Would like a feat for ranged touch

[Jank Falcon]

With all the new ranged touch attacks going around, it has become clear that our sorcerer is lacking in many situations where the wizard's HotA doesn't seem to have much of a problem.

Firing into a melee incurs a -4 penalty. For the most part, our arcane spell casters have averaged a 14 in dex, but base attack bonus remains forever on the low side. This means that even though these attacks bypass armor and shield bonuses, they still miss most of the time.

Having to get point blank shot and precise shot is fine for fighting classes, but seems a bit harsh for spellcasters just to be able to cast into melee without a negative modifier, especially given that the bonuses from point blank shot don't apply to spells/spell like abilities (at least it's not clear that they do so).

I would like to introduce a simply new feat:

Ranged Touch Precision

(no prerequisite)

Benefit: You may make ranged touch attacks into a melee without incurring the normal -4 penalty.

[Charles Scholz]

If you are going to have a feat the would raise your range touch attack, you will also need a feat to raise the range touch AC. That is only fair.

[Kalyth]

Jank Falcon wrote:

With all the new ranged touch attacks going around, it has become clear that our sorcerer is lacking in many situations where the wizard's HotA doesn't seem to have much of a problem.

Firing into a melee incurs a -4 penalty. For the most part, our arcane spell casters have averaged a 14 in dex, but base attack bonus remains forever on the low side. This means that even though these attacks bypass armor and shield bonuses, they still miss most of the time.

Having to get point blank shot and precise shot is fine for fighting classes, but seems a bit harsh for spellcasters just to be able to cast into melee without a negative modifier, especially given that the bonuses from point blank shot don't apply to spells/spell like abilities (at least it's not clear that they do so).

I would like to introduce a simply new feat:

Ranged Touch Precision

(no prerequisite)

Benefit: You may make ranged touch attacks into a melee without incurring the normal -4 penalty.

In my experience casters rarely miss with Ranged Touch Attacks. Things touch ACs just arent that high over all. Caster also have options of using direct effect spells when targets do have high touch AC or are in melee and the caster doens't have Presice Shot. Generally when in doubt of whether I can hit or not I just use a spell that doesnt require an attack roll.

I do agree with you though that having to spend two feats just to negate the -4 penalty is a bit steep for a caster. Curious if they could just remove the prereq from Presice shot. Though everyone does get more feats in PF so Im pretty on the fence I guess. But in generally I dont see it as a big issue. Casters (Even Sorcerers) have a lot of tricks. Part of spell selection (for Wizards and Sorcerers) is selecting a variety of spells. One or Two ranged touch attack spells. One or two direct effect spells for those High Touch AC encounters, etc.....

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Hairs on the Back of Your Neck / Tingly Feeling (general)
Prerequisite: None
Benefit: As a Free Action, when targeted by a magical (including those of SLA, and Supernatural origins) Ranged Touch Attack you receive a moment's forewarning and receive a +2 un-typed bonus to your Touch AC total versus that particular RTA in that Round.

However...Ideally, we should have scaling RTA-bonuses and RTA-resistance bonuses, rather than non-scaling.

Just sayin'.

[lastknightleft]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here and say that no, there shouldn't be a feat that makes spellcasters better than meleers that is both cheaper than the full melee version and then easier to pull off. They can take the point blank shot and precise shot like everyone else, or they can just choose to use their 18-billion other spells that don't require them.

You want feats for RTA, then the feat that removes the penalty for firing into melee needs to be the third in a chain of feats or at least second. You can't have it be easier for the spellcaster when it's allready easier for the spellcaster

And giving a defensive feat to people against TA's is fine, but that doesn't make giving spellcasters a freebie on the ranged touch attacks ok. because you can improve your AC without feats, but to do so for RTA takes a much larger investment of cash, oh and a feat, but all the spellcaster had to do to avoid the firing into melee penalty was take a single feat.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

** updated **

Or just use a Magic Missile, right? lol :)

How many times per day can a Meleer attack?
I'm certain that Spell casters do, in fact, have a limited number of Spells per Day, and I think that concerns about nerfing them -- and especially as regards wonie RTAs -- is perhaps exaggerating the issue. However, I do respect your right to disagree.

Okay, I deleted the Targeting Ray suite. I'd have deleted the defence as well, but my time expired to do so.

Best,

[lynora]

lastknightleft wrote:

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here and say that no, there shouldn't be a feat that makes spellcasters better than meleers that is both cheaper than the full melee version and then easier to pull off. They can take the point blank shot and precise shot like everyone else, or they can just choose to use their 18-billion other spells that don't require them.

You want feats for RTA, then the feat that removes the penalty for firing into melee needs to be the third in a chain of feats or at least second. You can't have it be easier for the spellcaster when it's allready easier for the spellcaster

And giving a defensive feat to people against TA's is fine, but that doesn't make giving spellcasters a freebie on the ranged touch attacks ok. because you can improve your AC without feats, but to do so for RTA takes a much larger investment of cash, oh and a feat, but all the spellcaster had to do to avoid the firing into melee penalty was take a single feat.

