| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey everyone, been looking into the Sound Striker Recently since I've never really built a Bard NPC and it caught my eye. However as it's written it kinda sucks so I have a few questions.
However I have some question(no, not about DR, read that all already):
1: Weird Words as written is a (Su) ability. However, you make several ranged touch attacks. Do you provoke AoO's as you are making ranged attacks? And how many?
Cause I always thought you'd make 2 AoOs when casting something like Acid Arrow(1 for the spell, 1 for the ranged attack it gives you). However since it is a Supernatural Ability it does not provoke an attack by itself, but then you make 10 ranged attacks... So is that potentially 10 AoOs on you? Better hope they're not a Kensei with Combat reflexes...
2. Do I need or benefit from Precise Shot?
Say my ally is engaged in melee and I want to use Weird Words. I make my Ranged Touch Attack against the opponent at... -4 correct? On all of my attacks?
Now, normally I'd just get point blank shot and Precise Shot to ignore the penalty... But since everyone points out its NOT a weapon do you even benefit from Precise Shot? It mentions ranged weapons, so I'd say no, since that's the same thing most people call out on Point Blank Shot no working for them either. And as it is, that really cripples the effect.
However an alternative ruling would be since it's not a weapon, it doesn't take the attack penalty either, since shooting into melee only mentions weapons too... So which is it?
3. Is there any purpose to Word Strike once you get Weird Words? As far as I can tell it becomes defunct as soon as you get Weird Words.
1.Supernatural abilities don't provoke.
2. It either works with ranged feats or its useless. Most people lean towards useless because the letter of the law is that only rays can benefit as weapons. My interpretation is that if your attacking someone and it requires an attack roll, then you can use the feats.
Again, letter of the raw is, this is completely useless.
3. word strike ignores hardness I believe, making it very potent for sunders.
1. You'd provoke a number of AoOs equal to the number of words you use.
2. Good question, and one I never got a straight answer to myself when I played a Sound Striker before (which, by the way, it's sickly powerful if you've stacked up Charisma, not weak at all). I convinced a GM to treat it like a weapon, so Arcane Strike could apply. There is no clear RAW on it, though.
3. Word Strike requires no attack roll, won't provoke, and is not subject to DR. Otherwise, though, no, there's not really any need for it post Weird Words.
1. You'd provoke a number of AoOs equal to the number of words you use.
2. Good question, and one I never got a straight answer to myself when I played a Sound Striker before (which, by the way, it's sickly powerful if you've stacked up Charisma, not weak at all). I convinced a GM to treat it like a weapon, so Arcane Strike could apply. There is no clear RAW on it, though.
3. Word Strike requires no attack roll, won't provoke, and is not subject to DR. Otherwise, though, no, there's not really any need for it post Weird Words.
Why does it provoke? I thought SU typed abilities didn't... unless I'm behind the eight ball somewhere?
just checked the actions in combat table and it looks like weird words shouldn't provoke.
1. You'd provoke a number of AoOs equal to the number of words you use.
That's the interpretation I was leaning towards myself. Well, gonna have to be careful with positioning then.
2. Good question, and one I never got a straight answer to myself when I played a Sound Striker before (which, by the way, it's sickly powerful if you've stacked up Charisma, not weak at all). I convinced a GM to treat it like a weapon, so Arcane Strike could apply. There is no clear RAW on it, though.
Well this is for a homebrew so it's not a big deal, but it's important to keep RAW in mind so I don't have to make another house rule.
3. Word Strike requires no attack roll, won't provoke, and is not subject to DR. Otherwise, though, no, there's not really any need for it post Weird Words.
Ah, I missed it didn't need a roll or anything. Suppose that would be super useful against certain kinds of enemies.
3. word strike ignores hardness I believe, making it very potent for sunders.
If that's true, which fits thematically since it's sonic energy, that'd be pretty cool. I'm just not sure that's backed by RAW.
just checked the actions in combat table and it looks like weird words shouldn't provoke.
It's cause it produces ranged attacks, which always provoke be it a magical effect, spell, or weapon. It's not that it's a supernatural ability imo. I'm just curious how many it'd provoke since it'd be firing off potentially 10 at once.
I'm pretty sure the fact that an ability is supernatural immediately negates all potential to provoke. There's no escape clause in the wording of supernatural abilities that implies otherwise.
