't agree with them. I consider Weapon Focus (Ray) to apply to any damage dealing ranged attack roll from any spell, ability or effect.

I don't have time now to read through all the posts before the one linked, but what are "these" he's referring to?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

THIS is the post that answers the question.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Ok... so since this is something I have to be able to point to from you Sean or the PDT FAQ in order to use it in PFS, as some GMs have been applying the penalty for firing into melee, but not allowing us to get the bonus to damage for things like point blank shot, Inspire courage, etc.

------------------
If a spell or ability requires an attack or ranged attack roll, even if it is not necessarily a ray, it takes the normal ranged attack penalties for firing into melee/cover, and also recieves any bonuses to damage that would apply (only applicable to hit point damage, not spells like enervation etc).
-------------------
Correct?
Yes, correct.


James Risner wrote:

Sean Post

It has always been my understand that any attack roll from any spell, ability, etc that deals damage can have any weapon enhancer like Point Blank Shot applied. The only exception is things that are restricted to special types (like "one handed weapon" or other limiters that would mean ranged attacks don't apply.)

I'm aware of the current debate over things that say "ray" and things that don't say "ray". I just ignore that debate because I don't agree with them. I consider Weapon Focus (Ray) to apply to any damage dealing ranged attack roll from any spell, ability or effect.

+1

It is easier to group things by "Requires an attack roll" than it is "This is a ray, but that is an orb, and that one is a beam (are beams like rays?), etc." since they all behave the same mechanically.

Point Blank Shot gives a +1 to hit for those spells (and +1 damage if they do HP damage) within 30'. Things that increase "to hit" with weapons (Weapon Focus, Haste, Bless, etc.) would increase your chance at hitting with such spells. Things that increase "damage" with weapons (Inspire Courage, Divine Favor, etc.) increase your damage with such spells IF they deal hit point damage.

A "Beam" that requires an attack roll, but has the effect of "Blinds target" would get +1 to hit from Point Blank Shot (if within 30') but since it doesn't deal HP damage, wouldn't get +1 damage from it. Likewise with Divine Favor (+ to hit, but no + to damage since there isn't any).


Weapon focus is taken for a particular weapon. A Ray spell is considered a type of weapon for that purpose. A 'ranged touch attack' is not, anymore than you could select weapon focus (ranged attack) or weapon focus (melee attack).

Grand Lodge

So if this comes up for PFS, where do I point to that's official for an answer?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Weapon focus is taken for a particular weapon. A Ray spell is considered a type of weapon for that purpose. A 'ranged touch attack' is not, anymore than you could select weapon focus (ranged attack) or weapon focus (melee attack).

In 3.5,things like that where indeed valid for feats like weapon focus. I haven't seen anything that's been changed/altered to make it untrue now.

Complete Arcane, pg# 73"
"Weapon Focus: Choose one category of weaponlike spells (ranged spells or touch spells) and gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made with such spells. You can gain this feat a second time, choosing a different category of weaponlike spells.

And for the OP (same source/page):
"Point Blank Shot: You get a +1 bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls with ranged spells that deal hit point damage at ranges of up to 30 feet. Spells that deal only ability damage, bestow penalties on ability scores, or deal energy drain gain a +1 bonus on their attack rolls but get no bonus on damage."

Now, of course, the current DEV's could have some super-secret/hidden/unwritten rules they could pull out to invalidate this ( like the 'hands' ruling'), but barring that I don't see what's changed since 3.5.

claudekennilol wrote:
So if this comes up for PFS, where do I point to that's official for an answer?

You can show them this post: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q0e7?Are-spells-like-acid-splash-subject-to-ra nge#49

Grand Lodge

According to the PFS rules that isn't valid as it's not one of the official blog posts, not one of the published materials, and not Campaign Management.

And you've (general you, not specifically you) got to stop bringing 3.5 rules/clarifications into the rules forums here because they're simply not applicable.


Yup, weapon focus calls out rays specially. If they had meant ranged touch, that's what they would have said.


claudekennilol wrote:

According to the PFS rules that isn't valid as it's not one of the official blog posts, not one of the published materials, and not Campaign Management.