Okay, I agree with most of what you're saying. I think that making ranged touch attacks better is silly. The touch ACs are just so low already. Even with a moderately good dex bonus (I play casters all the time and I usually put a 14 in dex) and low attack bonus, even an average roll should have you hitting most of the time. Even at low levels. It just doesn't need to be fixed. It's already good and makes a great alternative for those of us that can't seem to cast a spell with a save that doesn't end up practically useless. (I mean, really? They ALL made their save?)

But I have a couple of things here that I don't agree with at all. First of all, the spellcaster doesn't have to take one feat to negate the -4, they have to take two because of the prerequisite. If Precise Shot had no prerequisite then you would be correct.
I'm not sure I like the idea of a feat increasing the touch AC because that will create the situation where the caster can't hit and ends up feeling totally useless. There's a special armor in one of the splatbooks that as long as you take the exotic armor proficiency feat, the armor bonus also applies to your touch AC. I would much rather see something along those lines. That leaves anyone free to boost their touch AC if they want to without having to spend oodles of money.

[Brutesquad07]

I agree with LKL. The ranged touch is hardly a gimp. It is arguably the strongest attack in the game as it is. Even without precise shot the ranged touch rarely misses, now you want to give the caster a chance to grab another feat? I love my casters and I like Range Touch to be a strong choice. Just lets not go overboard helping the strong out.

[Brutesquad07]

As for touch AC. I would like to see the Shield bonus apply to touch. I think that across the board that would help out everyone. Sure your range touch guy has to hit a better ac. But without increasing the overall AC you balance the attack rolls a bit. When I create encounters the most frustrating thing to me is trying to get AC correct. If I put the Touch AC where the casters need a reasonable (not even a tough but a reasonable) roll to hit, then the melee has no shot at hitting, even with those uber high attack numbers. It is just to easy to get a good AC and a crappy touch. Balance is what I want to see.

[lastknightleft]

lynora wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here and say that no, there shouldn't be a feat that makes spellcasters better than meleers that is both cheaper than the full melee version and then easier to pull off. They can take the point blank shot and precise shot like everyone else, or they can just choose to use their 18-billion other spells that don't require them.

You want feats for RTA, then the feat that removes the penalty for firing into melee needs to be the third in a chain of feats or at least second. You can't have it be easier for the spellcaster when it's allready easier for the spellcaster

And giving a defensive feat to people against TA's is fine, but that doesn't make giving spellcasters a freebie on the ranged touch attacks ok. because you can improve your AC without feats, but to do so for RTA takes a much larger investment of cash, oh and a feat, but all the spellcaster had to do to avoid the firing into melee penalty was take a single feat.

Okay, I agree with most of what you're saying. I think that making ranged touch attacks better is silly. The touch ACs are just so low already. Even with a moderately good dex bonus (I play casters all the time and I usually put a 14 in dex) and low attack bonus, even an average roll should have you hitting most of the time. Even at low levels. It just doesn't need to be fixed. It's already good and makes a great alternative for those of us that can't seem to cast a spell with a save that doesn't end up practically useless. (I mean, really? They ALL made their save?)

But I have a couple of things here that I don't agree with at all. First of all, the spellcaster doesn't have to take one feat to negate the -4, they have to take two because of the prerequisite. If Precise Shot had no prerequisite then you would be correct.

I meant that touch ACs are easier to hit, not that they only take one feat right now. My argument was in response to his proposal of a single feat to remove the penalty, if you look at the OP he created a single feat, I was saying that it needs to be at least second in a chain.

[Brother Willi]

lastknightleft wrote:

I meant that touch ACs are easier to hit, not that they only take one feat right now. My argument was in response to his proposal of a single feat to remove the penalty, if you look at the OP he created a single feat, I was saying that it needs to be at least second in a chain.

Agreed. I don't think there's a need for another feat. Saying casters have to take PBS and PrS to excel with Ranged Touch is like saying you need to take Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. to be a good swordsman. They make you better, not bring you up to average.

PBS and PrS apply to all spells that require ranged attacks, touch or otherwise. A bonus to hit and a bonus to damage are nice enough at low levels; shooting into melee without penalty means most ranged touches will strike; and it opens up the higher chain of feats for all sorts of nasty tricks with ray spells.

[Jank Falcon]

Hmmmm. So if it is true indeed that both PBS and PS work with ranged touch spells, then that makes it a little easier to accept. But of course that begs the next question: What about Deadly Aim?

(I think a Cats Grace is in order)

[Brother Willi]

Jank Falcon wrote:

Hmmmm. So if it is true indeed that both PBS and PS work with ranged touch spells, then that makes it a little easier to accept. But of course that begs the next question: What about Deadly Aim?

(I think a Cats Grace is in order)

An excellent idea. The Spellwarp Sniper remains one of my favorite classes; especially at high levels it is a deadly caster.