Why does it provoke? I thought SU typed abilities didn't... unless I'm behind the eight ball somewhere?
just checked the actions in combat table and it looks like weird words shouldn't provoke.
Supernatural abilities do not provoke for using them. But making a ranged attack provokes. It's no different than an archer firing 5 arrows and provoking 5 times.
but... how is he compromising his defenses? that's really confusing... An archer has a big ass bow in his hand and can't properly defend himself.
but... how is he compromising his defenses? that's really confusing... An archer has a big ass bow in his hand and can't properly defend himself.
How do Hand Crossbows? Or Pistols? How about Acid Arrows fired from one hand while wielding a sword in the other? Ranged attacks just provoke.
I was just curious if there was any way to get out of all 10.
|
check the FAQ, using a ranged attack provokes. the FAQ uses the scorching ray example: once for casting (unless you do it defensively, not applicable to this SU ability example ) once for each ranged attack (unless they all fire off simultaneously like Scorching Ray, in that case just one AoO for all the ranged attacks as a group)
|
|
spells ignore DR except if it deals typed damage. so if your wierd words deal bludgeoning damage, they'll bypass DR bludgeoning.
point blank shot & precise shot will work with your wierd words. it doesn't require weapons only, it applies to all ranged attacks. if you had weapon focus ray, then it'd be debatable wither you'd get to apply it with wierd words as they're not typed as rays, which if you were a bard 6/fighter 4, would get to specialize in even.
buawllsss.... hmmm, okay. I don't even know what to say, that sucks really hard. The only way to make this feature viable would be taking all the ranged feats then? point blank master? I hope that works...
spells ignore DR except if it deals typed damage. so if your wierd words deal bludgeoning damage, they'll bypass DR bludgeoning.
point blank shot & precise shot will work with your wierd words. it doesn't require weapons only, it applies to all ranged attacks. if you had weapon focus ray, then it'd be debatable wither you'd get to apply it with wierd words as they're not typed as rays, which if you were a bard 6/fighter 4, would get to specialize in even.
Yeah, read that bit.
But I question if they apply by RAW as I asked in the beginning question.
Point Blank Shot's benefit is:
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
Weird Words aren't weapons, as you say. They aren't rays, they aren't anything other than ranged attacks. Thus PBS, Precise Shot and the similar line of benefits from feats don't work either.
But as I asked, I think it works both ways.
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
As it's not a ranged weapon either, I think it's fair to say it doesn't take the penalty either.
Edit: Course that's twisting RAI some, but when the RAW won't benefit the archetype I think that's okay.
|
|
weapon like spells are spells that require an attack roll to hit.
you get a +1 to attack and damage on wierd words, same as you do on acid splash.
RAW you can take weapon focus (ray) and get an additional +1 to hit on Ray of Frost, and even speicalize in (rays), and deal an additional +2 damage on spells like Ray of frost, where they deal hit point damage.
if the spell doesn't require an attack roll to hit, its not a weapon like spell, and doesn't need to reduce your penalty to hit, because you're not rolling to hit.
just take our word for it, point blank shot and precise shot modify spell attacks. if you could somehow get improved precise shot, you wouldn't need to worry about the soft cover penalty allies give when they get in your way.
weapon like spells are spells that require an attack roll to hit.
Er, no, this is actually unclear--I've tried to get an answer to this before and to no avail.
Rays, specifically, are weaponlike spells in Pathfinder, but it is unknown whether other ranged touch attacks are also weapons.
In 3.5, any spell that involved a ranged touch was a weapon, so it didn't matter, but in Pathfinder, only a "Ray" specifically is called out as a weapon.
Nothing indicates that all RTAs are Rays. We know you can take Weapon Focus in Rays, but there is no indication if you can take them in any other kind of RTA. It's just left open and vague.
It's a confusing issue that I wish was as clear as you are saying, but it's not.
|
|
its pretty standard to go with PBS and Precise Shot work. I've never seen a GM say that a ranged touch attack is not improved by Precise Shot.
even Grick never really fought me on it THAT much. he just contested that not all ranged touch attacks were rays, aka a weapon that you could focus in.
they even let you deal Point Blank Shot damage with grenade weapons.