And you've (general you, not specifically you) got to stop bringing 3.5 rules/clarifications into the rules forums here because they're simply not applicable.

*shrug* Can't help you then.

As far as 3.5 vs pathfinder, nothing in the wording has changed so why assume it works differently? With nothing else to go on, it seems better that shrugging and ignoring what others have already said on the subject. I understand PFS has it's own rules, so it may be of no use to you, but this is a general rules forum and not a PFS one.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Yup, weapon focus calls out rays specially. If they had meant ranged touch, that's what they would have said.

Really? 3.5 also says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.".

How do you explain that they then said "(ranged spells or touch spells)" where also valid? If your comment makes sense now, it should also have made sense then. The wording didn't change between games.

Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

According to the PFS rules that isn't valid as it's not one of the official blog posts, not one of the published materials, and not Campaign Management.

And you've (general you, not specifically you) got to stop bringing 3.5 rules/clarifications into the rules forums here because they're simply not applicable.

*shrug* Can't help you then.

As far as 3.5 vs pathfinder, nothing in the wording has changed so why assume it works differently? With nothing else to go on, it seems better that shrugging and ignoring what others have already said on the subject. I understand PFS has it's own rules, so it may be of no use to you, but this is a general rules forum and not a PFS one.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Yup, weapon focus calls out rays specially. If they had meant ranged touch, that's what they would have said.

Really? 3.5 also says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.".

How do you explain that they then said "(ranged spells or touch spells)" where also valid? If your comment makes sense now, it should also have made sense then. The wording didn't change between games.

PFS uses pathfinder rules, not 3.5 rules. This is the pathfinder rules forum, as such, any rules questions about pathfinder goes here.

Again, 3.5 doesn't apply here, as stated by the devs themselves so please stop bringing it up. There are other examples of text not changing while the meaning has (and has been errata'd to further match the new interpretation), so once again 3.5 is simply not applicable.


claudekennilol wrote:
graystone wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

According to the PFS rules that isn't valid as it's not one of the official blog posts, not one of the published materials, and not Campaign Management.

And you've (general you, not specifically you) got to stop bringing 3.5 rules/clarifications into the rules forums here because they're simply not applicable.

*shrug* Can't help you then.

As far as 3.5 vs pathfinder, nothing in the wording has changed so why assume it works differently? With nothing else to go on, it seems better that shrugging and ignoring what others have already said on the subject. I understand PFS has it's own rules, so it may be of no use to you, but this is a general rules forum and not a PFS one.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Yup, weapon focus calls out rays specially. If they had meant ranged touch, that's what they would have said.

Really? 3.5 also says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.".

How do you explain that they then said "(ranged spells or touch spells)" where also valid? If your comment makes sense now, it should also have made sense then. The wording didn't change between games.

PFS uses pathfinder rules, not 3.5 rules. This is the pathfinder rules forum, as such, any rules questions about pathfinder goes here.

Again, 3.5 doesn't apply here, as stated by the devs themselves so please stop bringing it up. There are other examples of text not changing while the meaning has (and has been errata'd to further match the new interpretation), so once again 3.5 is simply not applicable.

With this being a core issue (IE an issue with core elements in the core book), this should fall under the 'backwards compatibility' that pathfinder was originally build on. Base/core material was meant to follow the 3.5 rules as closely as possible.

It's possible the current DEV's feel differently but until they speak up, I see no reason not to bring up what's been gone over before. If YOU don't wish to hear about 3.5 info, that's fine. You however, aren't the one to determine what applies and what doesn't. That's for each individual to figure out. With a grey area, you fall back to RAI. Many people find the old rules pretty strong RAI.

Basically, if you feel 3.5 has no bearing on the pathfinder game then skip/skim over posts on it.

Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:

With this being a core issue (IE an issue with core elements in the core book), this should fall under the 'backwards compatibility' that pathfinder was originally build on. Base/core material was meant to follow the 3.5 rules as closely as possible.

