Yes, I'm being a bit heavy handed. I'll admit that. A couple of the same people have been coming back to this thread saying (in effect) "there's *currently* a problem", without providing a reason for doing so.
I've seen some little complaining about the interpretation I offered, but no real counter argument. Some of the rebuttals have been ludicrous. Some have been honestly inquisitive. However, I haven't seen any in the past few pages provide an evidence-based argument for an alternative interpretation.
A couple have mentioned (and I agree) that deciding how to apply Weapon Focus is something that may see some table variation. (But this issue is much narrower, and is a different question than what was posed. Besides, @graystone addressed it well above, saying, "Check page 73 of Complete Arcane.")
There are lots of rules discussions on this forum. For many of those issues, I agree there needs to be a FAQ, and that reasonable people can disagree. But IMNSHO, whether feats and abilities apply to ranged touch attacks from spells is not one of those "depends on your game/GM/interpretation" issues. They apply. Hands down, no question. They apply because they rely on the basic assumption of ranged attacks and Base Attack Bonuses, and all of the other bonuses and penalties that go with it. Saying feats and abilities do not apply would also remove Dex bonus, BAB, size bonus, and everything else, under the same rationale, and that is an absurd outcome.
Would it help if Paizo were clearer about it? Sure, I'm not against that. I've clicked 'FAQ', on this thread and on similar ones, even though I don't have this question. But I also don't think a FAQ is necessary. This thread, in my mind, came to a consensus that feats and modifiers apply as related to the attack rolls long before I jumped in. The answer is already there in the rules if one doesn't carry too much baggage from prior systems with them.
Have I run into a GM that ruled differently? Yes, once, but that was 5+ years ago, and was an untrained/unconnected GM that didn't follow errata or rules discussions. I was away from PF for a bit, but I have not worked with *any* GM in the past year that has ruled differently from what I've described here. So, no, I'm not convinced the problem is as widespread as you're making it. I see some FUD, but I haven't seen a problem in real-life play. Admittedly, that doesn't mean no one else has, but if it does occur it's not being regularly reported here.
@Crimeo TomG is convinced that all attack rolls are with weapons.
@TomG so if spells that use attack rolls are weapons, what do I take weapon focus for? Weapon focus non-ray ranged touch spells?
Spells that are neither weapon like nor rays are not ambiguous, I don't see how that can be concluded. There is a FAQ listing weapon spells, it listed those two things and no others, so those are the two only things.
If you ask me to list which birds are penguins and I give you 10 species or whatever, you have your answer. I don't have to spend three more days going on and on saying "and not robins and not owls and not vultures and not parakeets....."
I sort of actually lean toward actively NOT wanting a FAQ on it just so as not to set a precedent that people should now question every other FAQ that doesn't answer the same question twice in both the positive and the negative.
Okay, so if they aren't weapons then you don't take the penalty for attacking with a ranged weapon at someone in melee. And you might not be able to sneak attack. And a bardic performance doesn't boost it.
Now if you feel that all the issues with having them not be a weapon then cool. But it's the fact that acid spash and ray of frost are basically the same, but one is a ray making it a weapon and the other isn't a weapon?
@TomG so if spells that use attack rolls are weapons, what do I take weapon focus for? Weapon focus non-ray ranged touch spells?
I concede the issue may a bit muddier with regard to this feat, as I've mentioned previously.
As @graystone mentioned, the 3.5 book, Complete Arcane suggested the following :
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.
This is one avenue I've seen suggested and seen others use within PF. It seems reasonable, and is, I believe, consistent with how Pathfinder works. It's consistent with this FAQ, except that the question answered was narrower than the one you asked, which I think has only added to the confusion over the years. (The same narrowing of the question was used in this answer and this one.)
What I'm asserting is that ranged-touch-attack spells not specifically defined as rays (e.g., acid splash) are de facto rays for the purposes of all feats and effects, and should be treated similarly.
