| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone,
I'm currently building a magus for PFS with my newly gained GM credit.
I've got a question as to the utility of Frostbite, especially if it's useful to take Wayang Spellhunter to be able to use the Rimed Frostbite + Enforcer combo.
My magus will be a dex based elf, which means that he doesn't have much rooms for feats. I may take Rime Spell at 5th level (1st and 3rd level feats are weapon finesse and Dervish dance) but what I'm really wondering about is the usefulness of Frostbite, specifically, does it work with Enforcer?
If it does, what happens when I use it? l
Let's say I'm level 7, with two attacks from Haste. The round during which I cast frostbite I get 3 attacks with spellcombat/spellstrike. Then the two following rounds I get two additional frostbite attacks. If any of my attacks hit, the target will be Entangled + fatigued + shaken on a successful Intimidate check. If any of my attacks crit, my target will be frightened and will be dealt double damage from frostbite. Is that all correct?
That seems quite the powerful combo, and I'm not sure i'm understanding it well.
Thanks in advance for your insight !
Just to clarify, enforced Forstbite = Forstbite using the Enforcer feat
I will link you the relevant FAQ:
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
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. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11
If a ranged touch attack spell is a "weapon" for the purpose of feats I think it's difficult to argue that melee touch attacks are not.
I can take the Weapon Focus (Scimtar) feat however, with which I'm delivering the touch spell. So I don't really know what your point is there. My weapon attacks deals non lethal damage when it hits, which is why I think I qualify for the Enforcer feat.
|
If the weapon itself does nonlethal damage [Blade of Mercy trait is great], then yes. I say that if you are using spellstrike with it, then yes because the weapon is doing nonlethal and lethal damage. It is a very powerful debuff. I'd take the Blade of Mercy trait via additional traits or just with one of your normal ones, so that you don't get GM's who disagree with me [as my assumption of how this works doesn't have any RAW backup].
|
Wait a second...
Melee touch attacks can be considered weapons. Has weapon been defined in the rules? Nope, and the point with rays is that even spells can count as weapons.
Unarmed Strikes can also be considered weapons. I can take Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike (wouldn't this also apply to touch attack rolls? Perhaps they didn't include touch attack as a weapon focus type because it was already covered by unarmed strikes).
This is further proven by the fact that melee touch attacks are specifically pointed out under the section for Unarmed Strikes. The subsection is labeled "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks", leading me to believe that even touch attacks fall under the category of unarmed strikes, so weapon focus: unarmed strikes applies to touch attacks.
The section describing touch spells specifically say that delivering the touch attack is considered "Armed", referencing the unarmed strikes section. It is referenced again when delivering a touch attack through an unarmed strike, but this time it says you aren't armed, pointing again to the idea that melee touch attacks are covered by weapon focus: unarmed strikes.
Weapon Finesse would affect melee touch attacks as well.
Looking at the definition of touch attack, nothing says that it isn't weapon. The contrary is true, especially in the case of incorporeal touch attacks with weapons.
Finally, there is nothing that says melee touch attacks are not weapons, but there are many places in the rule book that points toward the idea that melee touch attacks are weapons.
|
|
I'm not sure that pathfinder distinguishes between "vehicle" and "rider" the way that your using it. Do you have any examples of that? Tis an honest question.
If you say that a melee touch attack is just a vehicle for a spell's effects, wouldn't a regular attack be considered just a vehicle for any other weapon's effects?
I think this might be a good place to set up another thread...
@Faskill considering adding the meta magic feat Daze to the mixture, it'd really good in conjunction with frostbite because you'll have multiple attempts to land it.
My advice, despite not having been asked? OK it with your GM ahead of time, or, if you are playing PFS, keep enough money to upgrade another +1 to your weapon to get that merciful on it to ensure legality.
|
|
As I said above, a melee touch attack is, mechanically speaking, an Unarmed Strike that doesn't threaten and does zero weapon damage. The spell effect is carried as a rider and delivered via the touch, but it is not the weapon used.
...
Now, if there were, hypothetically speaking, a Ray that dealt non-lethal damage, it would qualify for Enforcer because Rays count as weapons and your weapon is doing non-lethal damage
2 things here.
Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
This rule leads me to believe that touch spells are indeed weapons and are valid for weapon focus, as they are clearly spelled out to threaten like Unarmed Strikes [which are considered weapons], and Natural Weapons [which are considered weapons], so I would say they are valid subjects of enforcer if they do nonlethal damage.
