|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can it be done? The description for Weapon Focus says you can take Weapon Focus (ray), but that's not quite the same thing. In fact, not all ranged touch attacks are rays, as far as I know.
Can you take Weapon Focus (melee touch attack) or maybe Weapon Focus (touch spell)? How about Weapon Focus (flame blade) or Weapon Focus (frigid touch)?
Is this addressed in a FAQ anywhere, maybe? I'm looking for as "official" an answer as I can get.
I think you could take weapon focus unarmed and as long as you deliver your touch attacks with bare hands it should work.
Or am I wrong?
|
|
You can deliver a touch spell that you're holding when you hit with an unarmed strike, but that requires you to hit their normal AC, not their touch AC. Also, Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) would require Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, because you have to be proficient with the weapon you select with Weapon Focus.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Can it be done? The description for Weapon Focus says you can take Weapon Focus (ray), but that's not quite the same thing. In fact, not all ranged touch attacks are rays, as far as I know.
Can you take Weapon Focus (melee touch attack) or maybe Weapon Focus (touch spell)? How about Weapon Focus (flame blade) or Weapon Focus (frigid touch)?
Is this addressed in a FAQ anywhere, maybe? I'm looking for as "official" an answer as I can get.
Would I allow Weapon Focus (melee touch)? Absolutely. Can you do it based on RAW? It doesn't seem so.
You can deliver a touch spell that you're holding when you hit with an unarmed strike, but that requires you to hit their normal AC, not their touch AC. Also, Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) would require Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, because you have to be proficient with the weapon you select with Weapon Focus.
You're actually proficient with unarmed strikes automatically. Unarmed strikes just have special rules (provoking and nonlethal) which IUS removes. Additionally, there's no -4 penalty to unarmed strikes as there is with improvised or non-proficient weapons. So Weapon Focus (unarmed) is perfectly valid for anyone and will give you the normal bonus... but you still provoke and do nonlethal damage (unless you're also "armed" with a spell, or have IUS).
“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 (see natural attacks).
To me, by PURE RAW (taking into account NO intent), if you take weapon focus (unarmed), it would seem to apply to melee AND ranged touch attacks since they count as "unarmed attacks" by the above phrase, but not rays. You can, of course, take weapon focus (ray) for that.
It also seems that if you wanted to take 4 levels of fighter (maybe for eldritch knight or something, who knows), you can take weapon specialization (unarmed) to add to the damage to a melee or ranged touch attack if it has hit point damage.
It would also seem that taking Weapon Finesse would allow you to use Dex instead of Str for to hit for melee touch attacks.
I would argue that you could sneak attack with these spells as well if they deal hit point damage, as long as you meet the normal sneak attack criteria.
Point blank shot would seem to apply to both rays and ranged touch attacks for attack and damage.
Also, it would seem that since unarmed attacks are affected by stuff like inspire courage, melee and ranged touch attacks are as well. This has already be clarified that it works for rays in some FAQ I'm too lazy to look up right now.
Am I correct in this analysis?
|
You can take weapon focus (Melee touch) it would affect all Melee touch spells, curses, shocking grasp, etc.
Weapon focus (ray) is the same as weapon focus (ranged touch)
Rays are ranged touch attacks. It doesnt make that you could take it and apply it to ranged touch attacks and not rays, or vice versa.
Weapon focus (unarmed strike) works on unarmed attacks, but would not apply to Melee touch attacks, an unarmed strike is different.
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
It never says you can take weapon focus in specifically "melee touch" or "ranged touch," yet it points out you can take it specifically in "ray." But like I said from that above phrase, it seems that it counts as an "unarmed strike," and therefore anything that would affect unarmed strike would also affect touch attacks that aren't rays.
Which also I could see in PFS causing a tremendous amount of problems if a witch takes the "hex strike" feat and uses touch attacks to deliver a hex AND a spell in the same round.
All rays require a ranged touch attack, but aren't specifically the same as them as far as a lot of rulings are concerned.
if you take weapon focus (unarmed), it would seem to apply to melee AND ranged touch attacks since they count as "unarmed attacks" by the above phrase, but not rays.
“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 (see natural attacks)."
Touch Attacks: "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
Weapon focus (ray) is the same as weapon focus (ranged touch)
Rays are ranged touch attacks. It doesnt make that you could take it and apply it to ranged touch attacks and not rays, or vice versa.
Rays are ranged touch attacks, but not all ranged touch attacks are rays.