Thus, Weapon Focus (ray) and Weapon Focused (ranged touch spell) are effectively the same (only one is needed to gain the benefit for RTA spells), while Weapon Focus(touch spell) would be a different feat for melee touch spells.
|
@TomG so if spells that use attack rolls are weapons, what do I take weapon focus for? Weapon focus non-ray ranged touch spells?I concede the issue may a bit muddier with regard to this feat, as I've mentioned previously.
As @graystone mentioned, the 3.5 book, Complete Arcane suggested the following :
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.This is one avenue I've seen suggested and seen others use within PF. It seems reasonable, and is, I believe, consistent with how Pathfinder works. It's consistent with this FAQ, except that the question answered was narrower than the one you asked, which I think has only added to the confusion over the years. (The same narrowing of the question was used in this answer and this one.)
What I'm asserting is that ranged-touch-attack spells not specifically defined as rays (e.g., acid splash) are de facto rays for the purposes of all feats and effects, and should be treated similarly.
Thus, Weapon Focus (ray) and Weapon Focused (ranged touch spell) are effectively the same (only one is needed to gain the benefit for RTA spells), while Weapon Focus(touch spell) would be a different feat for melee touch spells.
So by referencing old rules and saying it isn't clear as it should be and coming up with a perfectly reasonable house rule based on other game(s), to me implies that you can see there is room for interpretation with how it's currently implemented (which is why you've already hit the FAQ button as noted above).
So I think it's safe to say that we (and by we I mean the royal we) can say that's it's not clear as some of us (the royal us, if that were a thing..) originally stated it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[W][_][_][_][E][A]
A 2nd level [W]izard with a 14 Dex and Point Blank Shot wants to cast Acid Splash at an [E]nemy 20ft away. An [A]lly is adjacent to this enemy, but on the opposite side. Last round the party Cleric cast Bless and the party Bard started Inspire Courage.
I believe the Wizard would have a total attack bonus of +2, and would deal 1d3+2 on a successful hit.
Let's break this down:
+1 from BAB (only applies to weapons)
+2 from Dex (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 from PBS (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 from Bless (applies to all attacks)
+1 from Inspire Courage (applies to all attacks)
-4 from Firing into a Melee (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 damage from PBS (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 damage from Inspire Courage (the attack bonus is general, the damage bonus specifies weapons)
If you're of the belief that Acid Splash should not be affected by rules or effects for ranged weapons, then the total attack bonus becomes +2, and damage remains 1d3.
Thoughts?
|
|
Hmm. Rereading that post it seems I went away from the message I was trying to convey.
We're hung up too much on the word "Weapon". I know, intuitively, that Acid Splash is not a valid choice for Weapon Focus, but I also know, intuitively, that Point Blank Shot should apply.
People are too hard stuck into one of two categories, and so long as they remain like that this dicussion will never progress.
I know, intuitively, that Acid Splash is not a valid choice for Weapon Focus
this is what I'd disagree with you on. There is no real mechanical difference between Acid Splash and Ray of frost other than "ray" and "one missile of acid". If anything, I'd say the intuitive thing would be that throwing a "missile' was more weapon like than shooting a "ray".
then lets look at Jolt. How is it's "spark of electricity" different than a ray? What is the criteria for a spell being a ray? Is is just something tossed on at the whim of the author?
On thoughts, all bonuses and minuses apply IMO.
I think i's clear by this point that I agree with @graystone.
@Nefreet, if you agree with the tallied bonuses (and it seems you do), then there should be *some* Weapon Focus that applies. The question then, is "Weapon Focus(what?)"?
it would be nice if "ray" was abolished as a "weapon type" and instead we had "ranged touch/melee touch" attacks as eligible "weapons" to use with feats and etc.
Enervation as an AoO says hi. And drains you 4 levels. Tack that with Combat Reflexes, and you're going to 1-round creatures just because of Spells being functionable with AoOs.
There's two problems if you do this:
Spells become Weapons. That means I can chuck a Scorching Ray as an AoO if an enemy is close enough to me, and it's quite obvious that's not intended by the rules. Otherwise, it would already be happening.
