|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Title says it all. What does the word "weapon" mean in Pathfinder?
I keep seeing spells, feats, etc that apply to weapons. Some of them clarify whether or not they apply to things like unarmed strike, natural attacks, and magical attacks, while others don't. Is there a standard definition that always applies when not explicitly stated?
As a second question, the specific scenario I'm wondering about right now is the wording of the Point Blank Shot feat:
Point-Blank Shot (Combat)You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
Would my cleric with Fire domain be able to apply this bonus to the Fire Bolt power, since it's a ranged touch attack that requires an attack roll, or does it only apply to physical ranged weapons that can be purchased from the equipment section of the rules? I'm assuming it doesn't apply to spells that do damage at range without an attack roll (Fireball, etc).
It's not a "weapon" when it's an "attack", I'm guessing.
I'd say that a weapon requires an attack roll. Rays for instance are weapon-like spells. You can take Weapon Focus(ray) to get a +1 on your attack rolls with them. In theory a Fighter could take Weapon Specialization (ray) as well.
Now, you'll have to apply some sensibility here. For instance, the book says you can make weapons out of different materials such as cold iron. I'd have to throw something at a player who asked to make a cold iron ray of frost. Same thing applies for magic items that assume a physical object, such as some kind of magical sheath. Or a weapon oil.
As far as feats go, if it's got an attack roll, it's weapon-like.
In 3.5 (I think it was Complete Arcane) and again in the Rules Compendium, Wizards clarified things to specify that you can take feats such as point blank shot, precise shot, weapon focus, improved critical, etc. with either ranged touch attacks or melee touch attacks in addition to weapons.
Heck, a 4th level fighter/x-level wizard could take weapon specialization (ranged touch) or (melee touch).
Now, whether or not that remains in Pathfinder I don't know. But I certainly allow it in my game.
Master Arminas
Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
Ashenfall: perhaps to get precise shot? Which eliminates the -4 penalty for firing a ranged touch attack into melee.
Master Arminas
Talk about a touchy subject:
the following Statements have been made:
Weapon Specialization (page 137): Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?
All four of those are valid choices.
Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
From the above note at least a ray is a weapon for the purposes of Weapon Specialization and Improved critical.
I do know that some where it is mentioned that in order to avoid the -4 penalty to use a ray spell in melee combat you must have precise shot. Now to get precise shot you have to have point blank shot.
Some say it is cheesy to get the benefit of point blank shot with spells. However its just as cheesy to make spells have a -4 to hit in melee combat.
I personally believe that anything that requires a roll to hit and does damage is either a melee weapon or ranged weapon.
Now as far as PFS goes, ehhhh....my only statement is that Pathfinder is based on 3.5, and unless Pathfinder has made a change to the rules then the 3.5 rules apply. For PFS they have made several changes to the rule system, and I not even sure if they follow the core rules. I know in several cases they don't use the Pathfinder Core Rules.
Good luck
Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
You are adept at firing ranged attacks into melee.
Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot.
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.
You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
Notice the wording of these feats. Each and every one of them says the word weapon, not attack but weapon. How then could 3 of them work with spells and one of them not work with spells?
Would you say a spell caster spell would not benefit from precise shot?
Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
You're wrong. The core book say's nothing about weapons. It says ranged attacks. Spells apply as well as any other attack.
From the core book:
Point-Blank Shot (Combat)
You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
Edit:Nindja'd!! **Shakes fist**
Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **Notice the wording of these feats. Each and every one of them says the word weapon, not attack but weapon. How then could 3 of them...
Point of order:
Point blank and precise shot both say attack, not weapon.
Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **Notice the wording of these feats. Each and every one of them says the word weapon, not attack but weapon. How then could 3 of them...
Point of order:
Point blank and precise shot both say attack, not weapon.
Under Benefit they both stat ranged weapons, in the description they say ranged attacks. I'm under the standing (and it may be a false one) that the description text means little to nothing mechanically. The benefit text is the rules for the game.
Under Benefit they both stat ranged weapons, in the description they say ranged attacks. I'm under the standing (and it may be a false one) that the description text means little to nothing mechanically. The benefit text is the rules for the game.Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **Notice the wording of these feats. Each and every one of them says the word weapon, not attack but weapon. How then could 3 of them...
Point of order:
Point blank and precise shot both say attack, not weapon.
I dunno. I'd call a jet of searing fire as much, if not more, of a weapon than an arrow.
I dunno. I'd call a jet of searing fire as much, if not more, of a weapon than an arrow.
I tend to agree. It has long been my understanding that there are only 2 types of weapons in the game Ranged and Melee
Melee Weapons include
-Manufactured Weapons
-Natural Weapons
-Unarmed Strikes
-Touch Spells
-Combat maneuvers
Ranged Weapons Include
-Manufactured Weapons
-Ranged natural Weapons
-Ranged Touch Spells
Things that are not weapons:
Any spell or effect that does not require a roll to hit and effect the target.
Of course that may be too simple of a understanding. But that's how I roll.
The mechanics and simple logic of the thing answer this question for me.