Weapon Specialization (ray) is explicitly allowed, but any spell that is not a ray is not covered by that feat.
Spit Venom, for example, is not a ray, but you make a ranged touch attack to hit with the stream of venom. Weapon Focus/Spec (Ray) would not apply.
Which also I could see in PFS causing a tremendous amount of problems if a witch takes the "hex strike" feat and uses touch attacks to deliver a hex AND a spell in the same round.
Looks totally legal, and not really related to the discussion. Held touch spell, unarmed strike (vs normal AC) then swift to hex. The hex is not a spell, so it doesn't cause you to lose the held charge even if you rule that the hex goes off before the strike connects.
To me, by PURE RAW (taking into account NO intent), if you take weapon focus (unarmed), it would seem to apply to melee AND ranged touch attacks since they count as "unarmed attacks" by the above phrase, but not rays. You can, of course, take weapon focus (ray) for that.
Even though it's an unarmed attack, a melee touch attack is not an "Unarmed Strike," which is a very specific unarmed attack listed on the weapons table.
Weapon Focus specifically allows (unarmed strike), which is not the same as (unarmed).
For the specific example of flame blade I believe Weapon Focus(scimitar) would apply
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth
from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a
scimitar.
As for other melee touch attacks I really don't know.
Even though it's an unarmed attack, a melee touch attack is not an "Unarmed Strike," which is a very specific unarmed attack listed on the weapons table.Weapon Focus specifically allows (unarmed strike), which is not the same as (unarmed).
Ah, got it. That difference was the key I was missing here.
So basically, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) doesn't work because it's Unarmed STRIKE and not just Unarmed. Which would mean the rest of my arguments would fall through.
Looks totally legal, and not really related to the discussion. Held touch spell, unarmed strike (vs normal AC) then swift to hex. The hex is not a spell, so it doesn't cause you to lose the held charge even if you rule that the hex goes off before the strike connects.
What I was saying is casting the spell and using the "armed" unarmed attack to trigger the hex strike (which is applicable to this thread), but this won't work. It has to be an Unarmed STRIKE specifically, not an Unarmed ATTACK.
One more question, then. Since melee and ranged touch spells would apparently not be considered "weapons," then inspire courage can't apply then. Although it still applies to rays. Is this correct?
Inspire courage works just fine on a touch spell's attack roll. Whether the damage bonus applies depends on the constantly-morphing definition of "weapon".
Inspire courage works just fine on a touch spell's attack roll. Whether the damage bonus applies depends on the constantly-morphing definition of "weapon".
I guess that's what I'm asking then. It seems very hard to get a straight answer to this question. My first instinct would be no to damage, because it appears you can't weapon focus it, because it doesn't count as a "weapon." But it's very hard to get a clear definition on "weapon" when it comes to touch attacks.
|
|
So acid arrow isnt a ray? Can't take weapon focus on that because it's a ranged touch attack, cover and concealment effect it, you can crit with it, but doesn't count as a ray?
Acid splash isn't a ray? Just a ranged touch attack?
Sorry they're the same thing. In aiming a spell, The only type of ranged touch attack specified is the ray.
The implications otherwise are that all other ranged touch attack spells are NOT weapons, cannot crit, do not deal double damage, and cannot target creatures with cover or concealment, as those properties are only called out for the Ray effect.
How many ray spells are there?
Disintegrate, disrupt undead, enervation, polar ray, ray of enfeeblement, ray of exhaustion, ray of frost, scorching ray, searing light
How many ranged touch spells are there?
Acid arrow, acid splash, produce flame, deafening song bolt, arrow of law, dread bolt,
Does the difference between therange touch spells and therapy spells really make any difference? Or does it see that theyjustwerent qualified as Rays?
To say nothing of the various spell-like abilities most wizards, sorcerers and some clerics get, most of which like Acid Dart are summarized as range touch attacks.
What makes a ray so much easier to aim with, that it should be the only way to augment the aim of a spell? What makes a blinding ray so much better than a telekinetic fist?
At least in my games I group them all as range touch attacks. If I still had my 3.5 books I'd check out weapon like spells again.
There does seem to be something in the wording of "armed" unarmed strikes in the combat section that makes it sound like weapon focus (unarmed strike) would be the propped augment for all Melee touch spells.
