The thing is, Vital Strike just mentions damage, so using Vital Strike with Calcific Touch is possible depending on whether or not touch attacks can be Vital Striked.
There seems to be some ambiguity there, so I'd FAQ it :P
There's no reason touch attacks cannot be used with vital strike. Whether it's possible IMO depends on how "weapon" is defined.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about touch attacks
A touch attack is no different than any other attack, expect that it only goes after touch AC.
Vital strike affecting touch attacks is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the ability the touch attack works through can be combined with vital strike. As an example, if a monster can make touch attacks at its full BAB then it should be able to vital strike with one of those touch attacks. However if the touch attack is from a spell which requires it's own standard action just to cast then you have no standard actions left to use vital strike with.
Flame Blade is weapon like so it should allow for vital strike.
As for stand alone touch attacks, it would depend on whether or not they count as "attack actions" which. To me it seems they do, but I still don't know if it is a good idea to double the base damage of an empowered shocking grasp, even if it is rules legal. I can hear players crying foul once it is done to them.
stuff about touch attacksA touch attack is no different than any other attack, expect that it only goes after touch AC.
Vital strike affecting touch attacks is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the ability the touch attack works through can be combined with vital strike. As an example, if a monster can make touch attacks at its full BAB then it should be able to vital strike with one of those touch attacks. However if the touch attack is from a spell which requires it's own standard action just to cast then you have no standard actions left to use vital strike with.
Flame Blade is weapon like so it should allow for vital strike.
As for stand alone touch attacks, it would depend on whether or not they count as "attack actions" which. To me it seems they do, but I still don't know if it is a good idea to double the base damage of an empowered shocking grasp, even if it is rules legal. I can hear players crying foul once it is done to them.
Pfft, Empowered is chump change, Intensified is when you start riots. A Magus or Eldritch Knight can qualify for Improved Vital Strike, a Magus might qualify for Greater if he multi-classes and a Wizard 5/Fighter 5/ Eldritch Knight 10 can get Greater Vital Strike (BAB 17). A Magus could Improved Vital strike an Intensified Shocking Grasp for 30d6 damage* while an Eldritch Knight could Greater Vital Strike and Intensified Shocking Grasp for 40d6 damage.
Psst... use an Intensified (10d6) Empowered (15d6) Shocking Grasp then Vital Strike that if you want to provoke a homicide.
stuff about touch attacksA touch attack is no different than any other attack, expect that it only goes after touch AC.
Vital strike affecting touch attacks is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the ability the touch attack works through can be combined with vital strike. As an example, if a monster can make touch attacks at its full BAB then it should be able to vital strike with one of those touch attacks. However if the touch attack is from a spell which requires it's own standard action just to cast then you have no standard actions left to use vital strike with.
Flame Blade is weapon like so it should allow for vital strike.
As for stand alone touch attacks, it would depend on whether or not they count as "attack actions" which. To me it seems they do, but I still don't know if it is a good idea to double the base damage of an empowered shocking grasp, even if it is rules legal. I can hear players crying foul once it is done to them.
This is my sentiment. A Magus built around Shocking Grasp is already nasty enough.
I think that technically a touch attack (without a spell) could be used with Vital Strike. It wouldn't do any good because a touch attack does no damage but you could probably do it.
stuff about touch attacksA touch attack is no different than any other attack, expect that it only goes after touch AC.
Vital strike affecting touch attacks is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the ability the touch attack works through can be combined with vital strike. As an example, if a monster can make touch attacks at its full BAB then it should be able to vital strike with one of those touch attacks. However if the touch attack is from a spell which requires it's own standard action just to cast then you have no standard actions left to use vital strike with.
Flame Blade is weapon like so it should allow for vital strike.
As for stand alone touch attacks, it would depend on whether or not they count as "attack actions" which. To me it seems they do, but I still don't know if it is a good idea to double the base damage of an empowered shocking grasp, even if it is rules legal. I can hear players crying foul once it is done to them.
Pfft, Empowered is chump change, Intensified is when you start riots. A Magus or Eldritch Knight can qualify for Improved Vital Strike, a Magus might qualify for Greater if he multi-classes and a Wizard 5/Fighter 5/ Eldritch Knight 10 can get Greater Vital Strike (BAB 17). A Magus could Improved Vital strike an Intensified Shocking Grasp for 30d6 damage* while an Eldritch Knight could Greater Vital Strike and Intensified Shocking Grasp for 40d6 damage.
Psst... use an Intensified (10d6) Empowered (15d6) Shocking Grasp then Vital Strike that if you want to provoke a homicide.
I was thinking of the entire combo, but I forgot was Intensified was called.. :)
I was thinking of the entire combo, but I forgot was Intensified was called.. :)stuff about touch attacksA touch attack is no different than any other attack, expect that it only goes after touch AC.
Vital strike affecting touch attacks is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the ability the touch attack works through can be combined with vital strike. As an example, if a monster can make touch attacks at its full BAB then it should be able to vital strike with one of those touch attacks. However if the touch attack is from a spell which requires it's own standard action just to cast then you have no standard actions left to use vital strike with.
Flame Blade is weapon like so it should allow for vital strike.
