| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Imho touch attacks and rays don't count as weapons but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. So I'm searching for pro and con arguments on this matter.
Pro arguments:
- Power Attack specifically states, that the bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks, although it doesn't say "weapon attack" in the first place
Con arguments:
- you would get str-bonus-damage on melee touch attacks, which doesn't seem to make sense
kind of neutral arguments:
- attacking with a melee touch spell counts as an armed attack, although "armed" probably doesn't equal "the spell is a weapon"
- Weapon Focus: "... You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat."
so...
if these spells count as weapons:
- feats like Point Blank Shot, Arcane Strike and such would apply
- you get a penalty for shooting spells into melee
if these spells don't count as weapons:
- feats like Point Blank Shot, Arcane Strike and such would not apply to these spells
- no penalty for shooting spells into melee
Imho touch attacks and rays don't count as weapons but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. So I'm searching for pro and con arguments on this matter.
My two cents: Sometimes yes and sometimes no. The rules are pretty fast and loose on where they use the term "weapon"; sometimes it makes sense to include natural weapons and/or weapon-like spells and/or splash weapons (e.g. the rules for firing ranged weapons into melee) and sometimes it doesn't make sense (e.g. the rules for sheathing a weapon).
Well that doesn't really help me as my GM is a RAW kind of guy. It would be nice to get a rule quote on this (didn't find anything specific yet) or even some sort of clarification from the devs.
Weapons for what purpose, Montis? For the purpose of the fighter weapon training feature? No. For the purpose of proficiency? For the purpose of Weapon Focus?
You need to clarify, because the general status is 'no, spells are not weapons'. Some exceptions to that may apply.
Well... in general, I guess.
Mainly for the purpose for ranged touch spells shooting into melee (penalty: yes or no) and feats that can be applied to (ranged) touch spells.
As far as I know, there's nothing in PF yet, but in Complete Arcane for 3.5, they made a distinction of "weaponlike" spells, which were ranged spells and melee touch spells, both of which requiring attack rolls. All the groups I play with allow them to be used with Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, etc.
Power Attack and Deadly Aim specifically state that they aren't valid on touch attacks. I never considered Arcane Strike, but interestingly enough, I don't see specifically why it wouldn't work, although it seems odd enough I doubt my DM would let me get away with it. It's a swift action, though, so you couldn't use to enhance a spell if you also wanted to quicken another.
You do take the penalty for shooting ranged touch spells into melee; although that can be removed with PBS+Precise Shot, touch attacks are often easy enough that you might not want to spend the feats, depending on the way the game works out.
Incidentally, I've also had a DM AOO me for the aiming portion of shooting a ranged spell, even after I made the Concentration check for casting it defensively.
|
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
We actually had a thread not so long ago that we discussed these kind of things pretty well. There are plenty of rules for touch attacks and the like in the combat chapter.
Thread was here. If you'd like a more fun answer, perhaps you'd like to shoot over to Kobold Quarterly and Ask the Kobold!
Incidentally, I've also had a DM AOO me for the aiming portion of shooting a ranged spell, even after I made the Concentration check for casting it defensively.
That's because using a ranged touch spell or ray in an enemies threatened area draws a separate attack of opportunity. It's on page 186 under Ranged Touch Spells in Combat, 3rd sentence in.
Touch attacks do cause you to be considered armed when attacking only to get around the need for improved unarmed strike. Now, you CAN make an unarmed attack with a held spell so you could apply power attack but then you'd have to his a creature's full AC and not its touch AC. Then the damage you do is Unarmed damage + STR + PA + Spell damage. Hitting touch AC really implies that you're just trying to put your hand on something to release a spell and not doing any damage on top of that.
As others have said, any ranged spell that requires a to hit roll would allow/require the ranged feats. Firing a scorching ray into melee combat would force a -4 to hit unless you had precise shot.
Here's a question: if you have a touch spell held do you threaten and can you take AoO's?
Here's a question: if you have a touch spell held do you threaten and can you take AoO's?
Yes you can. The charge makes you count as armed and as long as you're armed you threaten and can make AoOs.
Here's a question: if you have a touch spell held do you threaten and can you take AoO's?Yes you can. The charge makes you count as armed and as long as you're armed you threaten and can make AoOs.