I treat rays and ranged touch attacks the same. Weapon focus (ranged touch) is the same as Weapon Focus (ray) to me. Since rays work against touch AC and are "featable", I don't see why Weapon Focus (melee touch) et al. shouldn't be available. I haven't decided whether it's the same as Weapon Focus (unarmed strike), or if Weapon Focus (natural attack) should apply for creatures without unarmed strikes but with natural weapons.
|
|
Edit: ignore what I said about ranged touch spells not being critable. Found the text I was looking for on p184 that any spell that requires an attack roll can crit.
The other properties of ranged spells not specified as rays would have to be inferred for combat to work ( cover, concealment, etc ) making rays and range touch spells identical rules wise
So acid arrow isnt a ray?
Acid splash isn't a ray?
Correct.
Sorry they're the same thing.
Incorrect.
Magic Chapter, under Effect:
Ray: "Some effects are rays."
Example spell: Ray of Frost - "Effect ray"
Acid Splash - "Effect one missile of acid"
Acid Arrow - "Effect one arrow of acid"
If the effect is not "ray" then the spell is not a ray.
Here are some other spells which use a ranged touch attack but are not rays.
Deafening Song Bolt
Dread Bolt
Produce Flame
Shard of Chaos
Spear of Purity
Spit Venom
Also a great many spell-like abilities, monster abilities, splash weapons, etc.
I'm not sure why you think cover would not apply to a non-ray RTA.
Cover: "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack..."
A ranged touch attack is still a ranged attack, so cover will apply. Same thing for concealment:
Concealment: "To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack..."
You already covered the critical hits.
|
|
the difference for spells, is minuscule. i can see limiting weapon focus ranged touch to spells, because they all function the same, and weapon focus (grenades) or something for other ranged touch attacks that function as lobbing grenades. The difference between an acid dart and a blinding ray or scoriching ray is not enough to warrant weapon focus (ray) to not apply.
grick: its clear you don't read entire posts, i listed out every spell with a rays effect and which spells are ranged touch from the core book, apg and ultimate magic. I'm well aware which are which.
i made the point about cover and concealment because the Ray effect in the magic section specifically calls rays out as being effected by them. Nothing else specifically called out cover and concealment working for ranged touch attacks.
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. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
the small # of spells that are not rays but are ranged touch makes it innane.
Grick, please tell me the difference between a ranged touch attack and a ray spell.
All I see is the effect description entry on a handful of spells. Which to me doesn't limit it enough that someone with weapon focus (Ray) wouldn't get a bonus to hit with a ranged touch spell. nothing about the casting or aiming of the spell makes them any different.
A case could be made that ranged touch spells aren't effected by cover between you and the target, you're only making the ranged touch attack roll to connect with the target, and what's in between doesn't matter. you likewise could make a case that you couldn't use a ranged touch spell on an invisible creature.
being able to take weapon focus implies that there is enough to be able to practice an attack and get better with it. Everything in a weapon group ( ranged touch ), isn't that imbalancing or unbelievable: they're practicing hitting something's touch AC. having that work on grenade weapons, or spell-like abilities of classes isn't too much. is it breaking anything? nope. Is there much of a difference between weapon focus (alchemist's fire) and weapon focus (bomb) ?
Yeah, it'd be great if the breadth of weapon groups were a little bit better well defined, because there's no difference between aiming a ranged touch spell and a ray spell. but there is a difference between lobbing a grenade like alchemist's fire or a tanglefoot bag. If i had it to do myself i'd probably make a weapon focus ( grenades ), and let weapon focus ( ray ) count for all the other ranged touch spells/spell-like abilities.
|
Ranged touch is around same as melee attack. It isn't in specific sense, meaning that if you can't take Weapon Focus(melee attack) , you can't take Weapon Focus(ranged touch) since you didn't specify what kind of weapon are you using.
I doubt you can take some Weapon Focus feat in that area. Bombs are Rays are special specific cases since they always retain their normal shape while spells like Spit Venom and Inflict Light Wounds do not.
Maybe Weapon Focus(Venom Spit) per Venom Spit spell would be possible since you specified weapon aka spell in this case and it would only apply to that spell.
|
|
there's past discussions to look at as well:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3bmv?Weapon-Focus-Ranged-Touch-Attack#0
if you'd like a formal ruling from the devs: FAQ it.
if there's enough here to give you the answer you need in your home game: great.
there's also Complete Arcana reference if you like 3.5 precident
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.
aka. weapon focus (ranged spells), weapon focus (touch spells).
grick: its clear you don't read entire posts, i listed out every spell with a rays effect and which spells are ranged touch from the core book, apg and ultimate magic.