Point blank shot gives you a bonus to hit and damage within 30 feet, because that is optimal targeting distance. Being able to target an enemy more accurately can (and SHOULD) apply to any form of attack that requires a transfer of energy (thermal, kinetic, magical, etc) from the attacker to the defender. I can see no reason why any DM would rule that this does not work, especially in light of SKR's note above.
TL;DR? = If you're closer, you can hit better with ranged attacks. Simple.
|
|
So we seem to mostly have a consensus that anything with an attack roll counts as a "weapon", but it's not clearly stated in the rules.
I'm flagging my original post at the start of this thread for FAQ treatment, in the hopes that a Paizo employee will give us an official answer. Please join in if you'd like to get their attention and hopefully get an official response.
In the mean time, I'll assume that Point Blank Shot does apply to Fire Bolt. Not that I'd take the feat just for that. My cleric is going to be a primarily a support character (heal/buff), but she'll use a crossbow as her primary weapon when she's not casting, and Fire Bolt is a convenient backup weapon. So I was thinking of Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot anyway, and it's nice to know that they'll probably apply to Fire Bolt, too.
Enough.
Excerpts.
Core. Page 213.
"Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can."
Core. Page 214.
"Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon."
While there is no text that says literally "a touch spell is a weapon" in those particular words, the description of how they work repeatedly makes it clear that they are treated for mechanical purposes as if they were weapons. This wording to me is just fine because clearly from a literal language standpoint a spell is not a weapon. Weapons are - if being literal - physical objects. Unless this is the Spanish Inquisition, in which case our weapons are fear, surprise, a ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope. So Paizo didn't chose to alter the wording to be inaccurate when revising things over from the 3.5 SRD. They just maintained the wording that made the equivalency clear. Good enough for me.
Point Blank Shot is not intended for spells. It applies to ranged weapons - bows, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Even if your GM houserules that you can take point blank shot for a ranged touch attack spell, why would you want to, considering the other, much more powerful feats available to you?
You're wrong. The core book say's nothing about weapons. It says ranged attacks. Spells apply as well as any other attack.
From the core book:
Point-Blank Shot (Combat)
You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.Edit:Nindja'd!! **Shakes fist**
Huh???? You made the argument that the core book says nothing about weapons, but then you quote the core book, where it specifically states weapons...
Despite that, I think Anguish makes a good point. I still have a problem with the mechanics of the feats, simply from the perspective that a mage is "wasting" feat slots by taking point blank shot, precise shot, improved precise shot, etc. When the mage could alternately be taking metamagic feats, these feats are a waste, imo. But to say that a mage could take them and apply them to rays is by no means overpowered. Personally, I'd rather see mages use their caster level as their BAB for making RTAs with spells.
Despite that, I think Anguish makes a good point. I still have a problem with the mechanics of the feats, simply from the perspective that a mage is "wasting" feat slots by taking point blank shot, precise shot, improved precise shot, etc. When the mage could alternately be taking metamagic feats, these feats are a waste, imo. But to say that a mage could take them and apply them to rays is by no means overpowered. Personally, I'd rather see mages use their caster level as their BAB for making RTAs with spells.
That's really hard to balance in certain instances. If the player's are going on a monster hunt, then more of the monsters overtime have less and less Touch AC, so they become easier to hit as time goes one. Combine this with the fact that most touch AC's don't get all that high to begin with, and one has the recipe for almost always hitting touch spells.
It's the same complaint people have w/ Gunslinger DPR (something as a GM I'm currently on the look out for in my Campaign to make sure that everyone in my party of face beaters is able to kick ass and take names accordingly.)
I certainly agree that it makes for almost no difference between an RTA and a "magic-missile" type spell, but how have you seen it be unbalanced?
I figure that, while it does get easier to hit those monsters, as the party increases in level, that the monsters also become more resistant to various energy types, employ spell reflection, demand higher concentration checks for hitting the PC wizard while casting, etc.
Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Enemy NPCs will have just as easy a time hitting the PCs with RTAs, as the PCs would have, hitting them.
Again, a mage taking these feats is doing so to the exclusion of other feats. Personally, I'd never consider taking PBS, PS, and/or IPS. I'm just not seeing a balance issue.
But this thread does harken back to my biggest complaint about Pathfinder - the assumption that everyone who plays Pathfinder knows/cares about 3.5. Some of us have never even seen 3.5.
I don't really think for me that it rises to the level of a "complaint," but I'm definitely sympathetic with you there. I consider Pathfinder to be a complete system in and of itself, and it's always a bit...hmmm, "offputting" is too strong a word--maybe "not entirely helpful?"--when folks respond to queries about Pathfinder with facts and figures (and feats! my goodness, the number of feats they must have had!) from 3.0/3.5.
All that said, I'm very happy, as I'm currently applying for PbP game that's resetting the Kingmaker AP to Battledale in the Forgotten Realms immediately after the Year of Rogue Dragons, that I collected all those 3.0/3.5 Realms books, which I bought for "fluff" and read completely skipping over spells, feats, and prestige classes.