It's possible the current DEV's feel differently but until they speak up, I see no reason not to bring up what's been gone over before. If YOU don't wish to hear about 3.5 info, that's fine. You however, aren't the one to determine what applies and what doesn't. That's for each individual to figure out. With a grey area, you fall back to RAI. Many people find the old rules pretty strong RAI.

Basically, if you feel 3.5 has no bearing on the pathfinder game then skip/skim over posts on it.

They have, they've said 3.5 isn't applicable here. If I wanted rulings regarding 3.5, then I would ask on different forums, not the pathfinder forums. I shouldn't have to ask people not to post stuff that isn't applicable to this game as that should be assumed. Or would you rather I add my own sig to my post saying "please don't bring up other games rules here as they don't matter because they're not Pathfinder"?


I don't own the 3.5 rules, I don't play with the 3.5 rules, I don't care about the 3.5 rules, and finally, this is not the message board for the 3.5 rules.

You might as well be responding with references to the rules for Chutes and Ladders.


claudekennilol wrote:
They have, they've said 3.5 isn't applicable here.

I would love to see links to that. And even if there are links, they'd need to be from upper management, and not in narrow focus. I want to see a broad statement from Lisa or someone in charge. The reason? Paizo released an official blog post or statement in an interview, very soon after the launch of Pathfinder, and they stated that any time there was a gap in the rules, 3.5 was the fallback. I believe that comment came from them after requests for epic rules, if that helps anyone who wants to hunt down the comment. But essentially the response was, "Shut up about needing new epic rules, or warlocks; stop re-asking FAQ questions that 3.5 already answered. If 3.5 already did it, use it unless we contradict it."

So let's see your posts. I want to see them changing the long-standing policy of "3.5 is the fallback."

Oh! I just remembered a little bit about one post where they said something like "if we haven't changed it from 3.5, then it's the same as 3.5." It's not the main post/blog/something I was thinking of, but it's a tiny bit of what I remember and backs me up a little. Let me scrounge around on Google and see if I can find it. I'll edit this post if I do.

Edit:

Found it.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2koq1?Jumping-Charge-official-word-would-be-nic e

Official word from James in regards to 3.5 jumping was, "nothing changed." That's not as definitive as I'd hoped, so I'm falling back to their official post from years ago that said 3.5 was the fallback/legacy in rules questions. I haven't tracked down that post yet. However, I'm certainly ahead of those saying 3.5 is officially removed from rules questions, as they haven't posted *any* of that stuff yet.

I'm getting there!


claudekennilol wrote:
They have, they've said 3.5 isn't applicable here. If I wanted rulings regarding 3.5, then I would ask on different forums, not the pathfinder forums. I shouldn't have to ask people not to post stuff that isn't applicable to this game as that should be assumed. Or would you rather I add my own sig to my post saying "please don't bring up other games rules here as they don't matter because they're not Pathfinder"?

I think the point trying to be made is that Pathfinder was built on the 3.5 rule set. Many of the things in the Core Rulebook are literal copy/paste from 3.5. They specifically changed some aspects (all for the better I might add :) ) but some of the core rules, they did not. When left with no specific changes, that leads us to believe they were not changed specifically so they remained the same (something people already knew about). In the absence of a change, we are left with two possibilities. A). It is the same as it was or B). There is no rule anymore and we can't successfully play a game that mentions it without spelling it out. A lot of people go with option A, thus occasional 3.5 quotes on issues that Pathfinder is silent about.

I'm not saying its right, or that I agree (I try to ignore 3.5 as much as possible to be honest), but that doesn't make their points less valid or "not talking about the same game".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sniggevert wrote:

It depends.

Does the spell require an attack roll, and is it counted as a ranged attack?

Things like acid splash or scorching ray and the like, yes.

Things like magic missile, enervation, ray of exhaustion, and so on, then no.

You can even take weapon focus/specialization in rays.

Just wanted to point out that you would still get the attack roll bonus on enervation and ray of exhaustion (just no damage bonus).