Except Ray of Sickening, Spit Venom and Spear of Purity. I thought with links you might be able to verify that the effect of those spells is not a ray.
Nothing else specifically called out cover and concealment working for ranged touch attacks.
The rules do. As above, a ranged touch attack is a ranged attack, and ranged attacks are affected by cover and concealment.
Grick, please tell me the difference between a ranged touch attack and a ray spell.
A ray is a weapon. It's affected by Inspire Courage and other spells and effects that affect weapons. (See FAQ)
Also, a ray can be fired into the dark or into a square you think a creature is hiding in. Deafening Song Bolt cannot, even though it has a ranged touch attack, it also has a target.
All I see is the effect description entry on a handful of spells. Which to me doesn't limit it enough that someone with weapon focus (Ray) wouldn't get a bonus to hit with a ranged touch spell.
So not having the effect which makes a spell into a particular type of weapon is not enough to limit it to that particular type of weapon?
It seems like directing a stream of vomit is less similar to firing a ray of burning fire from your fingertips than the difference between swinging a heavy mace vs a morningstar.
you likewise could make a case that you couldn't use a ranged touch spell on an invisible creature.
Correct, if it has a target.
Grick and I will always disagree
Not always because of your rulings, but because of how you state them. When you post in the rules forum "they're the same thing." it makes it sound like you're explaining what the rules state, rather than offering a house rule, and potentially confusing people who want to know how it actually works.
If you posted "In my games, they're the same thing. I change all ranged attack spells to have effect: ray." then there wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
side note: wow, Deafening song bolt has a target AND a touch attack?
that's odd. that looks more like a screw up. typically spells with a Target have a saving throw, and spells with range touch attacks don't usually have a Target.
A ray is a weapon. It's affected by Inspire Courage and other spells and effects that affect weapons. (See FAQ)
Also, a ray can be fired into the dark or into a square you think a creature is hiding in. Deafening Song Bolt cannot, even though it has a ranged touch attack, it also has a target.
A spell becomes a weapon when it has an attack roll. That is why they are referred to as Weapon-Like Spells, and they benefit from things like Bard's inspire courage, while fireballs do not (no attack roll, not a weapon-like spell). I've read the faq. (FAQ)
You chose the only ranged touch attack spell with a Target.
Acid Arrow and Acid Splash don't have Targets, they're just ranged attack rolls. They CAN be fired into a dark square or at an invisible creature. just like a ray. making them identical in the rules, to a ray.
Since any spell with a ranged touch attack becomes a weapon, there should be a corresponding way to improve chances to hit with that.
I wouldn't ask pcs in my games to take weapon focus (acid dart) to get a bonus, i'd allow weapon focus (ranged spell), like they did in 3.5. A better way would be to separate ranged touch attacks into grenades and rays so that either can be taken for weapon focus.
Ray is just pathfinder's way to weaponize spells and simplify them as ranged weapon attacks. They should have done a better job and classified all the ranged touch attack spells as rays. Since there's no rules difference between pointing and firing an Acid Arrow, and pointing and firing a Ray of Exhaustion, provided the spell does not specify a Target.
A spell becomes a weapon when it has an attack roll.
Fireball has a ranged touch attack when fired through a narrow passage.
Yet the FAQ you've read specifically says it's not a weapon.
They should have done a better job and classified all the ranged touch attack spells as rays.
If that was the intent, then yes, they should correct it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spell becomes a weapon when it has an attack roll.Fireball has a ranged touch attack when fired through a narrow passage.
Yet the FAQ you've read specifically says it's not a weapon.
They should have done a better job and classified all the ranged touch attack spells as rays.If that was the intent, then yes, they should correct it.
the narrow passage suggested has an example of an arrow slit ... and the Ranged touch attack is to fit the fireball through the hole without an impact ... if you miss ... the fireball detonates ... this is akin to threading the needle as it were
Ray is just pathfinder's way to weaponize spells and simplify them as ranged weapon attacks. They should have done a better job and classified all the ranged touch attack spells as rays. Since there's no rules difference between pointing and firing an Acid Arrow, and pointing and firing a Ray of Exhaustion, provided the spell does not specify a Target.
Rays have been around since 3.5. Player's Handbook P.102 for the reference in the Weapon Focus Feat and P.311 for the Glossary entry
Granted, any spell that required an attack roll could be affected by weapon focus in 3.5. But if you need a difference between random ranged touch spell A and random ray spell B, all rays act the same in terms of manifestation, but not all ranged touch spells act the same. Some chuck balls of something, some throw arrows of something. They're usually too dissimilar to allow for a standardized method of benefitting all of them at once, whereas a ray of any stripe is a ray that acts and moves like a ray. I dunno...I just dropped in to offer my two coppers. Continue bickering as necessary
|
typically spells with a Target have a saving throw, and spells with range touch attacks don't usually have a Target.