Casters further invalidate the need for Martials. It's bad enough they have Summons, which are basically "Speed Bumps for Rent," but when you give Martial abilities to Casters, such as threatening, applying specific feats, etc. it defeats the purpose of ever playing a Martial, especially when they can use their #1 ability with them, which is the ability to cast spells. An ability of which, should only be available to those who actually commit to it *cough*Arcane Archer*cough*.
Quite frankly, if you're going to abolish "Rays" as a weapon type in favor of Touch spells, you might as well abolish Martials too.
Darksol the Painbringer: Ranged spells as weapons would mean they are ranged weapons. Being able to get snap shot with a caster so you can use ranged spells is quite an effort. Even is they managed it, you can't hold a charge with a ranged spell so you have to figure out how to cast and attack all in an AoO.
So I don't see AoO as any kind of issue with this.
|
|
I don't see why there is a confusion with "ranged attacks" and "ranged weapon attacks." Ranged attacks = all ranged attacks, including all spells which have a range and you roll a d20 to hit with. Ranged weapon attacks = all ranged weapons (a category of weapons), which, if specifically stated in a spell description, also may apply to that spell (a spell might be treated as if it were in the ranged weapon category).
What's the confusion? I read the first and last pages of this and just scratched my head as to why there is confusion.
|
|
Yeah unless you could cast as a free action, no aoo ranged spells.
That is a pretty contrived example.
The wizard had to:
Prepare enervate( its a bad spell)
Roll the maximum on the enervateHas bab 6 and three other feats to actually do this, so minimum level 13.
Be in range of a monster of this to even happen.
Be fighting a monster that had the potential to be one rounded by two enervates at level 13. With an average roll, maybe you are fighting level 5 warriors???
So yeah if you could snap shot with spells time to throw barbarians paladins etc in the trash lol
You don't threaten with uncast ranged (attacks) spells, so no AoO would apply anyway, would they? Pretty hard to wield an uncast spell (first part of Snap Shot). Even if it were a free action, it wouldn't be wielded for the AoO because it was not cast until after the AoO was provoked, thus not allowing you to Snap Shot with it in the first place. Kind of like saying "yeh, next Tuesday I will be wielding a sword, so I'll take my AoO now..." - Not gonna happen.
|
|
[W][_][_][_][E][A]
A 2nd level [W]izard with a 14 Dex and Point Blank Shot wants to cast Acid Splash at an [E]nemy 20ft away. An [A]lly is adjacent to this enemy, but on the opposite side. Last round the party Cleric cast Bless and the party Bard started Inspire Courage.
I believe the Wizard would have a total attack bonus of +2, and would deal 1d3+2 on a successful hit.
Let's break this down:
+1 from BAB (only applies to weapons)
+2 from Dex (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 from PBS (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 from Bless (applies to all attacks)
+1 from Inspire Courage (applies to all attacks)
-4 from Firing into a Melee (only applies to ranged weapons)+1 damage from PBS (only applies to ranged weapons)
+1 damage from Inspire Courage (the attack bonus is general, the damage bonus specifies weapons)If you're of the belief that Acid Splash should not be affected by rules or effects for ranged weapons, then the total attack bonus becomes +2, and damage remains 1d3.
Thoughts?
Why does BAB only apply to weapons? Keep reading page 179... touch attacks (including spells with the "touch attack" descriptor) = calculated as a melee attack or ranged attack (and its modifiers). Ie. Spells = use the same calculation as melee or ranged attacks. Jump to page 185, spells, and we see make a touch attack (see 179 for "to hit" formula). 187 spells? Same as 185, same as 179. I might be omitting the calculations for area spells, but how hard is it to hit a square?
Acid splash, the original question, is clearly modified by BAB, DEX mod, size mods, and range mods. At least. PBS wouldn't apply because it is not a "ranged weapon" - it is a spell, calculating it's to hit as a ranged touch attack, which uses the same (base) formula as a ranged weapon attack. Firing into melee doesn't apply, because it is not a ranged weapon, as already explained: It is a spell, making a ranged touch attack, which simply uses the ranged weapon formula for it's base to hit.