As for stand alone touch attacks, it would depend on whether or not they count as "attack actions" which. To me it seems they do, but I still don't know if it is a good idea to double the base damage of an empowered shocking grasp, even if it is rules legal. I can hear players crying foul once it is done to them.
Pfft, Empowered is chump change, Intensified is when you start riots. A Magus or Eldritch Knight can qualify for Improved Vital Strike, a Magus might qualify for Greater if he multi-classes and a Wizard 5/Fighter 5/ Eldritch Knight 10 can get Greater Vital Strike (BAB 17). A Magus could Improved Vital strike an Intensified Shocking Grasp for 30d6 damage* while an Eldritch Knight could Greater Vital Strike and Intensified Shocking Grasp for 40d6 damage.
Psst... use an Intensified (10d6) Empowered (15d6) Shocking Grasp then Vital Strike that if you want to provoke a homicide.
I wonder how Maximized would interact with Vital Strike? Maximized removes the damage dice in favor of maximum damage, while Vital Strike only adds to the damage dice...
From the The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It thread:
Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?
No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.
Thread renamed.
Claxon wrote:
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
Do you have some kind of rules support for that?
Common sense?
The rules are not supposed to be read by lawyers. They're supposed to be considered with common sense.
Common sense would imply that spells aren't weapons.
So no, I don't have any rules support for that other than common sense.
Claxon wrote:
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
Do you have some kind of rules support for that?
Common sense?
The rules are not supposed to be read by lawyers. They're supposed to be considered with common sense.
Common sense would imply that spells aren't weapons.
So no, I don't have any rules support for that other than common sense.
You mean like how ray spells aren't considered weapons?
...err wait.
From the The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It thread:
Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?
No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.Thread renamed.
Sorry, I just named it FAQ Thread so people would know what kind of thread it was intended to be when they read it.
Claxon wrote:
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
Do you have some kind of rules support for that?
Common sense?
The rules are not supposed to be read by lawyers. They're supposed to be considered with common sense.
Common sense would imply that spells aren't weapons.
So no, I don't have any rules support for that other than common sense.
I really don't see how common sense applies to whether a specific game term (weapon) applies to another specific game term (spell).
If we look at the dictionary definition, it says:
"weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.
tr.v. weap·oned, weap·on·ing, weap·ons
To supply with weapons or a weapon; arm." (thefreedictionary)
I'm all in favor of common sense, but I'm really not seeing how a scorching ray isn't a weapon when flaming arrows are. You are considered armed when you have a chill touch - but it's still not a weapon? Common sense is a good guidance on distinctions that can be felt in the game, but for pure system-based issues I don't see how that applies really.
Common sense could just as well be "anything that has hurting people as it's main purpose is a weapon".
Claxon wrote:
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
Do you have some kind of rules support for that?
Common sense?
The rules are not supposed to be read by lawyers. They're supposed to be considered with common sense.
Common sense would imply that spells aren't weapons.
So no, I don't have any rules support for that other than common sense.
You mean like how ray spells aren't considered weapons?
...err wait.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any ray spell you could use in conjunction with vital strike, so the point is moot.
Vital Strike is a standard action. Casting a spell is a standard action. They two cannot be done on the same turn.
This would mean only spells that have charges that can be held could be used in conjunction with vital strike in the first place.
Edit: Or spells with a non-staneous duration that are still manipulated by the caster (spells possibly like flame blade).
In such an instance, I would allow an unarmed strike with a held spell (against regular AC) to be used with vital strike to deal increased unarmed strike damage, but it would not affect damage caused by the spell.
Edit:
Lets think of it through this logic construct.
A magus casts a shocking grasp spell on turn one and holds the charge. He uses spellstrike on turn two to deliver the shocking grasp while using the vital strike attack action. Which damage should be increased?
|
Wouldn't the damage from a held touch spell which is inflicted through a normal unarmed strike be considered "additional" damage which Vital Strike counts out?
I'm 50:50 on this topic. On one side, sneak attack for example can be applied to spells if conditions are met. Vital Strike isn't that different.
But on the other side, spells don't have "weapon damage dice". Some of them, like ray's are considered weapons, but effects don't have weapon damage dice which Vital Strike would include.
Several spells should work with Vital Strike probably, like Flame Blade, but Wraithstrike covered that part already.
Malag
As far as I'm aware there aren't any ray spell you could use in conjunction with vital strike, so the point is moot.Claxon wrote:
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
Do you have some kind of rules support for that?
Common sense?
The rules are not supposed to be read by lawyers. They're supposed to be considered with common sense.
Common sense would imply that spells aren't weapons.
So no, I don't have any rules support for that other than common sense.
You mean like how ray spells aren't considered weapons?
...err wait.
To restate your argument, you were effectively saying, "Vital Strike can't be used with spells because spells aren't weapons, and it's common sense that spells aren't weapons."
That argument isn't valid because rays are treated as weapons for some purposes. Whether or not they are treated as weapons for the purposes of vital strike is irrelevant to the veracity of your argument.
If you're going to argue that Vital Strike doesn't apply to spells, then there are some good arguments to use; the argument "spells aren't weapons" isn't one of them.