2:Ray spells are never subject to enforcer, as they are ranged attacks, not melee.
Of course, Your Mileage May Very.
|
|
More points to bring up:
Even if the spell was a rider effect on a melee touch attack, the wording of frostbite literally changes what your melee touch attack does.
Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage + 1 point per level
If your melee touch is considered a weapon, even if the spell itself wasn't, well the spell is augmenting your melee touch attack, therefore your weapon is dealing the non-lethal damage. Furthermore, since spell strike replaces a melee touch attack with a weapon swing, the spell frostbite is now augmenting the weapon itself (when used with the weapon). I believe this same wording is used on most, if not all, melee touch attack spells.
EDIT: How can you be "armed" without having a weapon?
You can be "armed" without having a weapon by (list is by no means exhaustive):
-Improved Unarmed Strike
-Wielding a shield
-Wielding Armor Spikes
-Wielding a "Touch" spell
It should, especially in the context of this thread, be considered that sometimes "not having a weapon" does not mean that you are not doing "weapon damage" when using any of the above methods.
|
|
With Improved Unarmed Strikes, your fists (and even your entire body) become weapons (This is very true for some martial artists, my friend cannot attack another man with his hands for fear of being charge as if he had attacked with a weapon, due to his training. Not from the United States though, not sure if the US has any kind of law like that)
Shields can be enchanted as a weapon (which means pathfinder recognizes shields as probable weapons), and often used as weapons in medieval times (just like a sword was sometimes used as a defensive item).
Armor Spikes are clearly weapons, they creation, intent, and use signify that. Also, again with shields, they can be enchanted like a weapon (showing that pathfinder recognizes them as weapons)
Touch spells are the only one that can't be directly called out as a weapon, but due to inference can be considered a weapon.
Though I was mostly referencing the definition of the word "armed", which almost always infers weapons :)
Indeed, Frodo. Largely, not being "armed" is no barrier for a wise adventurer who simply needs to be "armed;" a spiked gauntlet lets the STR 5 sorcerer count as a flank-buddy. I was really only answering your (EDIT) portion of your post.
To include spells with a range of "touch" as weapons is... acceptable. Rules as Spelled Out (RSO) don't particularly regard this, but the rules do indicate that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Without spelling out, this lumps touch-attack spells with weapons and attacks that, via spells, feats, or class-features, allow them to be counted as weapons.
My stance is that, if you apply a non-lethal effect with a lethal weapon, that you have inflicted non-lethal damage with a weapon. I'm happy to see genuine evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and my PFS magus has enough money saved up to buy Merciful if need be.
|
|
I understand that you were talking about the edit, I hope I didn't come across too argumentative, I didn't proof read myself and I wanted to sound... chirpy?
There is some clarification that could help out quite a bit here. The key points are:
Are melee touch attack spells considered weapons? If yes, then you can use frostbite (honestly, this one is a toss up). If no, move to question number two:
Since melee touch attack spells don't actually deal damage in and of themselves, but rather augment your weapon (typically your hand, but in this case the weapon your using spell strike with) with the ability to apply that damage (and/or effects), is your weapon considered to be the object delivering that damage (and/or effects). If no, then you cannot use spell strike and frostbite to use enforcer.
I feel that number 1's argument is a little shaky coming from a RAW (Rules as Written) prospective, but 2' argument is sound. Your weapon normally delivers damage, and after using spell strike and a touch attack spell, it now delivers damage and the effects of that spell (Not the spell itself).
To avoid table variation though, it is safe to have a merciful weapon around.
(Coming from a RAI perspective though, I cannot see how a guy hit with a merciful sword is any less afraid than if he got hit with a sword that had extra damage and effects added to it.)
EDIT: Mostly posting this for those people that will use search fu in the future.
I understand that you were talking about the edit, I hope I didn't come across too argumentative, I didn't proof read myself and I wanted to sound... chirpy?
There is some clarification that could help out quite a bit here. The key points are:
Are melee touch attack spells considered weapons? If yes, then you can use frostbite (honestly, this one is a toss up). If no, move to question number two:
Since melee touch attack spells don't actually deal damage in and of themselves, but rather augment your weapon (typically your hand, but in this case the weapon your using spell strike with) with the ability to apply that damage (and/or effects), is your weapon considered to be the object delivering that damage (and/or effects). If no, then you cannot use spell strike and frostbite to use enforcer.