Note that as soon as you make the AoO, the spell would be discharged though, hit or miss, and so you'd stop threatening.
Note that as soon as you make the AoO, the spell would be discharged though, hit or miss, and so you'd stop threatening.Here's a question: if you have a touch spell held do you threaten and can you take AoO's?Yes you can. The charge makes you count as armed and as long as you're armed you threaten and can make AoOs.
That's not quite right. If you miss, you're still holding the charge.
That's not quite right. If you miss, you're still holding the charge.Note that as soon as you make the AoO, the spell would be discharged though, hit or miss, and so you'd stop threatening.Here's a question: if you have a touch spell held do you threaten and can you take AoO's?Yes you can. The charge makes you count as armed and as long as you're armed you threaten and can make AoOs.
This is correct.
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Ah,
I stand corrected then. Still, if you do successfully hit, you'd have to discharge the spell, no choosing to hold it so you continue to threaten.
There was a thread recently (couple of weeks I want to say) about Produce Flame in which Mr Jacobs actually says that held charges aren't supposed to be used as weapon like effects. Basically that spell touch attacks are their own animal and only spells that are called out in the spell description act like weapons (they usually use the terminology weapon like effects or some such - they strike like a scimitar, etc). That being the case, held charges could not be used to make touch attacks as AoOs. And that they cannot be used in that way (as a weapon) was the understanding when they spells were reviewed for balance by the crew when PFRPG was being created was also mentioned.
There was a thread recently (couple of weeks I want to say) about Produce Flame in which Mr Jacobs actually says that held charges aren't supposed to be used as weapon like effects. Basically that spell touch attacks are their own animal and only spells that are called out in the spell description act like weapons (they usually use the terminology weapon like effects or some such - they strike like a scimitar, etc). That being the case, held charges could not be used to make touch attacks as AoOs. And that they cannot be used in that way (as a weapon) was the understanding when they spells were reviewed for balance by the crew when PFRPG was being created was also mentioned.
your interpretation of what he said is in direct contradiction with the raw. They can be used as weapons in certain ways (such as with point blank and precise shot)
Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
there are three conditions for armed unarmed attacks, all three let you make aoo, spells aren't excluded.
|
Hmmm... there's something I've been pondering; namely, can you make an unarmed attack dealing damage with a touch attack? For example, could a sorcerer/monk hit someone (e.g. 1d6+3 unarmed damage) *and* release a touch spell at the same time? I haven't looked it up (yet), but I think this (touch attack) is a standard action byt itself...
Hmmm... there's something I've been pondering; namely, can you make an unarmed attack dealing damage with a touch attack? For example, could a sorcerer/monk hit someone (e.g. 1d6+3 unarmed damage) *and* release a touch spell at the same time? I haven't looked it up (yet), but I think this (touch attack) is a standard action byt itself...
yes you can, but
1) not on the same round as you cast the spell.
2)its an all or nothing hit with a regular attack, your attack vs their plain old ac.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Ref: Rays as a weapon...
Feat: Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
I'm going to answer that with a re-bolding:
Ref: Rays as a weapon...
Feat: Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
There was a thread recently (couple of weeks I want to say) about Produce Flame in which Mr Jacobs actually says that held charges aren't supposed to be used as weapon like effects. Basically that spell touch attacks are their own animal and only spells that are called out in the spell description act like weapons (they usually use the terminology weapon like effects or some such - they strike like a scimitar, etc). That being the case, held charges could not be used to make touch attacks as AoOs. And that they cannot be used in that way (as a weapon) was the understanding when they spells were reviewed for balance by the crew when PFRPG was being created was also mentioned.your interpretation of what he said is in direct contradiction with the raw. They can be used as weapons in certain ways (such as with point blank and precise shot)
Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
there are three conditions for armed unarmed attacks, all three let you make aoo, spells aren't excluded.
I think Sky is correct. You can take feats for them, but they are not actual weapons so you can't threaten with them. It is one of those things not clearly defined, but people have grown to understand over the years.
your interpretation of what he said is in direct contradiction with the raw. They can be used as weapons in certain ways (such as with point blank and precise shot)Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
there are three conditions for armed unarmed attacks, all three let you make aoo, spells aren't excluded.
