mplindustries wrote: Alcons wrote: 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. Ah yes, the "it's magic" response.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trogdar wrote: mplindustries wrote: Alcons wrote: 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. Ah yes, the "it's magic" response. A response both correct and inevitable when the subject actually is magic.
Okay, so rays aren't magic now? Does no one else get the vague inkling that this argument is nonsensical?
Trogdar wrote: Okay, so rays aren't magic now? Does no one else get the vague inkling that this argument is nonsensical? Only if you pick one-liners and pretend they are the argument.
It seems like concluding that it is magical and propelled by magic is a bit presumptuous.
"You conjure a ball of packed ice and snow that you can throw at a single target as a ranged touch attack."
It's a magical snowball? That I am propelling with magic? How would you enforce that RAW? I don't see anything about a magical snowball that I propel with magical force.
Trogdar - I think nonsense is all that will come of the purely strict and exclusionary semantic argument based around single FAQ entries and choice of words in ability and spell descriptors.
So, as a sound striker I see having 2 options to prepare myself for the potential GMs I may encounter and their potential interpretations:
1) Keep my Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Reckless Aim feats and play by the "shooting [physical ranged projectile weapons from my mouth] into melee" rules. {I can't think of any other good ones that would apply.}
2) Pick another 3 feats to replace those since I don't need them. Honestly , not too shabby. I could use those for other purposes and still do my job reasonably well.
Is this a reasonable conclusion to draw from this thread (and others) in light of the RAW available and lack of 100% unequivocal official ruling?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Or play a sound striker bard who also happens to be an archer. If the feats work with the words then great. If they don't then still great, just not as great.
Another case of compare/contrast, again with magic missile:
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
Notice that in this case it specifies that the missile is magical. Based on the purely semantic arguments posed here, I should be able to reliably conclude that the snowball in the above example is not actually magical, as it is not specifically described as such in the descriptor as opposed to the examples I have to base my conclusion on.
[To remind why we are talking about Snowball in this thread... we are discussing this because Weird Words doesn't specify that the attack is not magical, only that it does B/P/S damage, doesn't specify that it is a ray, doesn't specify that you are throwing or shooting, doesn't specify whether you are creating a non-magical or magical result that ultimately deals the damage, and doesn't specify that it is subject to ranged attack rules. We are left with only the option of comparing to other spells and examples.]
The snowball spell states that you conjure the snow. Where the heck do you think the snow comes from if it's the middle of summer and it's 95 degrees outside? Magic missile doesn't require any attack roll at all, so it's a poor example. Here's one way to look at it. I know it's not the preferred way, but it makes sense.
In real life, can you:
Shoot an arrow at someone from a bow?
Shoot some kind of ray at someone?
Conjure snow no matter what the weather is like?
Use words to cause physical damage to someone? (other than excessive volume causing rupture eardrums, obviously)
Conjure a dart of pure acid to fire at someone?
Throw a dagger at someone?
If the answer to the question is yes, then in PFRPG it is a weapon and suffers from the -4 penalty for firing into melee and the PBS line of feats can be applied to it.
If the answer to the question is no, then in PFRPG it is just freaking magic and it does not suffer from the -4 penalty for firing into melee and the PBS line of feats cannot be applied to it.
That seems like an unusual attempt at logic for this discussion! It makes too much sense.
I don't care where the snow came from. I used it as an example of a spell that requires an attack roll and has some very plain descriptive language Look at the words used in the description. I would also point you to the language used in conjuration magic description for creation of objects that makes it clear the item exists and is held together by magic, but exists as the item that it is.
I mentioned magic missile because it is an excellent example of a single target focused spell that includes specific language that is absent in other spell descriptions and is the antithesis of the type of ability being discussed.
I'm not discussing real life, I'm discussing game mechanics. I was under the impression that we were looking for a definitive conclusion on Weird Words and related limitations. The discussion has been regarding semantic ability interpretations, not real world vs PFRPG. Even the "realness" of the snowball has basis in the descriptive language of the magic section of the CRB.
