|
Hi folks,
I have searched these threads and not found the answer I'm looking for.
I need to understand what a ranged touch attack is and then can someone please explain to me in straightforward terms the penalty (ies?) for a spell caster making a ranged touch attack?
My understanding is that a touch spell means the caster must physically touch the target. A ranged touch spell would be a spell that has a range, such as 25 feet plus 5 feet per every 2 caster levels, is that right?
And then, to use a ranged touch spell, which is the definition of "ranged touch attack" (right?) the caster chooses a target in range and casts the spell, is that right? So, if the caster chooses a target within range,say 25 feet, and has only Point-Blank Shot (low level caster), then she would receive +1 on her roll for the PBS but a -4 to cast into melee unless her target was 10 feet or further from the nearest friendly? Is that ***all*** the caster has to add to her roll?
Thanks!
Ranged touch attacks are also ranged attacks, so the caster would also add his/her BAB and Dex modifier to the roll. The attack roll then checks against the target's touch AC.
A ranged touch spell is not any spell with a range, though. Spells that require ranged touch attacks will explicitly say so in their description.
I need to understand what a ranged touch attack is and then can someone please explain to me in straightforward terms the penalty (ies?) for a spell caster making a ranged touch attack?
A ranged touch attack is a ranged attack that targets touch AC.
For you, as the caster, there's very little difference between making a ranged touch attack (with a ray, for example) and making a ranged attack with a sling.
Differences: There's no proficiency. There's no range increment, you just have the maximum limit as defined by the spell. The target AC value is usually lower (though sometimes it's the same, and very very rarely higher).
Similarities: Pretty much everything else. The act of making that attack provokes, and this is separate from any provoking you might have done as part of actually casting the spell. Anything that gives you a bonus or penalty to attack rolls will apply. If it's a ray, then it's a weapon, so anything that gives you a bonus to weapon damage rolls will apply if the ray deals HP damage.
Wizard casts ray of frost. He provokes as part of casting the spell. He then makes a ranged touch attack, which also provokes. He shoots at an orc within range. If the orc is engaged in melee (meaning he's adjacent to one of Wizard's allies) then he takes the -4 penalty for shooting into combat. If the orc has cover, the orc applies the cover bonus to his AC value. If the wizard has point-blank shot, and is within 30' of the orc, he gets +1 to hit. If someone has cast bless, he gets another +1 to hit. Etc.
vs.
(which does not include armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses)
* There is a -4 penalty if the target is in melee with an ally (which can be eliminated by the Precise Shot feat).
* As usual, cover may also impose a -4 penalty.
So if you're shooting from behind an ally against an opponent in melee with that ally, you are typically at -8 to hit.
vs.
(which does not include armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses)* There is a -4 penalty if the target is in melee with an ally (which can be eliminated by the Precise Shot feat).
* As usual, cover may also impose a -4 penalty.
So if you're shooting from behind an ally against an opponent in melee with that ally, you are typically at -8 to hit.
Cover gives the target +4 AC, not give you -4 to hit.
vs.
(which does not include armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses)* There is a -4 penalty if the target is in melee with an ally (which can be eliminated by the Precise Shot feat).
* As usual, cover may also impose a -4 penalty.
So if you're shooting from behind an ally against an opponent in melee with that ally, you are typically at -8 to hit.
Really? Not trying to be argumentative, but is that how it really works? I thought that the -4 to hit for being in melee took into account the "cover" situation. I have just re-read the rules in the PRD and I think you just ruined a whole lot of sorcerer / wizard day!
And if this is the true way, my group has been playing it wrong since the beginning.
-- david
Really? Not trying to be argumentative, but is that how it really works? I thought that the -4 to hit for being in melee took into account the "cover" situation. I have just re-read the rules in the PRD and I think you just ruined a whole lot of sorcerer / wizard day!
And if this is the true way, my group has been playing it wrong since the beginning.
-- david
As far as I know, this is correct. Can anyone else confirm/refute?
|
Precise shot negates the -4 for being in melee (I've always taken this to mean eliminating the chance of shooting your ally).
Improved precise shot negates the -4 from cover.
I think this is all the confirmation needed.
2 feats (the Second needing the 1st) that applies to each of the penalty.-8 to hit: (cover+melee)
Shooter
|
|
V
Large Ally
Small enemy
-4 to hit (melee, no cover)
Shooter
|
|
V
Small enemy
Large Ally
|
Isn't it just semantics whether the target gets +4 to AC or the shooter gets -4 to attack rolls? Is there a case where that might matter?
Since most bonuses of the same type do not stack, including cover bonuses, I would imagine any number of those feats/special abilities where you grant an adjacent ally a cover bonus to his AC would come into play here.
Of course, for simplicity's sake, most ppl do just either subtract 8 from their attack rolls or make the enemy's AC 8 higher.