I feel that number 1's argument is a little shaky coming from a RAW (Rules as Written) prospective, but 2' argument is sound. Your weapon normally delivers damage, and after using spell strike and a touch attack spell, it now delivers damage and the effects of that spell (Not the spell itself).
To avoid table variation though, it is safe to have a merciful weapon around.
(Coming from a RAI perspective though, I cannot see how a guy hit with a merciful sword is any less afraid than if he got hit with a sword that had extra damage and effects added to it.)
EDIT: Mostly posting this for those people that will use search fu in the future.
Frodo, I think that you and I are in the same boat. Neither of us want to commit fully to either way of thinking because there is merit (perceptibly) in both sides. I align myself with the more liberal side (kind of my default) and am reaping the benefits.
Truth is, until there is a FAQ or erratum, many messageboarders won't care what the "consensus" is.
|
|
I understand, once again, posted it for those players and GMs that want to get more information. I find it helpful to have the arguments summed up at some point in the thread, makes it easy to read and make a ruling on it for my players. With the rate that FAQ's have been going, I doubt that we'll get a FAQ on this ever...
The only reason I believe that we might actually see an FAQ or erratum is because of the Hexcrafter guide that spells out Enforcer as a "must have" for a certain, Frostbite inspired build.
I like the build but have met some flak with my local (friendly!) GMs about it's legality.
The one that was recently added to Broken Zenith's guides? I've read it and it's good. I especially like that it addresses legality of Enforcer in a...conservative manner.
I'm a little drunk, Frodo. I remember an address to its legality. Like I said; I'm drunk.
EDIT: I did read it, though, and I liked it. You caught all the little tidbits that I caught and a few more. Drunk, though... so much...
Thanks a lot for your insightful conversation ;)
I think I will post a thread to be FAQ'ed, explaining both sides of the argument
|
|
Kazaan, I can see where your coming from with rider effects now. Though I don't believe that melee touch attack spells are rider effects.
Weapon enchantments add an additional effect to the weapon. The wording used is "deals an extra 1d6". That suggests that weapon enchantments are rider effects, as you mentioned.
Melee touch attack spells literally change what a melee touch does. They use the wording "Your melee attack does this". Instead of a melee touch doing nothing, a melee touch does 1d6 + cl nonlethal damage. The spell is no longer the object doing that damage, it is your melee touch attack. This suggests that these spells are not rider effects.
I wouldn't say touch spells have an exception that can critically hit on a natural 20. They act like weapons in many other ways too. Criticals are a bad example in this case then, because as you mentioned, touch attacks can critically hit.
Would you say that if a monster with damage reduction 5- were hit with 6 points of nonlethal damage from merciful weapon, that the player would not be allowed an intimidate check, simply because that 1 damage that made it past the DR came from the merciful enchantment, and was not the actual weapon dealing the damage? I think that's extreme, and outside the intent of the enforcer feat. But since the damage from merciful is a rider effect, thats how you would play that out?
I think the answer is yes, it works. I see no reason it shouldent work not in RAW and not in RAI. Yes it is a powerfull combo but you will invest several feats in it so it should be.
Not all weapon enchants are rider effects. But those that add extra dice definitely are. For example, would you say that Vital Strike will boost the damage of your melee touch attack? You touch someone as an attack action and, if the 1d6 nl damage from Frostbite is your effective weapon damage, that means that you could use Vital Strike to double the damage.
Merciful isn't nullifying your weapon dice and replacing it with non-lethal dice equal to the default weapon dice. If you had a hypothetical enchantment that converted Piercing damage into Bludgeoning damage, it isn't nullifying the Piercing damage and adding Bludgeoning as a rider; it's actually changing the damage type of the weapon. Same goes for Merciful. But if you add Fire, Cold, Electric, etc. on top of your normal damage dice, it's a rider. Nothing really indicates that delivering a melee touch attack converts your base damage because, if that were the case, you'd use the damage dice of your Unarmed Strike. If you have a 1d8 Merciful weapon, it takes the normal 1d8 damage of the weapon and converts it from lethal to non-lethal. But if you have a 1d3 Unarmed Strike and make an "armed" unarmed attack to Touch and deliver a 1d6 Frostbite, it doesn't make sense to say that the 1d3 Unarmed Strike was "converted" into 1d6 nonlethal cold damage because the dice are different. It's more reasonable to say that the 1d3 damage is nullified and the 1d6 nonlethal cold damage is applied as extra damage dice.
touch attacks have nothing to do with unarmed strikes. Where did you find that?
|
|
I think we had some miscommunication there.