I'd be interested to see the threads that fight you on the point of applying Point Blank and Precise on ranged touch attacks.
how can something you use to kill things not be a weapon? Isn't that like the definition of a weapon?
pulled this out of the dictionary. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
how can something you use to kill things not be a weapon? Isn't that like the definition of a weapon?
pulled this out of the dictionary. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
You could use that dictionary as an improvised weapon. Does it count as a weapon now?
acid splash is not a ray either, altho I have had GM's on both sides of the fence on that one, since we think it -should- be a ray, but it's not by RAW
Acid splash is no ray but ignores spell resistance. It's a balancing factor.
But when asking for all ranged touch attacks to be treated as weapon attacks be careful what you wish for, it could be granted. As of now you can use rta that are not rays while levitating without problems. If they would be treated as weapons that would change. Counting as a weapon has not only advantages, it has drawbacks, as well.
how can something you use to kill things not be a weapon? Isn't that like the definition of a weapon?
pulled this out of the dictionary. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
You could use that dictionary as an improvised weapon. Does it count as a weapon now?
Depends, am I harming someone with it?
Spells aren't weapons are they? You can certainly use them to kill people.
It's just sort of funny to see that most everyone in this thread is on the side of Weird Words being a weapon, but in most of the other threads I searched on the subject said it wasn't...
I mean, I'm fine with siding with Seraphim & the rest of you guys by treating them as weapons: allowing PBS, WF, etc. Just the other forum posts seem rather contradictory.
because theres no official ruling on it. People need to see somebody "official" say, 'hey guys, its a power that hurts people and you have to hit them with a touch attack. Just put weapon focus (weird words) on your sheet.'
because theres no official ruling on it. People need to see somebody "official" say, 'hey guys, its a power that hurts people and you have to hit them with a touch attack. Just put weapon focus (weird words) on your sheet.'
It's not that simple. It's 10 Ranged Touch attacks with practically no cost, so someone with Arcane Strike, Discordant Voice, Weapon Spec (Weird Words), another bard inspiring courage, flagbearer, maybe Sneak Attack or something of that nature, and possibly worst of all, Clustered Shots, you could do really absurd amounts of damage.
At base, a level 11 Bard with 20 Charisma is landing up to 10d8+50 with touch attacks (though each 1d8+5 hits DR separately).
It would be pretty reasonable to have Point Blank Shot, Flagbearer (with a Banner of the Ancient Kings), Discordant Voice, Arcane Strike, and Clustered shots by that point, which would get you up to 10d8+10d6+110 (190 average) damage, and it would only drop from DR once.
In other words, this ability is stuck such that it is either:
1) interesting and moderately useful sometimes, but essentially shut downby just about any kind of DR.
or
2) totally absurdly overpowered and ridiculous.
Personally, I think it would ultimately be best if it was #1, but that it bypassed DR.
I agree with and disagree with some of the above, so here is my 2 cents:
(1) The Supernatural ability component does not provoke.
(2) The Ranged Attack component does provoke. "These are ranged touch attacks." - From Weird Words.
(3) You incur once per ranged attack, so you may well attract more than one AoO.
(4) There is no mention of Weird Words being considered a weapon. Unlike Rays, there is no inclusion of the ability by definition of its type. Weapon feats will not apply.
"Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus (Fortitude half ), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word."
(5) Since you are neither shooting nor throwing into combat, the -4 penalty is not incurred.
because theres no official ruling on it. People need to see somebody "official" say, 'hey guys, its a power that hurts people and you have to hit them with a touch attack. Just put weapon focus (weird words) on your sheet.'It's not that simple. It's 10 Ranged Touch attacks with practically no cost, so someone with Arcane Strike, Discordant Voice, Weapon Spec (Weird Words), another bard inspiring courage, flagbearer, maybe Sneak Attack or something of that nature, and possibly worst of all, Clustered Shots, you could do really absurd amounts of damage.
At base, a level 11 Bard with 20 Charisma is landing up to 10d8+50 with touch attacks (though each 1d8+5 hits DR separately).
It would be pretty reasonable to have Point Blank Shot, Flagbearer (with a Banner of the Ancient Kings), Discordant Voice, Arcane Strike, and Clustered shots by that point, which would get you up to 10d8+10d6+110 (190 average) damage, and it would only drop from DR once.