To your latter examples, I agree: Vital Strike would increase the physical damage of any weapon or unarmed strike attack used to deliver a touch spell, but not the spell damage itself. I mentioned earlier in the thread that technically you could use Vital Strike with a touch attack to deliver a spell - but it would have no useful effect since a touch attack deals no damage in itself.
To restate your argument, you were effectively saying, "Vital Strike can't be used with spells because spells aren't weapons, and it's common sense that spells aren't weapons."That argument isn't valid because rays are treated as weapons for some purposes. Whether or not they are treated as weapons for the purposes of vital strike is irrelevant to the veracity of your argument.
If you're going to argue that Vital Strike doesn't apply to spells, then there are some good arguments to use; the argument "spells aren't weapons" isn't one of them.
To your latter examples, I agree: Vital Strike would increase the physical damage of any weapon or unarmed strike attack used to deliver a touch spell, but not the spell damage itself. I mentioned earlier in the thread that technically you could use Vital Strike with a touch attack to deliver a spell - but it would have no useful effect since a touch attack deals no damage in itself.
Just because rays are treated as weapons for some purposes doesn't actually make them weapons. Its a way of explaining how they're intended to function without having to write the rules over again.
If a ray was a weapon, it should do more damage for larger characters or less for smaller characters shouldn't it?
|
FYI Tels, Intensified Empowered Shocking Grasp is Roll 10d6 and then add 50% of the damage rolled onto the damage not add 5d6.
Spells do no count as weapons otherwise why take meta-magic feats?
If a Magus uses the Vital Strike feats they effect the damage dice of his weapon not the spell the weapon is delivering.
As an example a Blade Bound Magus casts a Intensified Shocking grasp then greater Vital strikes with his Broadsword He deals 3d8+static bonuses +10d6 shocking grasp. IF he has Mythic Vital strike it is even worse he deals 3d8+3x his static damage + his spell damage
BTW Tels if you really want to infuriate a GM when you are doing the empowered Intensified shocking grasp spend 2 points from your arcane pool as a swift using Accurate Strike so you can resolve your attack vs. the targets touch AC.
Except when spells do count as weapons, of course. : )
I'm in the "you can Vital Strike with an already-held charge (from a separate action's casting) but the spell delivery is an additional effect so it wouldn't do you much good" camp.
Spellstrike (Su)
At 2nd level, whenever a magus CASTS a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) AS PART OF CASTING THIS SPELL. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier. See FAQ/Errata at right for more information.
I know this discussion is more about using vital strike with spells but I just wanted to show that a Magus would not be able to benefit from vital strike and spellstrike at the same time. you would need to hold the charge of the spell and then use it on your next turn. However, spellstrike only acts when you cast it so if you used something like chill touch you would only be able to deliver the first of the charges of it through spellstrike on the turn it was cast.
I just felt that if a consensus was reached on whether you could vital strike with a spell then this issue would appear next, i just wanted to post my opinion when i had internet. ;)
I know this discussion is more about using vital strike with spells but I just wanted to show that a Magus would not be able to benefit from vital strike and spellstrike at the same time. you would need to hold the charge of the spell and then use it on your next turn. However, spellstrike only acts when you cast it so if you used something like chill touch you would only be able to deliver the first of the charges of it through spellstrike on the turn it was cast.
Magus, Spellstrike: If I cast a spell that allows multiple touch attacks, can I deliver all of those spell touches through my weapon?
Yes. For example, if you cast chill touch (which allows multiple touch attacks), you could use spellstrike to cast and deliver the spell through your weapon, and in later weapon attacks you could use your weapon to deliver the remaining spell touch attacks (one spell touch attack per weapon attack).If you have multiple attacks per round with that weapon (such as from having a BAB of +6 or higher), you can use the weapon to deliver multiple spell touch attacks per round, so long as you have uses of that spell touch attack remaining.
For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1) and you cast chill touch, you have up to 8 uses of that spell touch attack. If you make two weapon attacks in a round, you can deliver two spell touch attacks per round (one for each successful weapon attack).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 09/05/13 Back to Top
Your information is incorrect, if a Magus uses Chill Touch, all of his attacks with a weapon gain the benefit of the Chill Touch damage until he has connected with all of the Chill Touch attacks.
Even if vital strike worked with spells (not saying it does or doesn't), wouldn't you only increase the base die? I would think increased damage, wether from caster level or meta-magic, would be bonus dice and therefore not doubled. Similiar to how it works with alchemists' bombs.
|
Now this is interesting...
Perhaps I can be of help?
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice...
First, the phrase "the weapon" denotes one. Now, I include the first part because the phrase "the weapon" is identified by what "weapon" you used in the attack.
A magus spell strike, for instance, is therefore going to multiple only the physical weapon damage, not the spell damage in any case.
A unarmed strike is going to multiply the strike's damage, not the spell latched on.
A touch attack to deliver the spell, as a standard attack, would have it's damage multiplied when only those two things are considered.
TBH, I'd let it fly. It's very situational, not optimal, and allows people more flexibility in their "monk wannabe wizard".
As for the "are spells weapons?" Is a screwdriver a weapon? Or my hands? Or a rope? How about burning ants with a magnifying glass? A minning laser (Fans of KOTOR 2 Rejoice!)? Technically, anything used to attack someone is a weapon. Hence the phrase we commonly hear "used as a weapon". Spells should be, because most of them are specifically designed to be weapons.