I agree with it not being clear as per RAW but as it isn't actually spelled out anywhere it also isn't "wrong." It is one of those "if the designer intended it to be this way (as it has been stated by them at this point) the RAW needs to be cleaned up to make it apparent" things. AKA, there needs to be an errata/FAQ.
Basically we have RAW stating a few things and the designer stating that the implication of RAW text wasn't the actual intention. Normally I hate arguing RAI as normally people on the forums aren't part of the group that were the design crew. This time we have it from the horses mouth that it ISN'T supposed to work that way. Regardless of whether I like the ruling or not, we know what it is supposed to be and RAW needs to be tweaked to be more in line with the RAI, at least in my opinion.
From what Mr Jacobs said it seems like the touch attack with a held charge is implied to be a Standard Action of its own. That it cannot be made into an "attack action" (and so it cannot be used to make AoOs or part of a full round action) as just a touch attack, but must be piggy backed onto an actual Unarmed Attack or Natural Attack in order to discharge it as part of an "attack action."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...how much clearer could this Possibly get?
A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell , and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
the character can make attacks of opportunity
How? what insane troll logic is allowing people to think that there is ANY ambiguity anywhere in that sentence, based on a loose interpretation of what a designer said regarding a different topic and a different situation?
There are occasions that the raw needs to be cleared up... this is not one of them. This is plain as day, clear as crystal, no if and or buts.
the character can make attacks of opportunity.
...how much clearer could this Possibly get?
A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell , and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
the character can make attacks of opportunity
I have never seen that sentence anywhere with regards to making an attack of opportunity.
The issue is the game often has unspoken rules, and exceptions that are not directly stated. Being able to use weapon specialization on rays is an example. That one needed an FAQ to resolve.
I have never seen that sentence anywhere with regards to making an attack of opportunity.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#unarmed-attacks
It's under armed unarmed attacks, rather than with the touch spells. it specifically says that "being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)." right under the sentence defining what armed unarmed attacks are.
i usually use italics for quoting rules blocks. they sentences I've posted are copy pasted from the srd. The rule has been in place since 3.5 at least
The issue is the game often has unspoken rules, and exceptions that are not directly stated. Being able to use weapon specialization on rays is an example. That one needed an FAQ to resolve.
this is not one of them. please look at the section, read the rules , and from there argue some sort of ambiguity that doesn't require the epistemic nihilism of "no matter how clear they make the rules there's always ambiguity" . They specifically went through the trouble of putting the character can make attacks of opportunity in parenthesis to spell it out.
...how much clearer could this Possibly get?
A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell , and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
the character can make attacks of opportunity
How? what insane troll logic is allowing people to think that there is ANY ambiguity anywhere in that sentence, based on a loose interpretation of what a designer said regarding a different topic and a different situation?
There are occasions that the raw needs to be cleared up... this is not one of them. This is plain as day, clear as crystal, no if and or buts.
the character can make attacks of opportunity.
Actually if you read the thread, the questions put in (I think Quandry was the poster) AFTER the main part regarding Produce Flame is where the meat of the argument here is. Apparently people who actually read threads instead of ignorantly advocating their opinion are trolls?? YAY, opposite day, how come no one told me??
Delivering a touch spell unfortunately has no action cost spelled out - EXCEPT for the initial casting. James Jacob has said that it shouldn't be able to be used as an AoO or full attack option by its own, so the implication is, doing so with a spell that isn't "weapon like" costs a Standard Action. As a standard action, it doesn't break what you quoted...
Actually if you read the thread, the questions put in (I think Quandry was the poster) AFTER the main part regarding Produce Flame is where the meat of the argument here is. Apparently people who actually read threads instead of ignorantly advocating their opinion are trolls?? YAY, opposite day, how come no one told me??
I have read the thread, and i think your interpretation of what he said is MUCH less concrete than you're making it out to be, and nowhere near as blatant as the raw. If a developer says that you can't make aoo with a held touch spell they're either making an error, house ruling, or making errata. If your line of logic from what they say leads you to conclude that you can't you can't make attacks of opportunity , then either they are incorrect, making errata, or there is something wrong with your logic.