In other words, this ability is stuck such that it is either:
1) interesting and moderately useful sometimes, but essentially shut downby just about any kind of DR.
or
2) totally absurdly overpowered and ridiculous.Personally, I think it would ultimately be best if it was #1, but that it bypassed DR.
So it has to blow all its feats to be a good blaster. It's not going to bypass DR so and it has a save which guarantees that it will hit, and maybe do as much damage as a person with a bow... maybe.
|
|
mplindustries - unless the weird words specify that they are rays, you can't take weapon focus (ray) and apply it to weird words, thus no weapon specialization. if its not a ray, then you again can't apply the arcane strike benefit.
it does qualify for point blank shot, and precise shot, because despite what Arizhel thinks, you're shooting into combat. you're making a ranged touch attack at an opponent engaged in melee. Or is a gunslinger not firing into combat when he's within his touch ranged increment? nope. he's still firing into melee, and its a ranged touch attack.
Again, i'd like to see the threads that contend that you can't apply point blank shot and precise shot to ranged touch attacks, from spells or other sources.
mplindustries - unless the weird words specify that they are rays, you can't take weapon focus (ray) and apply it to weird words, thus no weapon specialization. if its not a ray, then you again can't apply the arcane strike benefit.
it does qualify for point blank shot, and precise shot, because despite what Arizhel thinks, you're shooting into combat. you're making a ranged touch attack at an opponent engaged in melee. Or is a gunslinger not firing into combat when he's within his touch ranged increment? nope. he's still firing into melee, and its a ranged touch attack.
Again, i'd like to see the threads that contend that you can't apply point blank shot and precise shot to ranged touch attacks, from spells or other sources.
Well, that's the crux of the argument.
If Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot apply their benefits, then Weird Words is a weapon, so everything that applies to weapons applies.
If it's not a weapon, you take no -4 to hit for firing into melee to begin with and you can't get the +1 to hit and damage from Point Blank Shot.
Hence my dichotomy at the end.
You apply point blank shot and precise shot to the cantrip Acid Splash, but you can't apply weapon focus or weapon spec to it.
Can you provide evidence for this assertion? I want you to be correct, but I really don't think you are. If it doesn't qualify as a weapon, then Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot don't apply (and neither does the -4 to hit from shooting into melee).
If it does count as a weapon, then everything that applies to weapons should apply (Weapon Focus, Arcane Strike, etc.).
Arcane strike also needs a clarification. I read it as it imbues any weapons on your person when you activate it. Not weapon like spells unless they are actually conjured weapons that persist. (flame blade... the shadow weapon... etc.)
That's because you're bolding the wrong line. The relevant line is:
"For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
Any weapon you use qualifies--it doesn't have to be one that is on your person or even extant at the time of the swift action. You could use arcane strike as a swift action, then pick a weapon up off the ground as a move action, then attack and still apply the Arcane Strike bonus.
Again, i'd like to see the threads that contend that you can't apply point blank shot and precise shot to ranged touch attacks, from spells or other sources.
This thread for one is an example, or this one, along with several links to other heated debates on the subject. That's why I asked it in specific application to this ability.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not a weapon, you take no -4 to hit for firing into melee to begin with and you can't get the +1 to hit and damage from Point Blank Shot.
I'm just jumping in here at the end.
But this seems completely valid.
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."
It says "ranged weapon", not ranged attack. If a non-ray (and non-weapon-like) spell is not a weapon, then there's no penalty for shooting into combat.
If it is a weapon, and the penalty thus applies, then it can also benefit from anything else involving ranged weapons, like inspire courage.
Then there's this:
FAQ: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?: "Yes... 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."
Fireball: "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."
Fireball can use a ranged touch attack. It's explicitly mentioned in the FAQ as not being a weapon. Therefore, just because a spell involves a ranged attack does not mean the spell is a ranged weapon.
Therefore, if the spell is not a ray, and is not weapon-like, then it does not suffer by shooting into combat.
There's precedent for this in Cover: "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square." (Applies to all ranged attacks, not just ranged weapons)
If the intent is otherwise, then the rules for shooting into combat need to be changed to say "make a ranged attack" instead of "shoot or throw a ranged weapon."
Is there any reason, other than "I've always seen it run that way" to suggest that the intent of shooting into combat is to apply to all ranged attacks, rather than just ones made with weapons?
