My sorcerer with the Abberant background spits acid rays, I think ranged weapon feats, such as Point Blank Shot, should apply. Does the same apply to ray spells though, such as Scorching Ray? Discuss
SM
Yes. Ray is a valid option for feats such as Weapon Focus, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Specialization, and so on. It even specifically says so in Weapon Focus.
Complete Series wasn't core, and I'm not aware of any wording to this effect in the PF Core Rulebook. But I think it's perfectly fair.
I think he meant an Aberant bloodline sorcerer. They can do that ray spit thingy.
Yes, Aberant Bloodline is what I meant, thanks. I knew that rays can be slotted for the Weapon Focus feat, but the Point Blank Shot, etc, specifically say 'Ranged Weapons', and I'm wondering if everyone considers a ray, be it horking an acidic lugie or casting a spell, to be a 'Ranged Weapon' per se.
In the Magic section it says you fire a ray 'like a ranged weapon' not 'as a ranged weapon' so by strict reading of the rules, you can only use it for Weapon Focus, because WF specifically calls it out. Me, I don't care to be that tightfisted about it.
I think in this case, the RAI is mostly clear. For most English speakers, there is no difference between "like a ranged weapon" and "as a ranged weapon". I believe that for the rules to call out such a distinction, then a clear and explicit explanation of that distinction would be required; without it, the general English 'common usage' should probably prevail.
Sure, a lawyer would tear that up in a court of law, and likewise, a DM could certainly rule that the letter of the RAW trumps any interpreted RAI.
But, as with TOZ, I don't care to be that formal in interpreting the English grammar used in any game rulebook.
If you need to make a "to hit" roll with the spell then I would say all relevent feats would apply.
Thanks everyone, I thought as much but thought it best to get extra opinions.
You also might want to be sure that if you're going to allow the feats to be used you require casters to take Precise Shot to avoid the -4 firing into melee penalty.
I would also be likely to disallow the use of Far Shot and Rapid Shot since range and number of shots are built into the spell.
How about Shot on the Run feat?
I can see a group of arcane casters causing lots of trouble to PCs as they dash out from full cover, fire of a scorching ray and dash back into cover.
But only for standard or quickened casting time spells.
Any thoughts?
You also might want to be sure that if you're going to allow the feats to be used you require casters to take Precise Shot to avoid the -4 firing into melee penalty.
Of course he should require that; that is the way it works, after all. Even Sage Advice for 3.0 said casters took the -4 penalty if they fired ranged touch spells into melee, iirc :)
Yeah, if the caster has to take the -4 for firing a ranged touch spell into melee then he could use Precise Shot to negate that. If you want to say that Precise Shot wouldn't work, then to remain consistent you'd have to say that the -4 doesn't apply in the first place.
Using a Ray counts as if using a ranged weapon. No need to dig further then that.
|
How about Shot on the Run feat?
I can see a group of arcane casters causing lots of trouble to PCs as they dash out from full cover, fire of a scorching ray and dash back into cover.
But only for standard or quickened casting time spells.
Any thoughts?
Technically, any touch spell can do this already. From the Core Rulebook:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of
touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch
the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you
may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You
may take your move before casting the spell, after touching
the target, or between casting the spell and touching the
target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the
spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must
succeed on an attack roll.
This is stated before distinguishing between touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. Shortly afterward:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow
you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting
of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell
and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch
attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the
spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless
otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held
until a later turn.
While that says the attack doesn't require a separate action, it doesn't say you're not allowed to separate the action as described in the more generic touch spells paragraph.
Granted I could be simply reading it wrong, but given the order the information is presented in this is how my group has played it so far.
|
I absolutely agree that spells can be affected by feats that allow a weapon selection. I think the RAI, if not the RAW (for Focus at least) make this pretty clear, "touch" and "ray" are both valid choices for feats that are specific to a certain weapon type. On a semi-tangent, I believe that both of these spell types (touch and ray) count as a weapon in nearly every way, including the ability to sneak attack or deliver an AoO (if holding the charge).
Additionally, again, I believe the RAW are pretty clear that firing a spell into melee would incur a -4 penalty, a penalty that can be negated through the Precise Shot feat. Also, holding a charge for a touch spell pretty clearly counts as weapon, so feats like Weapon Finesse should work normally. Some feats (like Many Shot) reference a specific weapon rather then type, so wouldn't be applicable. Similarly, some feats (like Far Shot, Cleave, Vital Strike, etc.) reference mechanics that are not applicable or possible for spells, so also wouldn't be applicable.
