I am aware that with Weapon Focus, you can have it add to your attack bonuses for spells, such as Weapon Focus (Ray). Is it possible for Weapon Focus (Range Spell) and Weapon Focus (Touch Spell), or do you have to be more specific as to the spell type? The discussion that I'm running into is that (Range Spell) should be a specific range spell type, kind of like in the same fashion where you can't just say Weapon Focus (Blades) as it is too broad based for melee weapons.
Can anyone clarify?
The example given in the feat is Weapon Focus (Ray) so I assume that you also need Weapon Focus (Orb) for orbs and Weapon Focus (Touch) for melee touch attacks.
The example given in the feat is Weapon Focus (Ray) so I assume that you also need Weapon Focus (Orb) for orbs and Weapon Focus (Touch) for melee touch attacks.
Makes sense. Just like you need Weapon Focus: Longsword, Weapon Focus: Heavy Mace, Weapon Focus: Scythe.
|
The ruling in 3.5 was made clear in Complete Arcane with their discussion on weaponlike spells. Weapon Focus (Ranged Spell) and Weapon Focus (Touch Spell) were the two. Quite frankly, there are far too many spells for one to 'specialize' in a single type like 'Orb', so it was balanced with the above two.
However, that was 3.5, there is no real 'ruling' for it in Pathfinder as of yet.
The ruling in 3.5 was made clear in Complete Arcane with their discussion on weaponlike spells. Weapon Focus (Ranged Spell) and Weapon Focus (Touch Spell) were the two. Quite frankly, there are far too many spells for one to 'specialize' in a single type like 'Orb', so it was balanced with the above two.
However, that was 3.5, there is no real 'ruling' for it in Pathfinder as of yet.
Seems reasonable to me. I don't have CA and was just extrapolating from the fairly vague feat text. In core only there aren't enough orb spells to really merit a separate feat anyhow.
fyi, it was weapon focus ray, weapon focus energy missile (which includes things like melf's acid arrow, the ranged touch style use of meteor swarm, orbs etc) and weapon focus touch spell.
I remember that, and I remember it being superceded. So either that was Complete Mage and CA consolidated a single ranged touch category, or every local DM agreed that it was a stupid distinction and house ruled it in unison. (The latter is a very real possibility. Pretty small gaming pool in these here hinterlands, we snipe ideas regularly.)
fyi, it was weapon focus ray, weapon focus energy missile (which includes things like melf's acid arrow, the ranged touch style use of meteor swarm, orbs etc) and weapon focus touch spell.
Yeah that makes sense. Fireball also has it's ranged touch roll for certain usages.
|
|
fyi, it was weapon focus ray, weapon focus energy missile (which includes things like melf's acid arrow, the ranged touch style use of meteor swarm, orbs etc) and weapon focus touch spell.The ruling in 3.5 was made clear in Complete Arcane with their discussion on weaponlike spells. Weapon Focus (Ranged Spell) and Weapon Focus (Touch Spell) were the two. Quite frankly, there are far too many spells for one to 'specialize' in a single type like 'Orb', so it was balanced with the above two.
However, that was 3.5, there is no real 'ruling' for it in Pathfinder as of yet.
Seems reasonable to me. I don't have CA and was just extrapolating from the fairly vague feat text. In core only there aren't enough orb spells to really merit a separate feat anyhow.
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I have the Complete Arcane right in front of me. It says "For the purpose of taking combat-enhancing feats, weaponlike spells fall into two categories --- ranged spells and touch spells."
They go on to give examples of what falls into each (Melf's Acid Arrow and Lesser Orb of Acid fall under 'Ranged Spells') and what feats can use weaponlike spells (of which Weapon Focus is one).
Ahh, right... Arcane was first, then Mage. So CA superseded something else. :)
Again, I do remember the three-way split kyrt-rider is quoting. Hell, it could easily have been a 3.0 source... Tome & Blood?
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I have the Complete Arcane right in front of me. It says "For the purpose of taking combat-enhancing feats, weaponlike spells fall into two categories --- ranged spells and touch spells."
They go on to give examples of what falls into each (Melf's Acid Arrow and Lesser Orb of Acid fall under 'Ranged Spells') and what feats can use weaponlike spells (of which Weapon Focus is one).
