I don't see why not. You can take "weapon focus: ray" by RAW.
I'd allow it.
Design Manager
|
That's actually a very good point which I had over-looked....
I can not find an example of a ray that would allow you to "hold the charge" and fire the attack separately from the casting of the spell. It looks like this is going to be a no go on all fronts. Darn that pesky "attack action" terminology.
Well, since a ray requires rolling an attack roll, I'd say that qualifies as an "attack action".
However, I recognize that this is the "rules questions" forum and as such microscopically analyzing every scrap of semantic content is required and as such, by pure strictly enforced RAW, you might have a problem.
I'd still allow it.
|
Design Manager
|
Well, since a ray requires rolling an attack roll, I'd say that qualifies as an "attack action".
However, I recognize that this is the "rules questions" forum and as such microscopically analyzing every scrap of semantic content is required and as such, by pure strictly enforced RAW, you might have a problem.
I'd still allow it.
I'd be inclined to let it fly at my table as well, but JB's been pretty clear that "an attack action is a type of standard action" and wouldn't be compatible with any other standard or greater actions. The same ruling that puts the kibosh on charging and using Vital Strike unfortunately applies here.
|
Maxx notes my particular concern with this observation.
Does "Gory Finish"'s call for an "attack action" include the action taken to cast a spell offensively, i.e.: to attack with the spell?
Even if not, casting a ray spell is different from casting a direct damage spell, in that the ray potentially provokes two attacks of opportunity: (1) from casting, and (2) from making the ranged attack.
If the casting a ray provokes a second attack of opportunity due to it being treated as a ranged attack, does that "ranged attack" count towards "Gory Finish"'s requirement of an "attack action"?
It does seem that rays can be used for "Weapon Focus" and "Dazzling Display". Given the above, do rays continue to benefit from this feat tree?
It does not. Performing an attack roll as par of spellcasting (action depending on the spell's casting time) is not performing an attack action (standard action).
As a comparison, see the official answer to Vital Strike during a charge. (Note that using Vital Strike with a ray would not double the damage, as it has been said by developers. It would be too easy to deal humongous damage with just one feat; but the way an alchemist's bomb critical hit works would be fine, this is, dealing a simple +1d6 per step of the feat.)The only way would be to cast the spell without performing the attack roll, keeping the charge until you may perform a standard action. You would then have to perform an attack action with your ray as your standard action while keeping concentration on your spell.
|
|
Well, since a ray requires rolling an attack roll, I'd say that qualifies as an "attack action".
However, I recognize that this is the "rules questions" forum and as such microscopically analyzing every scrap of semantic content is required and as such, by pure strictly enforced RAW, you might have a problem.
I'd still allow it.
It may look fine and all at first sight, but then you start adding Vital Strike to the equation because after all, each ray just became "attack actions". Then suddenly you deal ridiculous damage AND inflict the shaken condition on close targets with a check so easy they will probably remain shaken for some rounds.
Shaken may seem petty and flavorful, until you understand that you are reducing the saving throws of shaken monsters (and by extension, the DC to resist your next spells cast as a full, optimized spellcaster) by 2, and you have virtually no limit to this ability as long as you cast spells dealing damage. Summon some dumb critters or buy a bag of rats, then start sending rays of frost everywhere: free Spell Focus+Improved Spell Focus (All) on everyone !The feat is good as it is. It's just not spammable, but is able to provide concrete-to-awesome benefits in the right situation.
|
|
Maxx et al,
Is the consensus that "Gory Finish" is not applicable to most rays, at least rays that are part of an initial casting ("Scorching Ray", "Disintegrate", etc.)?
Is so, can rays still be used to support "Dazzling Display"? I see no system requirements preventing such, at least from first glance. Thematically, I presume the sight of a caster blasting and gesturing to the sky seems rather intimidating...
What are this forum's thoughts on such?
Quoting the rules :
"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."
It seems that you cannot even hold a charge from a ranged attack spell. I guess a magus with the arcana changing the range of a spell from ranged to touch may use this in melee though. So the Gory Finish combo cannot work either way.
"Dazzling Display (Combat): While wielding the weapon in which you have Weapon Focus, you can perform a bewildering show of prowess as a full-round action. Make an Intimidate check to demoralize all foes within 30 feet who can see your display."
You must actually wield the weapon to perform your prowess; and it is impossible to wield a ray or even hold one within a spellcasting.
So the RAW is against you; but I guess it would not be unreasonable to create a homebrew metamagic feat like "Halberd Ray", allowing you to hold ranged touch attacks or rays and actually wield them as lances with a +1 spell level increase (think Zeus wielding a thunderbolt). It's cool, flavorful and should be balanced for use in the game.
|
Design Manager
|
Both Dazzling Display and Gory Finish are awkward with Rays. Gory Finish could presumably work if you had a spell that granted you the ability to fire a ray separately from the casting (holding a charge, enables you to do it 1/rd, etc.) Dazzling Display pushes the envelope even further though, as you need to wield the weapon as a full round action. Most Rays are instantaneous effects, so wielding them as a full round action would be problematic at best. Add to that the question "Can you even really wield a ray". This would mean you can Disarm a Ray, amongst other things.
it is possible to get the same effect RAW with rays, using the harder-to-qualify-for dreadful carnage, which works whenever you drop an enemy to 0, regardless of how you do it.
Both Dazzling Display and Gory Finish are awkward with Rays. Gory Finish could presumably work if you had a spell that granted you the ability to fire a ray separately from the casting (holding a charge, enables you to do it 1/rd, etc.) Dazzling Display pushes the envelope even further though, as you need to wield the weapon as a full round action. Most Rays are instantaneous effects, so wielding them as a full round action would be problematic at best. Add to that the question "Can you even really wield a ray". This would mean you can Disarm a Ray, amongst other things.
Basically this.
If a someone really wanted this to work with rays I'd allow it (and by extention Dazzling Display), but I'd acknowledge that it is a houserule.
|
My two cents....
Any time you have to roll to hit it is an "Attack Action" so Rays would work. Things like "Magic Missle" do not have an "Attack Action" so they would not work. Since you can take Weapon Focus(Ray) then you it must be considered a weapon. So in my eyes all prerequisites are met. So I would allow.
My two cents....
Any time you have to roll to hit it is an "Attack Action" so Rays would work. Things like "Magic Missle" do not have an "Attack Action" so they would not work. Since you can take Weapon Focus(Ray) then you it must be considered a weapon. So in my eyes all prerequisites are met. So I would allow.
except 'attack action' is explicitly defined in the list of standard actions you can take in the combat section of the CRB. so it is not every time you make an attack roll. that 'attack action' causes lots of confusion with lots of abilities.
|
|
Except that an "attack action" is not "you perform an attack roll", but a specific kind of standard action where you perform a single attack roll at your best BAB.
Otherwise you start distributing vital strikes with attacks of opportunity or on each attack of a full-round attack - and while it may please the group's fighter, dealing 2d8 (base) damage up to 5/round at 6th level when hasted with a bow is the opposite of balance. I agree that the wording is confusing, but that's a fact, and the limitations are there for good reasons like you may see with my previous examples.
For the ray issue, this would remain a houserule.