If it weren't for possible Shocking Grasp shenanigans, I'd have to hesitance about allowing Vital Strike to work with Touch Attacks when it comes to healing or dealing HP damage. It's just, Shocking Grasp has the potential to do so much damage that I'm hesitant to allow just from that one spell.
Granted, I could just tell my players to not abuse Shocking Grasp with it, and leave it at that, but I don't want to be making specific exceptions.
Just because rays are treated as weapons for some purposes doesn't actually make them weapons. Its a way of explaining how they're intended to function without having to write the rules over again.
If a ray was a weapon, it should do more damage for larger characters or less for smaller characters shouldn't it?
Actually - no, it wouldn't. The size of the character doesn't affect the damage of a weapon*. The size of the weapon affects the damage of a weapon.
A small character wielding a medium sword will take a penalty to hit with it, but the sword doesn't do any less damage just because the wielder is small.
*Outside of STR bonuses, which is a separate matter from the weapon itself.
It's safe to say that Spell Damage (damage caused by a Spell) is not the same thing as Weapon Damage (damage caused by a Weapon). This is due to the origin of what causes the damage.
We have to remember as to what constitutes as the Weapon. Does a Ray? No, its origins are from a spell, not a Natural or Manufactured Weapon. Does a Fireball? No, for the same reason. What about a Breath Weapon? Surely you can Vital Strike that. No? It's a Supernatural Ability, not a Natural or Manufactured Weapon? Well drat.
What about Vampiric Touch? Not exactly. It's still a spell. It requires a Touch Attack, but what do you make the touch attack with? The hand/limb holding the charge.
So the hand is what holds the charge of the spell and serves as the weapon being used to make the Touch Attack, not the spell. What's the weapon damage of the Hand? 0DX?
Alright, so we multiply that weapon damage; 0 X 2 = 0. Great job with that Vital Strike. It did absolutely zero damage!
But we used Vampiric Touch, and it deals 5D6 Damage (or whatever); too bad that's the damage of the Spell, not the damage of the weapon, which is in this case the hand used to deliver the charge of the spell.
As far as I'm concerned, it's fairly straight forward in both intent and RAW that spells aren't supposed to work with Vital Strike. I'd also argue that Bows wouldn't benefit either, but that's something for its own thread...
Good luck with the bow argument.
Your information is incorrect, if a Magus uses Chill Touch, all of his attacks with a weapon gain the benefit of the Chill Touch damage until he has connected with all of the Chill Touch attacks.
To expound further on this point, a magus who casts shocking grasp then misses with all attacks that round, and thus is holding the charge, can still use spellstrike to deliver the held charge through his weapon on the following round. In this case it is part of his normal attacks and is not a free attack granted in the same round as the spell was cast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, nobody is arguing that a touch spell as a rider on an unarmed strike/natural attack/armed spellstrike should gain the vital strike bonus. Could we please stop beating that particular dead horse already?
The argument is about attacking directly with a held touch spell. Some people are arguing that it's a rider on an unarmed touch attack. That argument is not really supported by the rules.
IF it was a rider on an unarmed touch attack, you would be making an unarmed attack, thus provoking an AOO. You don't.
IF it was a rider, it wouldn't need a threat range and a crit multiplier - but it has those things.
The combat rules spell out that you're considered to be armed while holding a charge, and that attacking with it is an armed attack. In a question about rays, they are specifically stated to be compatible with feats for ranged weapons, and nothing in the rules for rays and touch spells indicates that the same ruling wouldn't also apply to touch spells.
I think this question is going to have to go to FAQ.
Good luck with the bow argument.
Agree, the bow is very much a valid weapon for use with vital strike.
I think the unarmed touch attack is its own attack and vital strike should work, but with the magus, and intensified spell and empower, I think that the devs will try to avoid that working with vital strike. Or they may say it works but strongly advise against allowing it.
Also, it's really not as OP as it sounds. Let's take the 9th level Magus with his 10d6 Intensified Shocking Grasps and +3 keen scimitar. He's entering combat with a SG already cast, because why not.
With a Spell Combat action, he's making 3 or 4 attacks, any *two* of which can deliver a 10d6 Shocking Grasp, with a threat range of 15-20. Once he's delivered two SGs in one round, he's down to being able to deliver one per round.
In head-to-head combat, a Magus would start his turn with a held charge only if he failed to deliver it last turn. And his options would be: Single attack for 20d6, threat range 20; or 3, 4 attacks, threat range 15-20, with weapon damage and the potential to deliver 2 spells this turn. Like a regular warrior, the Magus benefits from Vital Strike only when he's not full attacking.
(besides, all the cool magi are into cold damage and triplocking these days).
Look, nobody is arguing that a touch spell as a rider on an unarmed strike/natural attack/armed spellstrike should gain the vital strike bonus. Could we please stop beating that particular dead horse already?
The argument is about attacking directly with a held touch spell. Some people are arguing that it's a rider on an unarmed touch attack. That argument is not really supported by the rules.