Produce Flame + Snap Shot would allow you to AoO with a ranged touch spell. I think there are a couple other spells like it but I can't remember them now.
Still not terribly effective and with Produce Flame you could just use it as a touch spell rather than ranged touch so it doesn't really matter. Well, at least until you get the other Snap Shot feats. But man, you are digging deep at that point for a caster.
Yeah unless you could cast as a free action, no aoo ranged spells.
That is a pretty contrived example.
The wizard had to:
Prepare enervate( its a bad spell)
Roll the maximum on the enervateHas bab 6 and three other feats to actually do this, so minimum level 13.
Be in range of a monster of this to even happen.
Be fighting a monster that had the potential to be one rounded by two enervates at level 13. With an average roll, maybe you are fighting level 5 warriors???
So yeah if you could snap shot with spells time to throw barbarians paladins etc in the trash lol
Snap Shot FAQ would tell you that if you can draw the components of the spell as a Free Action, you could AoO with it, since the argument for Snap Shot not working previously was that you could not draw an arrow as a Free Action outside your turn to make an attack with the drawn Bow. The argument here would be that you can't draw the components of the spell as a Free Action outside your turn to cast the spell for the provocation. Also, an Attack is normally a Standard Action to do, right? So by your logic, you can't even make an Attack as an AoO, because that too is a Standard Action to perform, and not done as a Free Action, just like a Spell is. Failed logic has failed.
Enervate is only a bad spell because it primarily targets Martials, who are already garbage anyway. If it had at least some relevance to Casters, it would be a good enough example. Of course, I'm sure I could have picked a different spell, since Negative Levels do nothing to Spellcasters in the first place. Unfortunately, with a quick glossing-over, it appears the only touch-based spells Spellcasters can use really only applies to Martials. So, logically speaking, Spellcasters who memorize Touch spells are about as bad as their Martial inferiors.
Well, I'm convinced then: I won't participate in this thread anymore because it's no good; pointless, in fact. The implications for this have zero impact for a Spellcaster other than "Martials are even weaker and more pointless now! Hurray!" Or "Acid Splash has this set of modifiers instead of this other set! A spell that nobody will use past 2nd Level! Yay!"
Darksol:
Normal AoO: single melee attack
Snap Shot: You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon.
Nothing there allows you to make an action other than an attack action. Spells require an action other than attack. Spells also threaten AoO themselves.
Normally the ranged attack is part of the spell. On point, the new Eldritch Archer (Magus Archetype) ability "Instead of the free ranged attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, an eldritch archer can make one free ranged attack with a ranged weapon (at her highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."
Note the ranged attack is part of the spell and it's THAT attack that would be covered by an AoO and not the spell as a whole. It's like trying to take a full attack during a AoO because a single attack is part of it. Nothing allows the 'free' standard action casting to get the free or non action attack the spell grants.
I brought this up earlier, but no one seemed to notice.
It was also answered earlier, but you didn't seem to notice.
Is a Fireball considered a ranged weapon when you try to send it through a narrow passage?
The damage roll doesn't apply to the target of the "attack roll", so no, it doesn't meet the basic definition of "has attack roll, does damage to target".
Fireball is an exception that uses the "attack roll" mechanic to NOT hit something.
The trouble is, it seems you're saying this to be difficult, rather than actually seeking the opinion of others for the answer.
@Darksol: One could, possibly, AoO with a held touch spell (once, anyway), but one can't cast as a free/swift action (Quicken Spell is a quick action, which must be on one's turn, not a free or a swift).
One has to threaten in order to take AoO, and uncast spells don't threaten.
So, not relevant to this discussion.
Lastly, @maouse, your contention was responded to earlier. You're just repeating earlier claims that have been countered, with no new information or argument.
Official Rules Response
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Attacks and Special Abilities: Many places in the rules use the term “ranged weapon attacks” and similar terms, but how does this apply to spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and extraordinary abilities (heretoafter called special abilities) that require ranged attacks but might not necessarily seem like weapons?