Really? That statement isn't supported by RAW at all...
Please show a SINGLE ranged touch attack spell that you DO NOT cast as a creature or object...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh wow. old thread becomes new.
ok darth_gator, i'm not saying "typically spells with a target have a saving throw...etc" as raw. its an observation: typically developers don't make a spell require a target, and then have a range touch attack to hit them.
aka . scorching ray. no target entry. you can use it to fire at invisible creatures b/c you don't need a target, you just need to aim your ray and the defender rolls miss chance.
want more spells? acid splash ( not a ray spell, but a ranged touch, also doesn't require a Target. so you can use it against something that you can't see. ), Disintegrate. no target. So i was surprised that the ranged touch bard spell also required a Target.
RandomTallGuy
yeah a ray and an orb are different. but a longbow and a composite longbow are similiar enough. I think its fair enough to make a caster take weapon focus (ray) or weapon focus (ranged touch) and have it work on all of the ranged touch spells. since the spells are the weapon, one feat investment is enough of a cost, and there's no significant difference between how a ray or a ranged touch spell is described besides fluff. there's no characteristic that all rays get, that could be denied to a ranged touch spell ( barring other factors of the spell like viable Target etc. )
As Grick sees it, and those that agree with him, Rays are the only spells that count as weapons enough to take Weapon Focus with. There's no way to take weapon focus for any of the other spell types. That is something that needs to be expanded or clarified by the developers, since there are enough non-ray ranged touch spells and abilities that casters might want to take. I think its easier to say that a sorcerers fire blast as a ranged touch attack is similar enough to a ray, like a composite longbow is to a longbow, to allow weapon focus ray to work for ranged touch attacks.
how do you get weapon focus? you practice practice practice. well a wizard can practice all he wants too throwing acid splashes and lightning jolts, he'd get better at ranged touch attacks.
its silly to try to separate ranged touch attacks and rays into two groups, but not allow the other half of the group to be taken with Weapon Foucus just because its poorly defined.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rays have been around since 3.5. Player's Handbook P.102 for the reference in the Weapon Focus Feat and P.311 for the Glossary entry
even though 3.5 had Rays, past the player's handbook, they explained a delineation only between melee touch spells and ranged touch spells.
3.5 complete arcane had a whole treatise on spells as weapons, and did allow weapon focus ranged touch and weapon focus melee touch.
"Weapon Focus: (complete arcane pg 73) choose one category of weaponlike spells (ranged spells or touch spells) and gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made with such spells. You can gain this feat a second time, choosing a different category of weaponlike spells".
Some may shoot a bolt of energy, others may aim a magical stream of acid, but end of the day: all they need to hit is to connect, aka a ranged touch attack.
Rays have been around since 3.5. Player's Handbook P.102 for the reference in the Weapon Focus Feat and P.311 for the Glossary entry
even though 3.5 had Rays, past the player's handbook, they explained a delineation only between melee touch spells and ranged touch spells.
3.5 complete arcane had a whole treatise on spells as weapons, and did allow weapon focus ranged touch and weapon focus melee touch.
"Weapon Focus: (complete arcane pg 73) choose one category of weaponlike spells (ranged spells or touch spells) and gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made with such spells. You can gain this feat a second time, choosing a different category of weaponlike spells".Some may shoot a bolt of energy, others may aim a magical stream of acid, but end of the day: all they need to hit is to connect, aka a ranged touch attack.
I remember those times. One evocation wizard I played back then had so many weapon focus feats. Lol. Felt a little silly wasting so many WF feats on that. I, personally, agree with your assessments in this thread. Oddly enough, googled this very question due to a wizard my wife is playing. Wanted to be fair, yet keeping it balanced. We ended up house-ruling it as WF:Ranged Spells.
Yep. Though I doubt that anybody who wasn't convinced by the Core Rulebook text will be convinced by that FAQ, particularly since the FAQ doesn't actually help the reader differentiate when "weapon" is being used as a shorthand for "manufactured weapon" and when it is not.
Of course, since Paizo has abandoned Pathfinder RPG, feel free to change it however you like. If it's more fun to allow the feat, allow it. I certainly will for my games.