SKR clarified the DR issue, though I can't find the link. Would you infer that since it is typed as B/P/S that it is truly a projectile weapon? The damage typing seems (to me) to place it squarely in the "weapon-like" category. This is shored up by the fact that you are making an attack roll against the target.
Flavor wise, it seems the intent is that I open my mouth and spout out some gibberish that takes form as a solidified projectile weapon.
I agree that this needs some clarification for balance, because it does seem a bit over the top if you follow the jelly beans in that direction.
I would like to add the Reckless Aim feat to the list of applicable feats in question.
Also, if you go so far as to add sneak attacks to your Weird Words, is there any reason you wouldn't apply the precision damage to all attack rolls on the round your target is denied their Dex bonus?
And for what it's worth -
Arcane Strike should only affect one of the attacks,
Discordant Voice specifies for your allies and seems fishy that it would be both generated by, and apply to, Weird Words,
Clustered Shots states specifically that it applies to a full round attack action, which Weird Words is not, and never will be,
Weapon Focus would also be dubious as it is not a weapon, it is a Su ability that creates projectiles that attack as weapons.
So... if you remove any full round action feats and weapon focus, it isn't any more powerful than an arcane archer or any other well built archer class. Include your FORT saves and your damage drops.
As it stands, it seems to me that Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot apply and are somewhat required, and that Reckless Aim should also apply. Beyond that, I'm not sure what other feats could really boost this type of attack, which takes it a notch down in the OP department.
I think this line of reasoning is the intended effect and it is a nice blasting archetype. Remember, that even though it has a fort save, it can affect objects due to its damage typing.
One of the questions I have, which has also been asked previously, is whether, due to the fact that it is a Su effect, it bypasses DR/magic. I would say yes, which would leave you able to bypass magic and B/P/S.
All in all, due to the amount of DR and situationals that apply once you get into upper tier play, the Sound Striker is not that far out on the power curve. I am playing one at level 7 (slow track!) which seems to be a sweet spot.
Actually, the arcane strike argument was a mistake.
The real argument should be that there is nothing to imbue. Unless you can imbue your tongue or vocal cords...
Sorry I have a bad habit of not looking at posts before putting one of my own up. I have a question that is somewhat different than the running topic on this. Per the wording of the ability are you forced to attack different targets for each word or can you focus all of them on the same target, just making a separate attack for each?
Each sound targets one creature and requires it's own attack roll. You can target the same guy with multiple sounds, though.
If it's not a weapon, you take no -4 to hit for firing into melee to begin with and you can't get the +1 to hit and damage from Point Blank Shot.I'm just jumping in here at the end.
But this seems completely valid.
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."
It says "ranged weapon", not ranged attack. If a non-ray (and non-weapon-like) spell is not a weapon, then there's no penalty for shooting into combat.
If it is a weapon, and the penalty thus applies, then it can also benefit from anything else involving ranged weapons, like inspire courage.
Then there's this:
FAQ: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?: "Yes... 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."
Fireball: "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."
Fireball can use a ranged touch attack. It's explicitly mentioned in the FAQ as not being a weapon. Therefore, just because a spell involves a ranged attack does not mean the spell is a ranged weapon.
Therefore, if the spell is not a ray, and is not weapon-like, then it does not suffer by shooting into combat.
There's precedent for this in Cover: "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square." (Applies to all ranged attacks, not just...
Excellent referencing. Quoted in full because it's that solid.
Additionally, if I was the GM, and the fireball in the above post was trying to go through a narrow opening that happened to be in melee, I would enforce the -4 penalty on the attack roll, while giving any bonus for ranged combat feats. Any reason I shouldn't?
The attack roll (d20) seems to represent an attempt to intentionally and precisely direct your attack of any sort (i.e. aiming) at a specific target. This intentional and precise directing of your attack is what connects it to the combat feats, not some semantic interpretation of the wording.
Granted, when trying to interpret RAW, all we are left with is semantic arguments, and logical interpretations fall to the wayside, which is why it would be nice to get an official ruling...
I can relate... rules as written often have nothing to do with logic or reason.
How is picking up a rock and throwing it different than conjuring a snowball and throwing it?
Because the snowball is propelled by magic and not your arm strength.