Delivering a touch spell unfortunately has no action cost spelled out - EXCEPT for the initial casting. James Jacob has said that it shouldn't be able to be used as an AoO or full attack option by its own, so the implication is, doing so with a spell that isn't "weapon like" costs a Standard Action. As a standard action, it doesn't break what you quoted...
yes, it does break what i quote, because if its a standard action you cannot take attacks of opportunity with it. the rules say you can take attacks of opportunity with it.
I have read the thread, and i think your interpretation of what he said is MUCH less concrete than you're making it out to be, and nowhere near as blatant as the raw. If a developer says that you can't make aoo with a held touch spell they're either making an error, house ruling, or making errata. If your line of logic from what they say leads you to conclude that you can't you can't make attacks of opportunity , then either they are incorrect, making errata, or there is something wrong with your logic.
---
yes, it does break what i quote, because if its a standard action you cannot take attacks of opportunity with it. the rules say you can take attacks of opportunity with it.
I'm not going to tell you how to play your game, but when one of the game designers comes out and says, "No you can't" and there is nothing in RAW saying yes or no either way, well I'm going to go with the guy who made the game's decision whether I like it or not in a RAW game. That being said, I don't like the ruling, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore it because it isn't what I want to hear.
The main problem is there are two sets of touch spells that aren't really defined anywhere from what Mr. Jacob was saying. One is weapon-like the other is just plain "touch attack." Weapon-like touch attacks can be used to make AoO just like you have pointed out, regular old "touch attacks" according to Mr. Jacob don't follow that rule and are their own beast. As such when they were going through the SRD spells to be added/pathfinderized they were balanced on not being able to make AoOs unless they were called out to act like a weapon.
So we have a situation where some things can be done with one set (the weapon-like spells) and cannot be done with the other set (regular touch attacks) but are called the same thing (held charges from a touch attack spell). Again this doesn't break the RAW, as weapon-like spells work that way but the others don't.
As far as rulings go I follow this hierarchy:
1) "Official" published rulings - Errata (or FAQ as Paizo is going to call it)
2) Core RAW
3) "Unofficial rulings" from those who matter in posts/blogs/etc.
4) Some guy or gal off the internet.
Given as this falls between the RAW in some ways, as there are differing types of touch spells even if they aren't called out as such somewhere else in the book, and the game designer of PFRPG has said it isn't supposed to work that way, #2 and #3 are kinda interchangeable for me at this point. The reasoning is sound and doesn't break RAW (as weapon-like spells would work that way - so it doesn't contradict anything). Basically it needs an errata to clear it up.
I'm not going to tell you how to play your game, but when one of the game designers comes out and says, "No you can't" and there is nothing in RAW saying yes or no either way, well I'm going to go with the guy who made the game's decision whether I like it or not in a RAW game.
except that isn't remotely what's happening here. No one said you can't make AoO with touch spells. What's happening is this
He said no iterative attacks because it's not supposed to work like a weapon
YOU interpret that to mean that held charges never work like weapons.
(thats not the same thing as him saying it)
And then conclude that since one of the things weapons do is let you make AoO, that held charges don't let you make AoO.
that is NOT... i repeat...NOT the same as the designer saying that held charges don't let you make aoo. Its particularly egregious because there are plenty of cases where touch attacks specifically DO work like weapons. so sometimes they work like weapons and sometimes they dont.
That being said, I don't like the ruling, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore it because it isn't what I want to hear.
asking you to quote him and argue from there isn't sticking my head in the sand. You could be wrong. you could be looking at a different produce flame thread. i might have missed the sentence you're talking about. "show me the money" is not sticking my head in the sand its due diligence.
So we have a situation where some things can be done with one set (the weapon-like spells) and cannot be done with the other set (regular touch attacks) but are called the same thing (held charges from a touch attack spell). Again this doesn't break the RAW, as weapon-like spells work that...
The only thing called out for that was iterate attacks. NOT aoo.
Raw trumps an off the cuff post, even by a developer. Devs are human and make mistakes just like everyone else, and as they inherited a lot of the rules may not know all of them. (that was the case a while ago with ride by attack's problematic wording from the 3.5 charge) Also, your extrapolations from dev posts are just that... your extrapolations, not a dev post itself.
-insane troll logic is a line from buffy. It has nothing to do with internet trolls.