Calth wrote: James Risner wrote: Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray? Yep. Somehow a FAQ saying rays are weapons means rays arent weapons. Dude, there's no need to lie what people are saying.
Various types of spells act as weapons for various feats and abilities.
That doesn't mean that spells are identical to weapons, or casting a spell is the same thing as attacking with a weapon.
The rules say otherwise, and you haven't posted one shred of evidence to suggest that they are.
James Risner wrote: Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray? No, more like you can't do Weapon Focus inflict moderate wounds.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: James Risner wrote: Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray? Yep. Somehow a FAQ saying rays are weapons means rays arent weapons. That usually comes from the "RAWR" crowd who like to discuss every word and use their own interpretations and reject FAQ entries that differ from their "interpretation" right?
James Risner wrote: Calth wrote: James Risner wrote: Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray? Yep. Somehow a FAQ saying rays are weapons means rays arent weapons. That usually comes from the "RAWR" crowd who like to discuss every word and use their own interpretations and reject FAQ entries that differ from their "interpretation" right? Ah, so then you would allow weapon focus (inflict light wounds)?
_Ozy_ wrote: James Risner wrote: Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray? No, more like you can't do Weapon Focus inflict moderate wounds. I would absolutely allow Weapon Focus(melee touch).
And then, of course, weapon specialization (melee touch) so that all of your touch spells do +2 damage?
And then, of course, you start using power attack with your inflict light wounds...
Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs?
_Ozy_ wrote: Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs? The same way a fighter gets weapon specialization for his greatsword: select the feat.
Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs? The same way a fighter gets weapon specialization for his greatsword: select the feat. Uh, no, I was specifically asking what weapon focus prerequisite must one take to qualify for weapon specialization fireball.
It's not a ray. Do you take:
Weapon Focus (ranged spells)
Weapon Specialization (ranged spells)
and now you get +2 damage on fireball, lightning bolt, burning hands, scorching ray, etc...
Wow, my sorcerer has really been missing out, I'm gonna have to dip a few levels into fighter now. At least my Magus will be sitting pretty once his equivalent fighter levels kick in.
James Risner wrote: Calth wrote: James Risner wrote: Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray? Yep. Somehow a FAQ saying rays are weapons means rays arent weapons. That usually comes from the "RAWR" crowd who like to discuss every word and use their own interpretations and reject FAQ entries that differ from their "interpretation" right? Given how the conversation is playing out, are your really sure you're backing the correct side here? Can you offer your opinion on the validity of weapon specialization (fireball)?
Calth wrote: Yep Nope. Power Attack does not give a damage bonus to touch attacks. Penalty still applies, though.
_Ozy_ wrote: Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs? You can't. The Weapon Focus(some category of spell) pattern only functions for spells requiring attack rolls, of which there are three kinds: Melee Touch, Ranged Touch, and Acts-as-another-weapon. The last category requires weapon focus for that kind of weapon rather than for a spell. (So Flame Blade, for example, would be boosted by Weapon Focus (Scimitar)).
If you mean Weapon Spec. (chill touch), then you take it like you would any other instance of that feat, but you apply it to "melee touch", not chill touch specifically.
Rays are called out specifically, but there are damage dealing ranged touch attacks that are not rays.
Why would RAW say that you could take weapon focus (ray) if taking weapon focus (ranged touch) covered rays and a whole lot more?
StabbittyDoom wrote: Calth wrote: Yep Nope. Power Attack does not give a damage bonus to touch attacks. Penalty still applies, though.
_Ozy_ wrote: Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs? You can't. The Weapon Focus(some category of spell) pattern only functions for spells requiring attack rolls, of which there are three kinds: Melee Touch, Ranged Touch, and Acts-as-another-weapon. The last category requires weapon focus for that kind of weapon rather than for a spell. (So Flame Blade, for example, would be boosted by Weapon Focus (Scimitar)).
If you mean Weapon Spec. (chill touch), then you take it like you would any other instance of that feat, but you apply it to "melee touch", not chill touch specifically. Is it in your opinion the touch attack or the Spell casting that is the weapon like thing?
StabbittyDoom wrote: Calth wrote: Yep Nope. Power Attack does not give a damage bonus to touch attacks. Penalty still applies, though.
_Ozy_ wrote: Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs? You can't. The Weapon Focus(some category of spell) pattern only functions for spells requiring attack rolls, of which there are three kinds: Melee Touch, Ranged Touch, and Acts-as-another-weapon. The last category requires weapon focus for that kind of weapon rather than for a spell. (So Flame Blade, for example, would be boosted by Weapon Focus (Scimitar)).
If you mean Weapon Spec. (chill touch), then you take it like you would any other instance of that feat, but you apply it to "melee touch", not chill touch specifically. He edited in power attack after I replied. I was responding to weapon specialization, which you can get, as you agree.