IF it was a rider on an unarmed touch attack, you would be making an unarmed attack, thus provoking an AOO. You don't.
IF it was a rider, it wouldn't need a threat range and a crit multiplier - but it has those things.
The combat rules spell out that you're considered to be armed while holding a charge, and that attacking with it is an armed attack. In a question about rays, they are specifically stated to be compatible with feats for ranged weapons, and nothing in the rules for rays and touch spells indicates that the same ruling wouldn't also apply to touch spells.I think this question is going to have to go to FAQ.
If you're using a melee attack with a Manufactured or Natural Weapon while holding a charge against normal AC, the Manufactured or Natural Weapon damage is multiplied (as that's the Weapon Damage Dice, not the damage dealt from a Spell, such as Vampiric Touch), whereas the held charge deals regular damage. The weapon used in this instance is the Manufactured/Natural Weapon, not the Spell. A Spell cannot be a weapon unless it specifically says it functions as a weapon (Flame Blade is a prime example of this, as it calls out the weapon to function as if it were a Scimitar, a type of Manufactured Weapon. Line Here).
The italicized parts have them listed because they function as weapons for those intents and purposes, and has those statistics listed in the Spells section for just that reason. This does not classify themselves as weapons. Several mechanics state that spells function as X for the purposes of Y. Weapon Focus says that Ray spells function as weapons for the purposes of the feat's effects towards those types of spells. It is otherwise not indicative of a weapon, otherwise, it'd have its own weapon group. It doesn't, therefore, it isn't a weapon.
Again, the character is considered armed only for the purposes of provoking AOO's (or lack thereof) towards taking that respective action, as spelled out in the rules. It's otherwise similar to any other Unarmed Strike, in that it doesn't threaten, or have increased damage dice unless some different rule says otherwise.
The devs may rule that the extra damage from intensified and empowered are not affected by Vital Strike as they are 'extra damage dice' which is fine by me.
Someone who is using an Intensified, Empowered Shocking Grasp and Vital Striking has just sunk 3 feats into 1 spell. It basically amounts to 20d6* damage at 10th level for the cost of a 4th level spell slot** which is a limited resource.
It's not unfair for certain feats to be better for certain classes than others, it's just how the game works. Rangers may be spellcasters, but it's unlikely they'd ever take Metamagic feats, though they are certainly able to do so.
* Shocking Grasp (5d6) + Intensify (5d6) = 10d6. Empower adds +50% damage which is basically 5d6, then Vital Strike the original Shocking Grasp for another 5d6.
** Barring certain traits, rods or other abilities that allow metamagic for free.
Darksol:how is "weapon" defined in thegame and where can i find this definitiob?
Where I see Vital Strike being used the most, isn't even in damaging spells, it's in healing spells.
If Touch attacks could be used with Vital Strike, you might see a Cleric taking Vital Strike to really ramp up his healing spells.
A Cure Light Wounds could be used with Vital Strike or Improved Vital Strike for 2d8/3d8+CL in HP healed, or as damage against undead. Take a Cure Serious and Vital Strike it and you've got an 8d8+7 healing spell.
Vital Strike would make it actually possible for Clerics to heal in combat. To be fair, a Cleric doesn't qualify for Vital Strike until 8th level, and the earliest he could take it is 9th level. At this point, he could be healing for an average of 45 HP per Cure Critical. He could cast it from a wand for an average of 43 HP healed (CL 7 wand) every round, which would more easily help martials stay in the fight.
The reverse side is Evil Clerics could take Vital Strike and mix in Inflict spells to surprise players with unexpected damage.
|
|
So, darksol, are you saying that the gun is the weapon and not the bullet?Or the bow is the weapon and not the arrow? Or the hand is the weapon and not the throwing axe?
I love logic circles :).
Anyways here's my two cents, By definition in today's standards, a spell would be a weapon. The question is whether a touch attack is a weapon or not... Both spells and weapons use the same formula's to calculate attack (whether ranged or melee), even though it never mentions spells in the formula's used to describe them. In fact, if you try looking in the PH, you won't find where it says "spells follow this formula". Instead, you'll find that "weapons follow this formula for melee and this one for ranged attacks" and then spells say "your making this kind of attack". I'd say that close by inference.
Second main point. Consider this quote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
Emphasis mine. Note the bolded area, if a weapon can be a spell, then why can't a spell be a weapon? And nobody can say it's like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square. A weapon is a more general term, whereas a spell is more specific (like a square is a more specific definition).
The devs may rule that the extra damage from intensified and empowered are not affected by Vital Strike as they are 'extra damage dice' which is fine by me.
Someone who is using an Intensified, Empowered Shocking Grasp and Vital Striking has just sunk 3 feats into 1 spell. It basically amounts to 20d6* damage at 10th level for the cost of a 4th level spell slot** which is a limited resource.
It's not unfair for certain feats to be better for certain classes than others, it's just how the game works. Rangers may be spellcasters, but it's unlikely they'd ever take Metamagic feats, though they are certainly able to do so.
* Shocking Grasp (5d6) + Intensify (5d6) = 10d6. Empower adds +50% damage which is basically 5d6, then Vital Strike the original Shocking Grasp for another 5d6.