_Ozy_ wrote:

I don't own the 3.5 rules, I don't play with the 3.5 rules, I don't care about the 3.5 rules, and finally, this is not the message board for the 3.5 rules.

You might as well be responding with references to the rules for Chutes and Ladders.

I've heard Pathfinder referred to MANY times as "D&D 3.75". If it was referred to as "Chutes and Ladders 2.0" I'm betting the rules for Chutes and Ladders would be referenced quite often (at least as much as D&D 3.5 is).


Ravingdork wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:

It depends.

Does the spell require an attack roll, and is it counted as a ranged attack?

Things like acid splash or scorching ray and the like, yes.

Things like magic missile, enervation, ray of exhaustion, and so on, then no.

You can even take weapon focus/specialization in rays.

Just wanted to point out that you would still get the attack roll bonus on enervation and ray of exhaustion (just no damage bonus).

Yes, sorry. Truncated a bit too much, but you are correct.


And I've heard equally as many times, from the devs, that the 3.5 rules don't apply.

Which makes it equally as irrelevant as chutes and Ladders.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So...you guys are debating whether or not Weapon Focus (ray) applies to any spell's ranged touch attack?

RAW seems to indicate that it doesn't, but I certainly hope that the RAI is that it does.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
So if this comes up for PFS, where do I point to that's official for an answer?

Other than web posts by SKR etc, no.

If you sit at my PFS table, I feel comfortable saying I'm following RAW and that your Weapon Focus (Ray) works on everything ranged touch whether or not it is named as a Ray.


James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
So if this comes up for PFS, where do I point to that's official for an answer?

Other than web posts by SKR etc, no.

If you sit at my PFS table, I feel comfortable saying I'm following RAW and that your Weapon Focus (Ray) works on everything ranged touch whether or not it is named as a Ray.

Like splash weapons? Alchemist bomb attack?


_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
So if this comes up for PFS, where do I point to that's official for an answer?

Other than web posts by SKR etc, no.

If you sit at my PFS table, I feel comfortable saying I'm following RAW and that your Weapon Focus (Ray) works on everything ranged touch whether or not it is named as a Ray.

Like splash weapons? Alchemist bomb attack?

Alchemist bombs are their own weapon category. But yes, you can take weapon focus(bomb).


I'm well aware that you can do it with bombs, I was just wondering if weapon focus (ranged touch ) applied to all ranged touch attacks, or should it read weapon focus (ranged touch attacks from spells and spell like abilities).

The fact that you have to specifically choose (bomb) should perhaps indicate that broad categories like (ranged touch) might not be appropriate. A ranged touch attack is not identified as a weapon category anywhere in the rules.

Sczarni

In PFS, you're going to get the +1 to hit and damage from Point Blank Shot, just as you'd take a penalty for firing into melee without Precise Shot.

Just because you're not clear on the rules doesn't mean the rules aren't clear.

Feel free to point to SKR's post. I have it linked on my profile and have shown it to several GMs and players over the years.

To run ranged combat any other way is a stretch, and has no support.

If you can find evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it here and now.

Otherwise, give it a rest.

Grand Lodge

So Inspire Courage would also affect all spells? What about touch spells like shocking grasp, does Inspire Courage apply there?

I initially asked because I legitimately didn't know. But now, the more that you guys try to convince me, the more I'm convinced that the rules as printed don't support what you all are assuming to be RAW simply because of a few posts by SKR. If it really is supposed to be this way, then it really needs to be printed in a place accepted as rules (PRD, CRB, etc).


claudekennilol wrote:
Does point-blank shot apply to spell damage?

Yes as long as the spell in question requires some form of ranged attack/ranged touch attack roll to hit.

Examples of spells that would get the bonus would be Scorching Ray or Disintegrate.

Examples of spells that would NOT get the bonus would be Magic Missile or Lightning Bolt.

I believe Paizo said a few years back to follow the 'weapon like spells' guidelines from 3.5 for these cases. I know they can be found in 'Complete Arcane' at the very least.

Sczarni

claudekennilol wrote:
So Inspire Courage...

I'm not quoting your entire statement, because I see where you were trying to lead it.