In general, special abilities that require attack rolls benefit and suffer from all modifiers affecting attack rolls even if those modifiers mention weapon attack rolls (such as the penalty for firing into melee, the bonus on attack rolls from Point-Blank Shot and inspire courage, and the like), unless the spell specifically calls out that it doesn’t apply them (for instance spiritual weapon calls out that it isn’t affected by feats and combat actions, but it would still have to deal with cover, and firing into melee if ranged).
When it comes to modifiers that affect weapon damage rolls, or simply “damage rolls” (such as the bonus on damage rolls from Point-Blank Shot, inspire courage, and smite evil), special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll apply them on hit point damage only, and only once per casting or use, rather than once per attack. For instance, if a spell or special ability launched a dozen different ranged attacks simultaneously, only one (of the user’s choice) would receive bonus damage. This doesn’t apply on area effects with the rare potential for extraneous attack rolls, like fireball. However, there is a category of abilities that deserve a special note: Abilities like Arcane Strike that specifically enhance a character’s weapon or weapons themselves never apply to special abilities (with the exception of special abilities like the warlock’s mystic bolts that specifically call out that Arcane Strike applies).In the same vein as abilities like Arcane Strike that affect a character’s weapons, abilities that say “with a weapon,” “with a melee weapon,” and “with a ranged weapon” almost never work with special abilities because such wording is almost always used as shorthand for “manufactured weapon,” “manufactured melee weapon,” and “manufactured ranged weapon.” The exception is abilities that deal damage when a creature touches or hits you in melee (for instance, the occultis’s energy ward focus power), which should also deal damage when a creature makes a melee touch attack against you but rarely call them out directly.
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.
Abilities that modify the action usage of ranged weapon attacks or require their own special action almost never work with special abilities, since special abilities require their own actions. For instance, Pinpoint Targeting wouldn’t work with scorching ray or the soundstriker’s weird words because each of them requires its own action to activate and thus can’t be part of the feat’s specific standard action. Rare exceptions include mystic bolts and kinetic blade, which can specifically be used as part of other actions.
so no weapon focus acid splash, bummer. But it's awesome to have this clarified, seems like it was a big one.
Thanks for the answer, although it is complex and somewhat confusing, and does raise some other questions. (Sounds like a typical result of the FAQ formula, I guess.)
So the short of it becomes that yes, spells and special abilities do count as weapon attacks for the purposes of applying bonuses to attack rolls and (hit point) damage rolls, but not for any other purpose unless specified otherwise; do I have that right?
In that same vein, am I correct in that the damage bonus limitation to once per casting/use to one target specifically doesn't apply to a spell that affects an area (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt), but it applies to a spell that would otherwise affect multiple targets specifically, such as Chain Lightning, or any sort of Mass spell (such as Mass Inflict Serious Wounds)?
If the attacks are not simultaneous they also only benefit once?
For example if I cast a spell that lets me make a ranged attack each round as a standard action, do I get the benefits from point blank shot only on the first attack?
|
Official Rules Response
|
If the attacks are not simultaneous they also only benefit once?
For example if I cast a spell that lets me make a ranged attack each round as a standard action, do I get the benefits from point blank shot only on the first attack?
That would be a case where you measure it by uses, since it allows multiple uses. To create an example where it's easier to draw the distinction, consider a spell called scorching ray artillery that let you fire off three scorching rays each round for 1 round per level as a standard action each round. In that case, you would add the damage each time you used it, but still only to one of the three rays each time.
...special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll apply them on hit point damage only, and only once per casting or use...This doesn’t apply on area effects with the rare potential for extraneous attack rolls, like fireball.
Thanks for pointing that out; it was a little difficult to correlate, but now I get it. This does help out a fair amount, and I think it doesn't change how I currently would blast as a Single Target or Area of Effect Blaster a whole lot.
@ Abraham spalding: Point Blank Shot would apply its +1 to hit on every ranged attack you make, but the +1 damage would be attached to the first one you make, and then it's gone for every other one.