** Barring certain traits, rods or other abilities that allow metamagic for free.
You are assuming a Spell is a Weapon (and I don't mean the metaphorical sense). They aren't.
Some spells can be armed like weapons for the purposes of provoking and/or not provoking AOO's; some spells function as actual weapons, and they call themselves out as such.
For example, Vampiric Touch V.S. Flame Blade. Vampiric Touch allows your hand to glow with a reddish aura, and siphon the life from your enemies with a grip of the wrist. Flame Blade has a burning Scimitar erupt from your hand, functioning as any other Scimitar except with the exceptions cited in the spell description (uses Touch AC, deals set amount of damage, disallows Strength Modifier, etc).
But are Spells considered a Natural or Manufactured weapon (what is determined as having Weapon Damage Dice)? No. They're Spells. We call them Spells for a reason.
If we claimed Spells and Weapons were the same thing, why even make the distinction between the two? Because one class can use them and another cannot? Why not just make it a proficiency feat to use them like you can for any other sort of weapon?
Because you can't. Spells don't work that way by the book, and they aren't supposed to. Natural and Manufactured weapons do, but Spells don't.
So before we even sit here and say "Spells can be used with Vital Strike," we need to consider definitions and qualifications:
-Do Spells have Weapon Damage Dice? Some have Damage Dice, true, but are they considered Weapon Damage Dice? Technically no. They're Spell Damage Dice, as the damage dice is derived from a Spell, not a Weapon.
-Can Spells be considered a Weapon? Not really. Flame Blade is an exception, and even then it calls for several exceptions outside what is normally considered a weapon and its respective rules. (It's actually one of the few things that benefits greatly from Vital Strike in comparison to your standard weaponry, if you crunch the math.) Everything else? No.
-What quantifies a weapon? Weapons have two categories: Natural and Manufactured. Natural Weapons are weapons such as Claws, Slams, Bites, etc. Manufactured Weapons are things like Swords, Axes, Clubs, etc. These weapons are listed in groups respective to their similarities in size, shape, and performance. Since there is no such group that is titled or has involvement of Spells or Spell Components [Rays], they are not considered to be weapons.
-What does Vital Strike affect? It affects all weapons that have a listed damage dice. Although some forms of weapons don't list to deal damage (or damage dice), we can assume that either A. it doesn't have damage dice, ergo nothing to multiply, or B. it deals 0 damage, having an equation with multiplication of 0 still equals 0, meaning the Vital Strike feat does nothing to the attack's effects.
With all of these points, you should be able to correlate the answer.
Look, nobody is arguing that a touch spell as a rider on an unarmed strike/natural attack/armed spellstrike should gain the vital strike bonus. Could we please stop beating that particular dead horse already?
The argument is about attacking directly with a held touch spell. Some people are arguing that it's a rider on an unarmed touch attack. That argument is not really supported by the rules.
IF it was a rider on an unarmed touch attack, you would be making an unarmed attack, thus provoking an AOO. You don't.
IF it was a rider, it wouldn't need a threat range and a crit multiplier - but it has those things.
The combat rules spell out that you're considered to be armed while holding a charge, and that attacking with it is an armed attack. In a question about rays, they are specifically stated to be compatible with feats for ranged weapons, and nothing in the rules for rays and touch spells indicates that the same ruling wouldn't also apply to touch spells.I think this question is going to have to go to FAQ.
If you're using a melee attack with a Manufactured or Natural Weapon while holding a charge against normal AC, the Manufactured or Natural Weapon damage is multiplied (as that's the Weapon Damage Dice, not the damage dealt from a Spell, such as Vampiric Touch), whereas the held charge deals regular damage. The weapon used in this instance is the Manufactured/Natural Weapon, not the Spell. A Spell cannot be a weapon unless it specifically says it functions as a weapon (Flame Blade is a prime example of this, as it calls out the weapon to function as if it were a Scimitar, a type of Manufactured Weapon. Line Here).
The italicized parts have them listed because they function as weapons for those intents and purposes, and has those statistics listed in the Spells section for just that reason. This does not classify themselves as weapons. Several mechanics state that spells...
I find this most compelling. If delivering a held touch spell through a sword with Vital Strike enhances the weapon damage but not the spell, would it really make sense that delivering a held charge with a touch attack enhances the spell?
So, darksol, are you saying that the gun is the weapon and not the bullet?Or the bow is the weapon and not the arrow? Or the hand is the weapon and not the throwing axe?
I love logic circles :).
Anyways here's my two cents, By definition in today's standards, a spell would be a weapon. The question is whether a touch attack is a weapon or not... Both spells and weapons use the same formula's to calculate attack (whether ranged or melee), even though it never mentions spells in the formula's used to describe them. In fact, if you try looking in the PH, you won't find where it says "spells follow this formula". Instead, you'll find that "weapons follow this formula for melee and this one for ranged attacks" and then spells say "your making this kind of attack". I'd say that close by inference.
Second main point. Consider this quote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.Emphasis mine. Note the bolded area, if a weapon can be a spell, then why can't a spell be a weapon? And nobody can say it's like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square. A weapon is a more general term, whereas a spell is more specific (like a square is a more specific definition).