Complete Arcane was the reason why I was asking, because it did come across as if all the spells were grouped into two categories -- that being Weapon Focus (ranged spell) and Weapon Focus (touch spell). I'm going to have to open up Complete Mage and see what it says in there as well. But it would still be good to know how this would be defined in Pathfinder just as an FYI.
Correct Complete Arcane divides weaponlike spells into two categories. Specifically:
Touch spells that require an attack roll
Ranged spells that require an attack roll
So it's not enough that its a touch or ranged spell but they have to require an attack roll to benefit (which makes sense since the feats that could then be applied are ones such as weapon focus and improved critical)
The ruling in 3.5 was made clear in Complete Arcane with their discussion on weaponlike spells. Weapon Focus (Ranged Spell) and Weapon Focus (Touch Spell) were the two. Quite frankly, there are far too many spells for one to 'specialize' in a single type like 'Orb', so it was balanced with the above two.
However, that was 3.5, there is no real 'ruling' for it in Pathfinder as of yet.
Seems reasonable to me. I don't have CA and was just extrapolating from the fairly vague feat text. In core only there aren't enough orb spells to really merit a separate feat anyhow.
Yah, that's the main problem with the orb-ray specialty. You have to go out of core to make it worth it.
weapon focus(ranged touch) & weapon focus(touch) makes sense. I still think it's terrible considering how easy it is to make touch attacks :) but if you're playing a snipey blaster and doing it every round I can see how it would be useful. Lots of the best spells you just pick targets so I think these are outdone unless you're doing an ultimate magus type with lots of low level spells where you can do ranged touches for your RoE, scorching ray, ray of exhaustion, enervation and just do lots of those each day and metamagic the tar out of them...
|
|
Just a small correction, it's "ranged", not just "ranged touch", so spells that are a ranged attack roll but not a ranged touch attack roll would still fall under it.
And I took a quick glance through Complete Mage, didn't see any changes. Pathfinder just has the basic core text from before, hopefully they will include this in an RPG 'update' in the future, but for now I think the 'old' 3.5 way is a good way to go. :)
Just a small correction, it's "ranged", not just "ranged touch", so spells that are a ranged attack roll but not a ranged touch attack roll would still fall under it.
And I took a quick glance through Complete Mage, didn't see any changes. Pathfinder just has the basic core text from before, hopefully they will include this in an RPG 'update' in the future, but for now I think the 'old' 3.5 way is a good way to go. :)
Actually, I think "ranged touch" does fall under "ranged". If my memory serves me correctly, Weapon Focus (Touch spell) specifies melee touch spells (i.e. physical).
|
|
Actually, I think "ranged touch" does fall under "ranged". If my memory serves me correctly, Weapon Focus (Touch spell) specifies melee touch spells (i.e. physical).Just a small correction, it's "ranged", not just "ranged touch", so spells that are a ranged attack roll but not a ranged touch attack roll would still fall under it.
And I took a quick glance through Complete Mage, didn't see any changes. Pathfinder just has the basic core text from before, hopefully they will include this in an RPG 'update' in the future, but for now I think the 'old' 3.5 way is a good way to go. :)
Yes, yes it does. :) I was correcting him when he said the two categories were 'ranged touch spell' and 'touch spell' that it was in fact 'ranged spell' and 'touch spell'. Ranged touch spells would indeed fall under 'ranged spell', and Weapon Focus (Touch spells) would specify melee touch spells.
In 3.5 you could have weapon focus (melee touch spells) and weapon focus (ranged touch spells)
In 3.5 you could have weapon focus (melee touch spells) and weapon focus (ranged touch spells)
It's all the same. The proper distinction is melee spells that have attack rolls and ranged spells that have attack rolls. The confusion comes in that a ranged spell that has an attack roll makes those attack rolls as a ranged touch attack. So ranged spells with attack rolls is synonymous with ranged touch spells. Again what type of spell do people think of when you think ranged touch spells? Rays! So Rays are really just a subset of ranged touch spells which are the same as ranged spells with attack rolls.
I can't even think of a spell off the top of my head that is ranged and requires an attack roll that isn't also considered a ray.
So in the end, it's all the same. So to try and not confuse anyone, try to use the broadest term which would be ranged spells that require attack rolls.
|
|
The main reason there is a distinction is explained in the Complete Arcane.