That would be a case where you measure it by uses, since it allows multiple uses. To create an example where it's easier to draw the distinction, consider a spell called scorching ray artillery that let you fire off three scorching rays each round for 1 round per level as a standard action each round. In that case, you would add the damage each time you used it, but still only to one of the three rays each time.If the attacks are not simultaneous they also only benefit once?
For example if I cast a spell that lets me make a ranged attack each round as a standard action, do I get the benefits from point blank shot only on the first attack?
Alright that makes a lot more sense thank you. The way the first sentence of the second paragraph was worded I couldn't see any exception multiple round spells such as force sword. Considering pass FAQs and statements I thought that was odd enough to warrant the clarifying question.
...consider a spell called scorching ray artillery that let you fire off three scorching rays each round for 1 round per level as a standard action each round.If the attacks are not simultaneous they also only benefit once?
For example if I cast a spell that lets me make a ranged attack each round as a standard action, do I get the benefits from point blank shot only on the first attack?
PLEASE make that a high level spell...I'd absolutely love it as a spellcaster.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a question about the "simulataneous" rider effects ruling. If a spell or ability gives you multiple attacks during it, but not truly simultaneously, do rider effects only apply to one of them?
Or, more specifically, does it delineate "simultaneous" on an action-by-action basis ("the casting time of the spell or activation action of the ability"), or on an attack-by-attack basis ("this ability makes one attack, resolves it, and then makes another attack" vs "this ability fires two rays at someone")?
For example, it seems obvious that the scorching ray spell would only have these rider effects apply once, because it's multiple rays shot at once, but what about a spell like greater bladed dash? For this spell, are the attacks happening simultaneously (presumably at the end of your movement, regardless of distance or reach) or are they happening one after another as you move?
Secondly, if the "simultaneous" qualifier is delineated by action, rather than specific attack timing, how far does this go? Does it apply to Flurry of Blows or full-attack actions? What about the Cleave feat?
Sorry to bring these questions for you. I'm just finding this most recent FAQ a bit confusing and unclear.
--------------------------------------
Also, on a side note, though I'm not sure if this is the place to bring this up, I think that this FAQ might be a good time to address some of the rules ambiguities caused by this passage on page 208 of the Core Rulebook:
All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.
Many effects and abilities just talk about proccing on "attacks," rather than "attack rolls," and this has led to a number of odd discussions in my group and on these very forums. Official word on how this passage is intended to interact with such abilities would be absolutely wonderful.
...special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll apply them on hit point damage only, and only once per casting or use...This doesn’t apply on area effects with the rare potential for extraneous attack rolls, like fireball.Thanks for pointing that out; it was a little difficult to correlate, but now I get it. This does help out a fair amount, and I think it doesn't change how I currently would blast as a Single Target or Area of Effect Blaster a whole lot.
@ Abraham spalding: Point Blank Shot would apply its +1 to hit on every ranged attack you make, but the +1 damage would be attached to the first one you make, and then it's gone for every other one.
Not what I was asking. Other examples using the evoker's bonus damage ability:
Elemental Touch: Once a round, so bonus damage on each firework.
Sorching ray: Simultaneous therefore bonus damage on only one ray.
Burning Gaze: Bonus damage once per round.
Trial of Fire and Acid: Bonus damage once per round.
Vengeful Comet: Fire off one comet? Bonus damage on the comet. Fire off two comets? Bonus damage on only one of them.
So no more paladins with magic missile.
So no more paladins with magic missile.I never considered those discussions to be serious anyways.
Not only were they not serious, they were never practiced/used, and plus almost impossible to make useful without serious money investments (which requires high levels).
Did I also mention they were probably the most inoptimal thing ever?
So the half orc FCB for occultist (+1/2 damage with focus powers) used with the Telekinetic Mastery focus power to "violent thrus"t (attacks with objects/creatures per caster level) only gets the FCB on one attack from the focus power?
Yep, one attack/rd.