how are ranged touch attacks resolved with PBS, Precise Shot, and damage bonuses from spells?

[Seraphimpunk]

I don't want to start a thread for FAQ requests only. I just see this pop up now and then, and I see a lot of posts on both sides of the trenches.

then I see things like this post from SKR , that even though its a ranged touch attack, penalties for firing into melee apply.

i'm sure the RAW people will say : the penalties only apply for weapons. ranged touch attacks like acid splash are "ranged touch" attacks not weapons, like a Ray, so the penalty doesn't apply. But here's someone confirming that the penalty does indeed apply. and damage bonuses apply ( to hit point damage, like from acid splash. not negative levels like enervation )

so when I fire an acid splash at 1st level as a human wizard with point blank shot and precise shot. In my games, I do 1d3+1, and i get a +1 to hit within 30 ft, and ignore the penalty for firing into combat ( but still take penalties for soft cover if allies are in the way )

and if the party bard inspire's courage, i will have a +2 to bonus to hit, and 1d3+2 damage.
I can't eventually take a feat like weapon specialization to aid Ranged Touch spells, but I can for Ray spells ( because that calls out rays as specifically allowed ).

but people from the RAW camp say ranged touch spells aren't weapons. they don't get bonuses from bard, or point blank shot, because they're not using a weapon.

I know how I do it. I know many people do it because of confusion. I know many people don't do it. I just want to know if the feats and bonuses SHOULD be applied or not. This seems to come up pretty frequently on the boards, which would kind of make it a frequently asked question. But I just really want to know what is the proper way to handle ranged touch attacks from spells/spell-like abilities etc, and point blank shot, precise shot, and damage bonuses from inspire courage, good hope, arcane strike, etc.

[thenobledrake]

I have always been of the opinion that the difference between a Ray and a spell simply requiring a ranged touch attack was nonsense - they are mechanically identical in their basic usage (roll ranged touch attack to hit with spell effect), but since one has a description of being a beam emanating from your finger tip and the other doesn't they get treated differently.

To me, it's like saying that throwing an axe isn't making a ranged attack with a weapon but firing a bolt from a crossbow is - which is to say, ridiculous.

...and, I am opposed to having spells not suffer the same drawbacks as other ranged attacks do because spells are already - in most cases - better than weapons.

[CalethosVB]

Ranged touch spells (that aren't rays) are considered weapons as they still incur the penalties associated with them. You can take and use Weapon Focus and other applicable feats with them (but rays are still considered a separate "weapon"). Going that route, you'd also have to consider Arcane Strike, which doesn't seem overpowered until you start getting into effects that deal damage to multiple targets through multiple attacks (Sound Striker). I'd also say that since a caster can't use Power Attack or Deadly Aim with touch attacks (calls it out in the feat description) that Arcane Strike is a fair trade. Talk with your GM. YMMV

[James Risner]

I apply cover, "shooting into melee", and things like Arcane Strike to all ranged touch attacks.

[Xaratherus]

I've always been of the mind that if the spell requires a roll to hit, it is modified by all feats, abilities, environmental factors, etc. that would modify a ranged physical attack (with the obvious caveat that if the feat, ability, etc. specifically states it doesn't affect spells\touch attacks then it obviously doesn't apply).

So I agree with SKR's comment.

[Duiker]

TIL: there's a difference between rays and ranged touch. I don't see why there would be or should be. As others have said, it's a spell, you have to hit the touch AC from range. Why is there a reason to have a distinction between them? Just treat them as any other ranged touch attack, so of course precise shot, cover, etc. should apply.

[Kalshane]

Yeah. I'm not sure why this is even a question. You're trying to hit a target at range. The same factors would come into account whether it's an arrow or a glob of acid. The only difference is the acid doesn't have to circumvent the target's armor (which is reflected by it being a touch attack.)

[thenobledrake]

Kalshane wrote:

Yeah. I'm not sure why this is even a question.

It is a question because the rules use language which suggests that spells with a ranged touch attack do not follow the same rules as spells which have a Ray effect (which follow all the rules of ranged weapons).

According to strict reading of the RAW, spells that require a ranged touch attack but are not a Ray cannot be targeted at anything you can't see and don't suffer any penalties that apply only to weapons - and Ray spells can be aimed at something you can't see, but do suffer the penalties that apply only to weapons.

...and then SKR ignores all of that very specific and clear rules language and says that ranged touch attacks suffer the same penalties as ranged weapons whether they are rays or not - which I agree with, but disagree that the RAW actually support that conclusion.

[Seraphimpunk]

maybe because the "very specific rules language" is only implying that rays and ranged touch spells differ?

common sense could explain that combat modifiers apply no matter how your'e attacking. bow, gun, spell, or ray. And language that allows variance between a dagger and bow (Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.), can also allow variance between ray and ranged touch ?

and maybe Shooting or Throwing isn't meant to be the be-all/end-all list of what actions into melee take a penalty. If its hard to shoot an arrow into a knife fight, maybe its just as hard to aim a splash of acid?

firing into melee wrote:

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.)

maybe "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon, or cast a ranged touch spell, or a ray spell" was too much of a mouthful? and they thought "ranged touch" was enough of an indicator that it was a ranged action? idk.

[blahpers]

A ray spell is a ranged touch spell (see "Ray" in the Magic chapter), so they wouldn't have had to specify ray specifically if both were intended.

I fall strictly in the "attack roll = weapon" camp. Anything that requires an attack roll is a weapon. For simplicity, I house that any ranged touch spell, spell-like ability, or other attack is considered a "ray" for all applicable purposes.

[Grimmy]

I do it same as you OP.

[Majuba]

Treat them the same for modifiers, for feats, and for straight-out bonuses to X (attack, damage, etc.).

Arcane Strike Discussion:

I disagree about Arcane Strike. I don't think it is intended to work, and I don't think it works as written, at least for the majority of spells.

Arcane Strike wrote:

As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

You imbue your weapons, and then it lasts 1 round. First, you can't imbue something that's not there (before casting). Second, doesn't make sense to imbue a spell with 'a fraction of your power'.

[Devilkiller]

I think most of us in the thread so far agree that RTAs basically work like ranged weapons. I doubt that even SKR's post supporting that viewpoint will convince the hardcore RAW hold outs unless it is made into a FAQ though. On the plus side, what he posted seems pretty much FAQ ready...

TGMaxMaxer wrote:

If a spell or ability requires an attack or ranged attack roll, even if it is not necessarily a ray, it takes the normal ranged attack penalties for firing into melee/cover, and also recieves any bonuses to damage that would apply (only applicable to hit point damage, not spells like enervation etc).

-------------------
Correct?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Yes, correct.

That seems like a pretty clear and direct if only quasi-official answer to me. Something similar which might still need clarification is how many times the bonus damage would apply to Acid Arrow. I'd say only once on the original 2d4 damage roll (as that's the only one which required an attack roll)