By RAW, yes they are. The Bullets and Arrows are ammunition for those weapons, something required in order to make regular attacks with the weapon. The Ammunition is otherwise not considered weapons.
RAI, they work in conjunction and one can't function effectively without the other. It's safe to say that the instrument firing the ammunition is generally the weapon in question, not the other way around. An exception to this is weapons like Shurikens, which is treated as ammunition for several subjects (but is otherwise considered a weapon all of its own).
I stated that a Spell is not a Weapon in literal and RAW terms. Obviously Spells are harmful and can be used as a means of offense, but we aren't arguing Spell Power here.
Spell Combat says that the Off-Hand Weapon functions as the spell for the purposes of the ability. Any other attempts to do so would fail as they don't contain the specific language exception to the general rule. It is also obvious in intent that it's a Magus-only Ability, as if it was available for all to use, including it in the Magus' Class Features would be pointless to bring up instead of it being in a more respective place in the book (like the Spells section). The Language also infers that it's something only a Magus can learn, not any other class (unless that class contains the same language, in which case it is also of the same exception).
Darksol:how is "weapon" defined in thegame and where can i find this definitiob?
Weapon Rules section below all of the tables should help clarify things.
@ blahpers: It doesn't enhance the spell damage, because the weapon being used to deliver the spell is a limb that has no set damage dice (and if we were to set it, Touch Attacks without spells deal 0D0 Damage, therefore Vital Strike Multiplier X 0 equals 0, meaning no damage, ergo no effect from Vital Strike). For example, a hand, a leg, or whatever suits your fancy, work as limbs for discharging the touch spell.
Even so, damage caused by the spell is not considered Weapon Damage Dice because the Spell is not the Weapon. In addition, it's Spell Damage Dice, and since Vital Strike enhances Weapon Damage Dice, not Spell Damage Dice...Vital Strike wouldn't affect it.
Look, nobody is arguing that a touch spell as a rider on an unarmed strike/natural attack/armed spellstrike should gain the vital strike bonus. Could we please stop beating that particular dead horse already?
The argument is about attacking directly with a held touch spell. Some people are arguing that it's a rider on an unarmed touch attack. That argument is not really supported by the rules.
IF it was a rider on an unarmed touch attack, you would be making an unarmed attack, thus provoking an AOO. You don't.
IF it was a rider, it wouldn't need a threat range and a crit multiplier - but it has those things.
The combat rules spell out that you're considered to be armed while holding a charge, and that attacking with it is an armed attack. In a question about rays, they are specifically stated to be compatible with feats for ranged weapons, and nothing in the rules for rays and touch spells indicates that the same ruling wouldn't also apply to touch spells.I think this question is going to have to go to FAQ.
Personally I think it is pretty cut and dry that Vital Strike won't work with the typical touch attack spell. If it did we could argue that things like Power Attack (and lots of feats that have PA as a prereq) can also be used with touch attack spells to increase their damage or add other rider effects on them.
Can I Death or Glory my shocking grasp?
Can I TWF my held charge touch attacks and Double Slice my off-hand touch to add STR bonus to my spell damage?
How about Two Weapon Rend if I have chill touch charges active for both hits?
Can I Arcane Strike my touch attack spells?
Being considered armed while holding a charge is there to indicate you do not provoke AoO's while holding a charge and making touch attacks. It does not mean touch attack spells are weapons unto themselves.
The fact that rays are specifically called out as being compatible with range weapon feats and touch attack spells are NOT called out as such is an indicator that touch attack spells are indeed not melee weapons and do not benefit from feats that specifically effect melee weapons.
Second main point. Consider this quote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.Emphasis mine. Note the bolded area, if a weapon can be a spell, then why can't a spell be a weapon? And nobody can say it's like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square. A weapon is a more general term, whereas a spell is more specific (like a square is a more specific definition).
If I cast Faerie Fire as my spell during spell combat, does the faerie fire spell qualify as a weapon under these conditions? Haste? Slow? Fireball? Lighting Bolt? Cloudkill? If any of those are a weapon I can apply precision damage too right?
Don't read to much into the part you bolded. They are simply making a comparison of two weapon fighting to spell combat to help us understand the mechanics of spell combat. But instead of having a second weapon we have a spell in our off-hand. There is no requirement it be a damaging spell or even a harmful spell. There is no requirement the spell target a creature. I could spell combat + Light, or Detect Magic, or Wall of Ice.
Also, it's really not as OP as it sounds. Let's take the 9th level Magus with his 10d6 Intensified Shocking Grasps and +3 keen scimitar. He's entering combat with a SG already cast, because why not.
With a Spell Combat action, he's making 3 or 4 attacks, any *two* of which can deliver a 10d6 Shocking Grasp, with a threat range of 15-20. Once he's delivered two SGs in one round, he's down to being able to deliver one per round.
In head-to-head combat, a Magus would start his turn with a held charge only if he failed to deliver it last turn. And his options would be: Single attack for 20d6, threat range 20; or 3, 4 attacks, threat range 15-20, with weapon damage and the potential to deliver 2 spells this turn. Like a regular warrior, the Magus benefits from Vital Strike only when he's not full attacking.
(besides, all the cool magi are into cold damage and triplocking these days).