Ranged Spells: Ranged spells include those that require ranged touch attack rolls, such as rays or hurled missile effects (examples include Melf’s acid arrow and lesser orb of acid, described on page 115). This category also includes spells that generate effects that act as ranged weapons and require ranged attack rolls (but not ranged touch attack rolls), such as decapitating scarf or fi re shuriken (described on pages 102 and 107 respectively).
Touch Spells: Touch spells include any damage-dealing spells with a range of touch.
So, yeah. Weapon Focus (Ranged Spells) and Weapon Focus (Touch Spells) are the two. The distinction is above. :)
In 3.5 you could have weapon focus (melee touch spells) and weapon focus (ranged touch spells)It's all the same. The proper distinction is melee spells that have attack rolls and ranged spells that have attack rolls. The confusion comes in that a ranged spell that has an attack roll makes those attack rolls as a ranged touch attack. So ranged spells with attack rolls is synonymous with ranged touch spells. Again what type of spell do people think of when you think ranged touch spells? Rays! So Rays are really just a subset of ranged touch spells which are the same as ranged spells with attack rolls.
I can't even think of a spell off the top of my head that is ranged and requires an attack roll that isn't also considered a ray.
So in the end, it's all the same. So to try and not confuse anyone, try to use the broadest term which would be ranged spells that require attack rolls.
Indeed, rays are ranged touch spells.
But I don't know many spells which require a normal ranged attack roll instead of a ranged touch attack.
Karui gave us a couple: decapitating scarf and fire shuriken.
Those would be as found in the Complete Arcane book.
If I have WF : unarmed attack and WF : touch spell, do the bonuses stack when I make an unarmed attack while holding the charge ?
While the bonus is untyped, it is from the same source (Weapon Focus), so no.
If I have WF : unarmed attack and WF : touch spell, do the bonuses stack when I make an unarmed attack while holding the charge ?
Also, can I make my free touch attack when I cast the spell as an unarmed attack or not (Monk/Wizard guy) ?
From what I can tell you cannot make an unarmed strike as your free touch attack action. It's not really specific though. It works well with chill touch which has more than one attack but I don't think as the primary attack it works.
Hmm chill touch + flurry = major strength drain.
As for Weapon Focus.. I think probably not. You might run it by your GM though.
If I have WF : unarmed attack and WF : touch spell, do the bonuses stack when I make an unarmed attack while holding the charge ?
Also, can I make my free touch attack when I cast the spell as an unarmed attack or not (Monk/Wizard guy) ?
For stacking the answer is no. These are two different types of actions. For WF: Melee Touch you are trying to just get ahold of the opponent hence youre going up against their touch ac. For unarmed attack naturally youre going against their normal ac as you're looking to do a damaging attack. Thats the simplest way to show that theyre different
You can deliver a held spell with a successful unarmed attack but as to allowing the unarmed attack in place of the free touch attack that would be wholly up to your dm.
|
For stacking the answer is no. These are two different types of actions. For WF: Melee Touch you are trying to just get ahold of the opponent hence youre going up against their touch ac. For unarmed attack naturally youre going against their normal ac as you're looking to do a damaging attack. Thats the simplest way to show that theyre different
Does this mean that I cannot use Flurry with the touch attack option (ie against their lower touch AC) ?
For stacking the answer is no. These are two different types of actions. For WF: Melee Touch you are trying to just get ahold of the opponent hence youre going up against their touch ac. For unarmed attack naturally youre going against their normal ac as you're looking to do a damaging attack. Thats the simplest way to show that theyre differentDoes this mean that I cannot use Flurry with the touch attack option (ie against their lower touch AC) ?
No you cannot flurry with touch attacks. You can flurry and deliver a held charge every time you hit normally with a flurry though. So you get flurry damage plus held charge damage.
No you cannot flurry with touch attacks. You can flurry and deliver a held charge every time you hit normally with a flurry though. So you get flurry damage plus held charge damage.For stacking the answer is no. These are two different types of actions. For WF: Melee Touch you are trying to just get ahold of the opponent hence youre going up against their touch ac. For unarmed attack naturally youre going against their normal ac as you're looking to do a damaging attack. Thats the simplest way to show that theyre differentDoes this mean that I cannot use Flurry with the touch attack option (ie against their lower touch AC) ?
Yep. You gotta hit the higher AC though. No flurry of "IM STILL TOUCHING YOU!"