I wasn't saying that the change from non-lethal to lethal damage was a rider effect. I was mentioning that the extra 1d6 damage IS a rider effect in the terms you placed it (Like, as you said, the flaming weapon property was a rider effect). In your own words, "Not all weapon enchants are rider effects. But those that add extra dice definitely are." Merciful adds 1d6 damage to the attacks.
If I had a merciful wakishasi, I would be dealing 2d6 per attack non-lethal damage. Assuming I had the enforcer feat, and I was fighting a monster with DR 5/-, would I get a free action intimidate check if I rolled a 5 (base weapon damage die) and a 1 (merciful extra damage die)? With your logic, that additional damage dice are rider effects, the answer would be no, but that doesn't make any sense.
Secondly, a melee touch attack normally doesn't do any damage to begin with, but as per the wording of melee touch attack spells, your melee touch attack is transformed into doing damage. Otherwise, they wouldn't say "Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 + CL nonlethal damage". Whatever your melee touch attack did do, it now does that instead.
And to be clear, unarmed Strikes are separate from melee touch attacks. Unarmed Strikes deal damage normally and they target AC. Melee Touch Attacks normally deal no damage but target touch AC.
Why don't we keep this discussion on the FAQ request?
touch attacks have nothing to do with unarmed strikes. Where did you find that?Combat section under the Attack action:
"Sometimes, a creature's unarmed attack counts as an "armed" unarmed attack, and goes on to list...Unarmed Attacks:
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell,...
...
Can you see that you added an extra unarmed in your paraphrase of the quote?
The quote tell us that somtimes you can be armed, without holding a weapon, not that you must look at the rules for unarmed attacks when delivering touch attacks.
|
|
Kazaan, I believe you would be incorrect to say that if the base weapon damage rolled 5 damage against a DR 5/- creature, that a fiery enchantment's extra 1d6 damage would go through but not a merciful enchantment's extra 1d6 damage.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, [/b]such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease.[/b] Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Two things suggest my interpretation. First, it's not the weapon's damage that has to make it past DR, but an attacks damage. Second, the special effects it uses as examples are nothing like just adding 1d6 damage. In fact, every special effect it lists involves at least one save.
I agree offensive touch spells and ranged-touch spells are weapons, but they are spell weapons. I wouldn't consider a touch spell in the "melee weapon" class at all, despite being melee and a weapon.
Is Kazaan suggest that a rogue's sneak attack would not trigger against monsters with DR? That's nonsense.
everyone here is arguing that the touch attack used for delivering the spell doesn't count as a melee weapon....have we forgotten that we substituted that touch attack for a melee weapon attack? the non-lethal damage IS COMING FROM a melee weapon....sharp pointy end and everything....the issue is weather or not the spell effect is independent of the weapon as far as damage is concerned. i say its not, just like the 1D6 from flaming is still melee damage with the fire descriptor. its not independent of the weapon. the fire cant hurt anything unless the weapon attacks a foe (weather you bypass DR or not). the spell bestows the effect on the weapon (via spellstrike) just the same as flaming weapon effect bestows its effect on it. the difference is that its not permanent.
if a ray can count as a weapon (applied as a ranged touch attack), then how would a touch spell NOT count as a weapon? and how would delivering it via a melee weapon NOT change it into a melee weapon effect? especially since the entire premise behind spellstrike is that your replacing the touch attack associated with a touch spell with a weapon attack...your not attaching the spell to the weapon, your modifying the spell!
|
|
So we're both partially wrong Kazaan, but I wasn't arguing that point. I was arguing that the +1d6 damage from merciful doesn't go away when the damage besides the +1d6 doesn't penetrate DR. The same type of thing happens with Sneak Attacks, Does a rogue not get SA when his attack not including SA fails to penetrate DR?
Rather, the proper method would be to add all physical damage, and see if that passes DR. So if you had physical damage from Merciful, it would be added to the damage BEFORE DR, along with strength and weapon damage dice. Though it would not be included in critical hits. This works very much like SA damage.