That being said, I'm on the fence about some feats that are more ambiguous. I think I would be fine with the + to hit bonus from Point Blank, but am kinda meh on giving a spell the damage bonus (I don't know that I can really quantify my reasons why, just my gut reaction, so while I might disagree with it, I would likely allow both bonuses to apply in games I run). I think I would be less likely to allow Power Attack or Deadly Aim to work with spells at all.
Well, that's my 2 copper anyway. Clear as mud?
How about Shot on the Run feat?
I can see a group of arcane casters causing lots of trouble to PCs as they dash out from full cover, fire of a scorching ray and dash back into cover.
Technically, any touch spell can do this already. From the Core Rulebook:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
This is stated before distinguishing between touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. Shortly afterward:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touchattacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
While that says the attack doesn't require a separate action, it doesn't say you're not allowed to separate the action as described in the more generic touch spells paragraph.
There are a couple points of interest.
First, you say tht touch attacks already work like Shot On The Run. That feat allows you to move both before and after making your attack. However, the cited RAW text for touch attacks does not allow this. You get three options with Touch spells:
1. Move, Cast, Touch (dangerous, provokes AoO and leaves you next to the enemy)
2. Cast, Touch, Move (also provokes but moves away from enemy, provoking a second time)
3. Cast, Move, Touch (safest, use this whenever you can, no AoOs, but leaves you next to the enemy)
None of those RAW options include:
4. Cast, Move, Touch, Move some more (not allowed, definitely the safest choice, no AoOs, doesn't leave you next to the enemy)
(side note, some touch spells affect allies, like Cure Light Wounds, in which case one rarely has to worry about AoOs or standing next to enemies).
So it would be necessary to use Spring Attack for Touch spells if you wanted to try option 4. Some DMs would argue that you would have to cast your spell this round and hold it until next round if you want to use Spring Attack because the RAW for Spring Attack allows moving and attacking but doesn't include an allowance for casting a spell in the same round.
Second, you suggest that the rules for Touch spells that give you those three options can also be applied to Ranged Touch spells. While technically the RAW doesn't make it very clear either way, there is one important distinction for Ranged Touch that needs to be taken into consideration:
You'll note that under "Touch" spells, it says that the touch is a separate action that is "Free" this round, or a normal "Attack" action in subsequent rounds if you hold the charge. This is not the case with "Ranged Touch" spells which say the ranged touch attack is part of casting the spell and is not a separate action. Further, the Ranged Touch spells cannot be "held" to later rounds.
All of that points to the fact that the Ranged Touch must be handled diferently than Touch, and those three Touch options don't apply to Ranged Touch spells. So you're left with:
1. Move, Cast/Attack
2. Cast/Attack, Move
Furthermore, I don't think that Shot On The Run can be applied here either. The RAW says you can move before or after casting, but nowhere does it allow you to move during casting. Furthermore, under Concentration (Chapter 9, Magic) simply riding on a horse or in a wagon or on a boat (you're not moving but the vehical is moving instead) forces a Concentration check.
The Shot On The Run feat doesn't include spellcasting in its description, so the generic rules must apply. You can't move and cast at the same time, and Ranged Touch spells include the attack in the casting as one single action, so there would be no way to combine that action (spellcasting+attack) with Shot On The Run because doing so would involve casting while moving.
|
|
he Shot On The Run feat doesn't include spellcasting in its description, so the generic rules must apply. You can't move and cast at the same time, and Ranged Touch spells include the attack in the casting as one single action, so there would be no way to combine that action (spellcasting+attack) with Shot On The Run because doing so would involve casting while moving.
3.5 had a suspicious absence of a "spell on the run" feat. The RAW regarding touch spells (i.e. the cast-move-touch clause) goes a LONG way to fixing this discrepancy. Sadly, while Spring Attack does open up the possibility of a cast-move-touch-remove action (with GM approval, but I would give a caster that bothered taking 3 feats that option in my games), it's rewording limits it's functionality for healers (since the healer will still provokes from moving, such as backing out of melee once healing the tank).
As you mention, rays are handled differently. As far as I know, there is no option to achieve a cast-move-shoot action for rays, let alone anything along the lines of a "spell on the run" cast-move-shoot-remove action.
I think there was a splatty feat somewhere in 3.5 that allowed to move while casting :/
I think its called Mobile Caster. It might be in complete adventurer, but don't quote me on that.
Mobile Spellcasting (from Complete Adventurer). You could cast a spell and move as a single standard action.
I think there was a splatty feat somewhere in 3.5 that allowed to move while casting :/
Wizards in 3.5 drooled over Flyby Attack...