Critical hits with spells?

[drakkonflye]

Don't know where else to ask this, but since this thread linked to the FAQ...

Since weapon specialization can be used for spells as noted in the FAQ, would a sorcerer or wizard who wishes to take weapon specialization (ray) still have to take 4 levels of fighter to get it? Or does using the feat for spells create an exception to the norm? Have to ask b/c I have a player running a sorcerer asking about spells and combat feats and I just know he's going to ask.

[Zurai]

You must still qualify for the feats as normal.

[Malagant]

Quote:

It's not that I'm misunderstanding things, it's just that there is a disconnect between the RAW, and the designers' RAI.

Precise Shot shouldn't work with spells either according to RAW, but the designers have made it clear that, that is not the case.

I'm sure there is a similar situation going on with Improved Crit and other feats.

Also, just because something can crit LIKE a weapon, does not make it a weapon (because EVERYTHING can crit LIKE a weapon when used as a weapon).

I'm totally right via a strict reading of the RAW. If the game designers want to change the RAW to match up with their RAI, then I recommend they do it via errata rather than these boards. Otherwise, they end up with people like me quoting RAW, and people like you quoting RAI only serving to cause confusion.

Question, does a ranged touch attack inflict damage (it makes no difference if the damage is hit points or ability in nature)? If yes, then the means of delivery is the weapon. A weapon is an instrument/tool that causes harm. In the case of spells that require an attack roll (touch, ranged touch, or otherwise), magic itself is the weapon. This is a bit of a no-brainer in my opinion...

[Sintog]

Well let's look at this from the more likely scenario, a cleric taking Improved Critical for touch spells. The cleric at least can qualify for that +8 BAB long before the wizard can, and right about the time he does, gets access to harm (plus all the cause spells).

And rather that look at weapon like spells, let's examine the wording for touch spells in combat

"Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. "

Now we don't see the word "weapon" here, but we do see that melee touch attacks fall into a category of other attacks that are all considered weapons able to qualify for improved critical;

“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.

If "armed" does not mean having a weapon, I'm not sure what to make of it really. What else would you be armed with that is not a weapon and does not provoke AoO? I think I would default to the definition of "armed" from a dictionary (as Paizo does not define the word to my knowledge): "equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons."

[The Thread]

Ahh, after eight years I'm free! Time to conquer Earth!

[willuwontu]

Touch spells are not selectable by Weapon Focus and the like, Rays are. Look up relevant threads and post in them if you wish to discuss that.

[Black Onyx Salesman]

The Thread wrote:

Ahh, after eight years I'm free! Time to conquer Earth!

Pay up first.