No, Inspire Courage would not affect "all spells".

But if you have a spell that 1) relies on an attack roll to-hit, and 2) deals hit point damage, then Inspire Courage will work with it.

Just as Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot will.

Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now is your time to shine. Please, I want to see it. If you are so sure we're wrong, you *must* have found something to influence your thinking, yes?

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
So Inspire Courage...

I'm not quoting your entire statement, because I see where you were trying to lead it.

No, Inspire Courage would not affect "all spells".

But if you have a spell that 1) relies on an attack roll to-hit, and 2) deals hit point damage, then Inspire Courage will work with it.

Just as Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot will.

Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now is your time to shine. Please, I want to see it. If you are so sure we're wrong, you *must* have found something to influence your thinking, yes?

Only that it specifically applies to weapon damage and I don't see anything supporting that spells are weapons. If you know where anything that supports that any spell with a targeting roll or that does damage is considered a weapon then please let me know. I'm not being facetious and am not trying to be argumentative. I also believe that what you guys are saying is how it's supposed to be, I just don't see anything in the book that supports it.


claudekennilol wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
So Inspire Courage...

I'm not quoting your entire statement, because I see where you were trying to lead it.

No, Inspire Courage would not affect "all spells".

But if you have a spell that 1) relies on an attack roll to-hit, and 2) deals hit point damage, then Inspire Courage will work with it.

Just as Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot will.

Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now is your time to shine. Please, I want to see it. If you are so sure we're wrong, you *must* have found something to influence your thinking, yes?

Only that it specifically applies to weapon damage and I don't see anything supporting that spells are weapons. If you know where anything that supports that any spell with a targeting roll or that does damage is considered a weapon then please let me know. I'm not being facetious and am not trying to be argumentative. I also believe that what you guys are saying is how it's supposed to be, I just don't see anything in the book that supports it.

The FAQs and RAW are very clear about rays being ranged weapons for nearly all purposes. With the other attack-roll spells (even other effect-instead-of-target spells such as acid arrow,) it's not as clear.

Grand Lodge

Sandslice wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
So Inspire Courage...

I'm not quoting your entire statement, because I see where you were trying to lead it.

No, Inspire Courage would not affect "all spells".

But if you have a spell that 1) relies on an attack roll to-hit, and 2) deals hit point damage, then Inspire Courage will work with it.

Just as Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot will.

Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now is your time to shine. Please, I want to see it. If you are so sure we're wrong, you *must* have found something to influence your thinking, yes?

Only that it specifically applies to weapon damage and I don't see anything supporting that spells are weapons. If you know where anything that supports that any spell with a targeting roll or that does damage is considered a weapon then please let me know. I'm not being facetious and am not trying to be argumentative. I also believe that what you guys are saying is how it's supposed to be, I just don't see anything in the book that supports it.
The FAQs and RAW are very clear about rays being ranged weapons for nearly all purposes. With the other attack-roll spells (even other effect-instead-of-target spells such as acid arrow,) it's not as clear.

Right, and the spells that aren't Rays is what I'm trying to clarify.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

claudekennilol wrote:
Right, and the spells that aren't Rays is what I'm trying to clarify.

I'll restate what has been stated in this thread many times:

It has been clarified in forum posts my many paizo staff including dev team members while on the dev team, that any enhancers to weapons work on attack rolls that deal damage.

This includes all spells that you make the attack roll. This includes Supernatural abilities (like Sound Striker ability.)

You can choose to say "It doesn't say that in the RAW so I won't use it." I'm fine with you reading the RAW to prohibit it. But you need to be fine with the fact many GM's won't agree. I believe the RAW is good enough to conclude that Inspire Courage and Point Blank Shot work with any spell or effect that has an attack roll and deals damage.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Right, and the spells that aren't Rays is what I'm trying to clarify.

I'll restate what has been stated in this thread many times:

It has been clarified in forum posts my many paizo staff including dev team members while on the dev team, that any enhancers to weapons work on attack rolls that deal damage.