90-100% of my GMs have ruled that Snowball, Acid Splash, Weird Words and other similar spells and abilities with an attack roll take a -4 penalty when firing into melee. I was sincere in asking for spell examples so that we could continue comparing language used in the spell descriptions to reach at minimum RAI. Maybe all those GMs were wrong. Maybe they were right. I built my character to fit the games and rules being used when I play...
Alcons wrote: 90-100% of my GMs have ruled that Snowball, Acid Splash, Weird Words and other similar spells and abilities with an attack roll take a -4 penalty when firing into melee. I was sincere in asking for spell examples so that we could continue comparing language used in the spell descriptions to reach at minimum RAI. Maybe all those GMs were wrong. Maybe they were right. I built my character to fit the games and rules being used when I play... They were all wrong, but it doesn't matter if group consensus is that they are right.
The thing is, being a weapon has pluses and minuses. They required Precise Shot for, say Snowball, but did they let you use Point Blank Shot, Arcane Strike or Inspire Courage to buff the attack/damage?
If they were consistent (all the weapon rules applied or none of them did), then I would find that acceptable, even if it's not technically correct (technically, it's not a weapon so none of the rules apply).
A chair leg is a weapon if its used to stab somebody in the neck.
I feel that any item, magic, whatever really that has an "attack" roll applied is similarly a weapon, because if it wasn't you wouldn't be able to attack with it.
So if I use Abundant Ammunition or Ki Arrow, I don't need Precise Shot?
I don't think the "can you do it in real life" argument holds up very well since most of us can't shoot rays in real life (at least not scorching ray, ray of enfeeblement, etc). The ray of enfeeblement isn't used to kill anybody, at least not directly, but it still counts as a "weapon" in terms of Point Blank Shot and such.
Saying that the penalty for making ranged attacks into melee doesn't apply because the rock/snowball/flame/death-potato is propelled by magic doesn't make sense to me either since the ray of whatever is even more obviously being delivered by magic. That said, I think that the RAW is unclear at best. However, I think that using the -4 penalty for shooting into melee for all ranged touch attacks and allowing Precise Shot to fix the same would make things more consistent and stop many potential arguments like the one below.
DM: "Wouldn't you risk hitting your ally if you shoot acid splash into melee?"
Sorcerer: "No way man, it's not a ray, so therefore it uses its magical nature to avoid hitting allies but my PC's BAB and Dex to hit foes! Cool, I hit the golem's touch AC of 11 and rolled 2 damage. Add +3 for the bard's song and that's 5!"
Fighter: "I wish you'd learn Acid Arrow so golems would die faster."
Sorcerer: "No way man, I'd need to learn Precise Shot then since Acid Arrow has the word 'arrow' in the name and therefore might be a 'weapon-like' spell like mage's sword and flameblade."
DM: "Hold it, Sorcerer. If a 'splash' isn't a weapon it doesn't get Inspire Courage. Rather, it gets a bonus to hit from Inspire Courage but not a bonus to damage."
Player: "This is really complicated and no longer working in my favor. I think maybe the rules suck."
Alcons wrote: So if I use Abundant Ammunition or Ki Arrow, I don't need Precise Shot? Either you don't understand the issue at all or you are being deliberately obtuse. You have to ignore the fluff of the spell (i.e. you "throw" the snowball) and stick with the mechanics here.
All weapons are weapons--duh. All of them take -4 for shooting into melee, all of them get a bonus for PB Shot, Arcane Strike, etc.
Rays are also weapons. They face the same issues.
Ranged touch attacks that are not rays (Acid Splash, Snowball, Weird Words) are inconclusive. We don't know if they are weapons or not. The evidence Grick posed earlier in the thread involving Fireball suggests that they are not weapons.