But it's all good, really. Folks experienced in 3.0/3.5 have a different take on Pathfinder, and one that's as completely valid and valuable as those of us who came to the system fresh (I came from 4E, before that debuted and brought back in to the fold I'd last played RPGs around 1992 or so).
The Question Here is what Is a Weapon in pathfinder? This is difficult to answer because the game conisders many things as weapons a differnt times.
A weapon at it's base has the following properties:
1. All weapons deal hit point damage.
2. All weapons have the ability to critical threat.
3. All Weapons are either Simple, Martial or Exotic.
4. All Weapons are either Melee or Ranged or Both.
5. All Weapons are either Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed
6. Every weapon has a size category.
This is what we know. We also know that ranged weapons us the Dex Modifier as a bonus to hit and melee weapons use the STR modifier to hit and to damage.
So does a Ranged Touch Spell fit the bill?
1. It does hit point damage.
2. It can score a crit.
3. It is using ones hand so simple.
4. It is Ranged
5. All hand based attacks are considered light, so yes.
6. Size yes
Here is the real question, and I have not found a rule either way. Does a ranged touch spell use Dex Modifier to hit? I found not rule to say it does, and I have found no rule to say it does not.
So does touch spll fit the bill?
1. It does hit point damage.
2. It can score a crit.
3. It is a Simple weapon
4. It is melee
5. It is light.
6. It has a size.
Worse does a touch spell get a str modifier to hit? If it does does it get a str modifier to damage? My surch foo has failed me on this one.
However if the answer is yes then they meet all the requirements to be weapons. If the answer is no then they don't.
...Some of us have never even seen 3.5.
Screenshot or you're lying. :P
Does a ranged touch spell use Dex Modifier to hit?
I can see no grounds for concluding it does not, as one uses a DEX modifier when using other weapons that use ranged touch attacks, such as firearms.
In my games, a ranged touch attack is BAB + Dex + any applicable bonuses or penalties.
3. All Weapons are either Simple, Martial or Exotic.
This one isn't correct -- natural weapons don't have a type on the simple, martial or exotic line. Same issue with unarmed strikes.
This one isn't correct -- natural weapons don't have a type on the simple, martial or exotic line. Same issue with unarmed strikes.
3. All Weapons are either Simple, Martial or Exotic.
True, however everyone is considered proficient with natural weapons if they have them and unarmed strike. So I would say that they are Simple. Sense everyone seems to have simple weapon prof.
Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Enemy NPCs will have just as easy a time hitting the PCs with RTAs, as the PCs would have, hitting them.
Right, I don't want my NPCs shredding my PC's apart with touch spells (which they're less likely to be immune or resistant to). Just because NPCs can use an option doesn't make it balanced (see CoDzilla)
As much as I think it would be cool, I'm apprehensive about throwing gun-slinging NPCs at the party because it would be trivial to hit their touch ACs at this point for too many of them.
|
|
Now that's RAW cheesing at it's finest. It's also innacurate as most weapon like spells are ranged attacks which arcane strike can't be used. And arcane strike refers to "weapons" not things that act like weapons.Rays are allowed for weapon focus, but calling them weapons leads to the cheesy side of the force. Possibly not unbalancing cheese though.
If spells that involve attack rolls are weapons Arcane Strike applies to them. It means you're not quickening a spell that round, but for a Magus the extra free hand for a metamagic rod or the spell slots to apply a +4 level metamagic are hard to come by.
Arcane strike can be used on ranged weapons. Use it on a bow, and the arrows fired that round get the bonus.
I pray we don't get a bunch of highly restrictive FAQ/errata entries due to this thread.
Using Arcane strike on a ray spell seems a wasteful way to give it a relatively small bonus to damage and to hit, but it seems logical to me. I'd never considered it before, however.
|
I can see two reasons to have it. One, to get Precise shot. If you are an Evoker and use a lot of ray spells. Yea it is a ranged touch attack, but it is still -4 to hit when the target is in combat. As for just the Point Blank shot, if you have a ranged attack with your Domain ability or Magic School ability, most of those are pretty short ranged. With Point Blank shot they are all +1 to hit and +1 damage.
Mind you, you can't use it with the Evoker ability because it is like a 1 missile Magic Missile and has not to hit.
most weapon like spells are ranged attacks which arcane strike can't be used. And arcane strike refers to "weapons" not things that act like weapons.
FAQ: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
"Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11"
Arcane Strike applies to rays and weapon-like spells.
|
True, however everyone is considered proficient with natural weapons if they have them and unarmed strike. So I would say that they are Simple. Sense everyone seems to have simple weapon prof.This one isn't correct -- natural weapons don't have a type on the simple, martial or exotic line. Same issue with unarmed strikes.
3. All Weapons are either Simple, Martial or Exotic.
except Druids, monks, and wizards.. (at least from the core book), thus they are not simple weapons, but another, unnamed category.
And commoners!
most weapon like spells are ranged attacks which arcane strike can't be used. And arcane strike refers to "weapons" not things that act like weapons.FAQ: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
"Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11"
Arcane Strike applies to rays and weapon-like spells.
Whoa. Forgetting to add bardic music bonuses to things runs further than I thought.