This includes all spells that you make the attack roll. This includes Supernatural abilities (like Sound Striker ability.)

You can choose to say "It doesn't say that in the RAW so I won't use it." I'm fine with you reading the RAW to prohibit it. But you need to be fine with the fact many GM's won't agree. I believe the RAW is good enough to conclude that Inspire Courage and Point Blank Shot work with any spell or effect that has an attack roll and deals damage.

I definitely agree with you. But what's the point of so many devs saying it if they aren't willing to put it in the book? Not everyone reads the forums and knows what the devs are thinking. A lot of PFS gms aren't even aware of many of the FAQs that are posted--how are they supposed to be aware of random posts made by random devs?

I find it interesting that only one person has hit the FAQ button. Obviously so many people assume it as fact, but so far it's really just random clarifications and really needs to be errata'd.

I wanted to know where it was stated as rules. Apparently it's not--that was the point of this thread (i.e. to specifically find where the rules support this). I can run it however I want (as it's supposed to be). But a PFS gm is completely in his right to say no because the rules never come out and say it. And then my sorcerer/wizard/whatever with Point-Blank Shot has just wasted a feat because there is nothing printed to support that PBS should work with non-ray spells that still have a to hit roll/do damage.

Sovereign Court

Guys, just call it "Weapon focus (spells)" and be done with it...

Point-blank shot obviously works with everything ranged within 30ft... it's the root of the feat tree... to claim it won't work with something that's not specifically a weapon would thus invalidate any other ranged feat down the line (such as Precise Shot)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
But what's the point of so many devs saying it if they aren't willing to put it in the book?

Because they seem to be very selective on what they comment publicly and especially what they Errata. It needs to be widely confused to get errata. I just don't see this topic as widely confusing to people. It is basically a corner case for most characters or builds. So only a few people ever run into the root of this question. Of those the GM either runs it the way they intended the rules to be read or different. It doesn't shatter anything that there is a deviation.

As for PFS, the GM's are required to run RAW. But that doesn't mean they are required to run perfectly. If they make mistakes, remember a rule incorrectly, read a rule incorrectly, etc. They are not fined or fired. This is all about "doing your best to run as close to RAW as possible." Perfection isn't mandated.

Sovereign Court

James Risner wrote:
They are not fined or fired. This is all about "doing your best to run as close to RAW as possible." Perfection isn't mandated.

Well said!

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
I just don't see this topic as widely confusing to people.

It's only not confusing to you because you spend time on the forums and know the intent. I'd be willing to bet my salary that those of us that spend our times on the forum out the total number of people that play pathfinder is a very small fraction.

For those that don't frequent the forums they only have the printed material--and the FAQs to a lesser extent.

Weapons as defined by the PRD (and my pdf text is mostly identical):
Weapons
From the common longsword to the exotic dwarven urgrosh, weapons come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.

All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon. When the result of the die roll to make an attack is a natural 20 (that is, the die actually shows a 20), this is known as a critical threat (although some weapons can score a critical threat on a roll of less than 20). If a critical threat is scored, another attack roll is made, using the same modifiers as the original attack roll. If this second attack roll is equal or greater than the target's AC, the hit becomes a critical hit, dealing additional damage.

Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).

Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Projectile Weapons: Blowguns, light crossbows, slings, heavy crossbows, shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows, halfling sling staves, hand crossbows, and repeating crossbows are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it's a specially built composite shortbow or longbow, or a sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he uses a bow or a sling.

Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them, and what happens to them after they are thrown.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

There is not a single mention of the word spell. As seen from the text of Point-Blank Shot quoted in the first post, it specifically calls out weapon. By the CRB alone PBS does not work. If it wasn't for the FAQs for rays, then it wouldn't work on any spells as printed. The only thing that implies it should work on any spell that with a to hit/damage roll is random dev posts.

Can you say PBS applies? Yes. Can you say that rules indicate that. No (but if you can, please show me where because that's what I'm looking for). That's my entire point, that the book doesn't say it does--and the FAQs don't either. That's all I've got to say on the matter.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does point-blank shot apply to spell damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.