If they are weapons, they get all the bonuses and penalties of weapons. If they are not weapons, they get none of the bonuses and penalties. It is very simple.
Abundant Ammunition is not any kind of an attack. It's just a spell that makes arrows, and you shoot them in the normal way--they are weapons.
Ki Arrow works like your unarmed strike, which is a weapon, so again, weapon.
Devilkiller wrote: DM: "Wouldn't you risk hitting your ally if you shoot acid splash into melee?"
Sorcerer: "No way man, it's not a ray, so therefore it uses its magical nature to avoid hitting allies but my PC's BAB and Dex to hit foes! Cool, I hit the golem's touch AC of 11 and rolled 2 damage. Add +3 for the bard's song and that's 5!"
Fighter: "I wish you'd learn Acid Arrow so golems would die faster."
Sorcerer: "No way man, I'd need to learn Precise Shot then since Acid Arrow has the word 'arrow' in the name and therefore might be a 'weapon-like' spell like mage's sword and flameblade."
DM: "Hold it, Sorcerer. If a 'splash' isn't a weapon it doesn't get Inspire Courage. Rather, it gets a bonus to hit from Inspire Courage but not a bonus to damage."
Player: "This is really complicated and no longer working in my favor. I think maybe the rules suck."
No, this is too absurd a hyperbole. This is just two people arguing who completely don't understand the issue at all. There are two kinds of ranged touch attack spells: Rays and the ones that aren't rays. Acid Arrow is not a ray, so it would fall under all the same rules as Acid Splash. None of the fluff text ("splash" or "throw" or whatever) matters.
MPL - If you read the FAQ which says Inspire Courage applies to ray damage you'll see that it also applies to "weapon-like" spells. The listed examples are flameblade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon. It doesn't seem entirely clear to me if this means that a spell is "weapon-like" if it uses an attack roll or "weapon-like" if the name or description says the spell effect is like a weapon. Acid Arrow creates "an arrow of acid", so it seems to qualify any way you cut it.
Weird Words doesn't mention any sort of weapon in the name or description, so it would presumably only benefit from Inspire Courage if "weapon-like" spells are ones which require attack rolls, which seems unclear at best and possibly just unlikely. I think this would be an ideal state as far as clarity goes though since the current state of things seems a little confusing.
I always ruled that anything that requires an attack roll is a weapon. I don't like usless complications.
Devilkiller wrote: MPL - If you read the FAQ which says Inspire Courage applies to ray damage you'll see that it also applies to "weapon-like" spells. The listed examples are flameblade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon. It doesn't seem entirely clear to me if this means that a spell is "weapon-like" if it uses an attack roll or "weapon-like" if the name or description says the spell effect is like a weapon. Acid Arrow creates "an arrow of acid", so it seems to qualify any way you cut it.
Weird Words doesn't mention any sort of weapon in the name or description, so it would presumably only benefit from Inspire Courage if "weapon-like" spells are ones which require attack rolls, which seems unclear at best and possibly just unlikely. I think this would be an ideal state as far as clarity goes though since the current state of things seems a little confusing.
I think if the effect applies to 'weapon-like' spells and only uses examples of spells who say "behaves like weapon x" you can draw a pretty firm conclusion.
I wasn't saying that you can't draw the conclusion that it is resembling a physical weapon rather than requiring an attack roll which is significant for benefiting from Inspire Courage, just that either way you cut it Acid Arrow should qualify as "weapon-like". It seems that some folks would tend to disagree on the basis that it is not a ray. Perhaps the FAQ ruling isn't clear enough to satisfy their doubts.
Anyhow, I feel it would be better if any spell which uses an attack roll followed the rules for shooting into melee, Precise Shot, etc. While the FAQ doesn't state this it also doesn't preclude it. It seems to me like there's an opening for further additions or clarifications to be made. Having the penalty for shooting into melee apply to all ranged attack rolls seems like the most clear cut and consistent ruling to me.