I was also looking at the rest of the vital strike family. 40d6(greater vital strike) becomes a good investment. Of course I might want to check to see when that comes online, since it I forgot what greater vital strike's requirements were.
Where I see Vital Strike being used the most, isn't even in damaging spells, it's in healing spells.
If Touch attacks could be used with Vital Strike, you might see a Cleric taking Vital Strike to really ramp up his healing spells.
A Cure Light Wounds could be used with Vital Strike or Improved Vital Strike for 2d8/3d8+CL in HP healed, or as damage against undead. Take a Cure Serious and Vital Strike it and you've got an 8d8+7 healing spell.
Vital Strike would make it actually possible for Clerics to heal in combat. To be fair, a Cleric doesn't qualify for Vital Strike until 8th level, and the earliest he could take it is 9th level. At this point, he could be healing for an average of 45 HP per Cure Critical. He could cast it from a wand for an average of 43 HP healed (CL 7 wand) every round, which would more easily help martials stay in the fight.
The reverse side is Evil Clerics could take Vital Strike and mix in Inflict spells to surprise players with unexpected damage.
A cure touch spell is not an attack, nor a weapon when used for healing so vital strike would not apply.
Look, nobody is arguing that a touch spell as a rider on an unarmed strike/natural attack/armed spellstrike should gain the vital strike bonus. Could we please stop beating that particular dead horse already?
The argument is about attacking directly with a held touch spell. Some people are arguing that it's a rider on an unarmed touch attack. That argument is not really supported by the rules.
IF it was a rider on an unarmed touch attack, you would be making an unarmed attack, thus provoking an AOO. You don't.
IF it was a rider, it wouldn't need a threat range and a crit multiplier - but it has those things.
The combat rules spell out that you're considered to be armed while holding a charge, and that attacking with it is an armed attack. In a question about rays, they are specifically stated to be compatible with feats for ranged weapons, and nothing in the rules for rays and touch spells indicates that the same ruling wouldn't also apply to touch spells.I think this question is going to have to go to FAQ.
Personally I think it is pretty cut and dry that Vital Strike won't work with the typical touch attack spell. If it did we could argue that things like Power Attack (and lots of feats that have PA as a prereq) can also be used with touch attack spells to increase their damage or add other rider effects on them.
Can I Death or Glory my shocking grasp?
Can I TWF my held charge touch attacks and Double Slice my off-hand touch to add STR bonus to my spell damage?
How about Two Weapon Rend if I have chill touch charges active for both hits?
Can I Arcane Strike my touch attack spells?Being considered armed while holding a charge is there to indicate you do not provoke AoO's while holding a charge and making touch attacks. It does not mean touch attack spells are weapons unto themselves.
The fact that rays are specifically called out as being compatible with range weapon feats and touch attack spells are NOT called out as such is an...
Precise shot(+1 to attack and damage) applies to weapon-like spells, and power attack does not work with touch attacks so that is why that wont work. If other feats work with weapon like spells then so should vital strike. I am not saying it should as it is a good idea. I am only speaking from a rules context.
touch attack spells are NOT called out as such is an indicator that touch attack spells are indeed not melee weapons and do not benefit from feats that specifically effect melee weapons.
Touch attacks are not weapons in and of themselves, but methods of delivery. As an example if a spell such as Flame blades uses a touch attack then it should be affected by vital strike, since it is a weapon like spell, but if a spell just says you have to touch them, then that may not work since vital strike calls out base weapon damage.
Darksol:how is "weapon" defined in thegame and where can i find this definitiob?Weapon Rules section below all of the tables should help clarify things.
@ blahpers: It doesn't enhance the spell damage, because the weapon being used to deliver the spell is a limb that has no set damage dice (and if we were to set it, Touch Attacks without spells deal 0D0 Damage, therefore Vital Strike Multiplier X 0 equals 0, meaning no damage, ergo no effect from Vital Strike). For example, a hand, a leg, or whatever suits your fancy, work as limbs for discharging the touch spell.
Even so, damage caused by the spell is not considered Weapon Damage Dice because the Spell is not the Weapon. In addition, it's Spell Damage Dice, and since Vital Strike enhances Weapon Damage Dice, not Spell Damage Dice...Vital Strike wouldn't affect it.
Yes, that's pretty much what I said when I was agreeing with you up there.
Precise shot(+1 to attack and damage) applies to weapon-like spells, and power attack does not work with touch attacks so that is why that wont work. If other feats work with weapon like spells then so should vital strike. I am not saying it should as it is a good idea. I am only speaking from a rules context.
I believe we are in complete agreement for how it actually works (both VS and PA). However, if one were to go down the road of saying VS can be used with the typical touch attack spell (flame blade is an exception as it is certainly weapon like), then we can take that same road for PA.
E.g, the requirements to trigger PA are:
Take a penalty on melee attack rolls (which a melee touch attack is), to gain a bonus on melee damage rolls (again a melee touch attack damaging spell does melee damage - and is also likely to be typed as some form of energy damage). So under a certain viewpoint/interpretation one might claim touch attack spells work with PA. It is this same viewpoint/interpretation that says VS could be used with those same spells.
Been long enough, I think I'll give this a bump.