One thing I wonder either way is whether something like Spiritual Weapon counts as any particular "type" of weapon so that you could take Weapon Focus (Spiritual Weapon) or maybe apply your Weapon Focus (heavy mace) to a Spiritual Weapon shaped like a heavy mace. Would scimitar feats apply to a Flameblade? Rays seem to have an advantage over other spells in this regards since multiple spells count as one type of weapon (ray). Should it be impossible to take Weapon Focus (Mage's Sword) though? I've never seen this come up in a game and haven't really formed an opinion on it yet. I can't see why it would be a problem compared to Weapon Focus (Ray) though. If anything the narrow focus would seem to make it a less powerful feat choice.
Two observations in doing a bit of research in the CRB:
1) The ONLY mention of ranged touch attacks in the magic section is in reference to rays.
2) Interesting wording in the combat section about touch attacks and ranged touch attacks - "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an ARMED ATTACK and therefore does not provoke... Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks."
So... if you are making a ranged touch attack roll, you are considered to be ARMED. What are you armed with? I would guess by definition of being ARMED, a WEAPON.
I may have to go through and make a list of all the spells with a range touch attack (which aren't very many) to look at the wording they use. Interestingly, many (most?) are conjuration school, which I mentioned above. It would make sense that you would conjure something (snowball, orb of acid, acid arrow) and subsequently be ARMED with it as a WEAPON. Yes, I know I am connecting dots when there are no lines there to begin with.
Yes, I was being obtuse previously - mostly because there seems to be less inclination toward active discussion and more "You are wrong, that is all." I'd like some discussion, less conjecture. We are looking at RAW, so look at the words WRITTEN. I don't see how anyone could ignore the wording used in the Snowball spell write it off as fluff. I was asking questions and very much interested in what the answer would be.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
The more I think about this and read it, the more definitive this seems. I find this section in the combat rules quite conclusive in reference to this discussion and would present this in defense of use of combat and weapon feats where appropriate (which indeed may get fuzzier). I still disagree with use of arcane strike or weapon focus, or any type of weapon enhancement, with regards to Weird Words. I do believe anything that would apply to weapons (Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot, Reckless Aim, Inspire Courage) should apply.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
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.
Devilkiller wrote: I don't think the "can you do it in real life" argument holds up very well since most of us can't shoot rays in real life (at least not scorching ray, ray of enfeeblement, etc). The ray of enfeeblement isn't used to kill anybody, at least not directly, but it still counts as a "weapon" in terms of Point Blank Shot and such.
Saying that the penalty for making ranged attacks into melee doesn't apply because the rock/snowball/flame/death-potato is propelled by magic doesn't make sense to me either since the ray of whatever is even more obviously being delivered by magic. That said, I think that the RAW is unclear at best. However, I think that using the -4 penalty for shooting into melee for all ranged touch attacks and allowing Precise Shot to fix the same would make things more consistent and stop many potential arguments like the one below.
DM: "Wouldn't you risk hitting your ally if you shoot acid splash into melee?"
Sorcerer: "No way man, it's not a ray, so therefore it uses its magical nature to avoid hitting allies but my PC's BAB and Dex to hit foes! Cool, I hit the golem's touch AC of 11 and rolled 2 damage. Add +3 for the bard's song and that's 5!"
Fighter: "I wish you'd learn Acid Arrow so golems would die faster."
Sorcerer: "No way man, I'd need to learn Precise Shot then since Acid Arrow has the word 'arrow' in the name and therefore might be a 'weapon-like' spell like mage's sword and flameblade."
DM: "Hold it, Sorcerer. If a 'splash' isn't a weapon it doesn't get Inspire Courage. Rather, it gets a bonus to hit from Inspire Courage but not a bonus to damage."
Player: "This is really complicated and no longer working in my favor. I think maybe the rules suck."
Sure you can shoot rays in real life. Haven't you ever owned a laser pointer?
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