_Ozy_ wrote: And then, of course, weapon specialization (melee touch) so that all of your touch spells do +2 damage?
And then, of course, you start using power attack with your inflict light wounds...
To be fair, 3.5 called out Rays and Melee Touch both as weapon-like spells. I believe that was carried to Pathfinder for both, though I'd have to cross-check as I only know of rules for rays.
But this is my response to Calth: Prove that Haste is a weapon.
Not "all spells", not "some spells", prove to me, with rules quotes from Pathfinder, that Haste is a weapon.
kestral287 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: And then, of course, weapon specialization (melee touch) so that all of your touch spells do +2 damage?
And then, of course, you start using power attack with your inflict light wounds...
To be fair, 3.5 called out Rays and Melee Touch both as weapon-like spells. I believe that was carried to Pathfinder for both, though I'd have to cross-check as I only know of rules for rays.
But this is my response to Calth: Prove that Haste is a weapon.
Not "all spells", not "some spells", prove to me, with rules quotes from Pathfinder, that Haste is a weapon. I have never claimed that haste is a weapon. Touch spells are weapons. I do claim that Spell Combat treats the spell cast as an off-hand weapon attack, as it says it does.
kestral287 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: And then, of course, weapon specialization (melee touch) so that all of your touch spells do +2 damage?
And then, of course, you start using power attack with your inflict light wounds...
To be fair, 3.5 called out Rays and Melee Touch both as weapon-like spells. I believe that was carried to Pathfinder for both, though I'd have to cross-check as I only know of rules for rays.
But this is my response to Calth: Prove that Haste is a weapon.
Not "all spells", not "some spells", prove to me, with rules quotes from Pathfinder, that Haste is a weapon. I've never seen a rule for treating 'melee touch' as suitable for weapon focus, specialization, or other weapon feats. Personally, I think this would cover far too broad a category, much like weapon focus (two handed weapons) would be too broad.
Furthermore, there is a distinction between 'attacking' with a melee touch or ray attack, and casting the spell which gives you the ranged or melee attack.
Casting the spell is not, in any way, equivalent to a weapon attack.
Calth wrote: I have never claimed that haste is a weapon. Touch spells are weapons. I do claim that Spell Combat treats the spell cast as an off-hand weapon attack, as it says it does. Ah. So this is more interesting.
In this case, your early contentions regarding Rays being weapons is ultimately meaningless, isn't it? Your claim, based on what you just said, has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. I can use a spell that you feel is definitively a weapon or a spell that you feel is definitively not a weapon and both are handled identically under your view of the rules. Thus the whole bit about weapon-like spells was a useless side venture.
In that case, I would ask that you present your case without the extraneous rules you fell back on earlier.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: I have never claimed that haste is a weapon. Touch spells are weapons. I do claim that Spell Combat treats the spell cast as an off-hand weapon attack, as it says it does. Ah. So this is more interesting.
In this case, your early contentions regarding Rays being weapons is ultimately meaningless, isn't it? Your claim, based on what you just said, has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. I can use a spell that you feel is definitively a weapon or a spell that you feel is definitively not a weapon and both are handled identically under your view of the rules. Thus the whole bit about weapon-like spells was a useless side venture.
In that case, I would ask that you present your case without the extraneous rules you fell back on earlier. This is in regards to Spellstrike, not Spell Combat. Spell Combat calls out the spell as an off-hand attack, so I say Precise Strike does not apply.
With regards to Spellstrike, which requires a touch spell, I say you cannot utilize Precise Strike with the free attack granted by casting a touch spell with somatic components as you are using the casting hand as part of a weapon attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: I have never claimed that haste is a weapon. Touch spells are weapons. I do claim that Spell Combat treats the spell cast as an off-hand weapon attack, as it says it does. Ah. So this is more interesting.
In this case, your early contentions regarding Rays being weapons is ultimately meaningless, isn't it? Your claim, based on what you just said, has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. I can use a spell that you feel is definitively a weapon or a spell that you feel is definitively not a weapon and both are handled identically under your view of the rules. Thus the whole bit about weapon-like spells was a useless side venture.
In that case, I would ask that you present your case without the extraneous rules you fell back on earlier. This is in regards to Spellstrike, not Spell Combat. Spell Combat calls out the spell as an off-hand attack, so I say Precise Strike does not apply.
With regards to Spellstrike, which requires a touch spell, I say you cannot utilize Precise Strike with the free attack granted by casting a touch spell with somatic components as you are using the casting hand as part of a weapon attack. ... Can you please point me to where Spellstrike has a "casting hand"?
'Cause by RAW, you can cast a Shocking Grasp, go for ninety days without touching anything but your weapon, then stab somebody as a standard action to Spellstrike.
That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Spell combat does not call it out as an 'off-hand' attack, you make no attack roll with it. You are not attacking by casting a spell, and you certainly aren't 'attacking with a weapon' therefore Precise strike works just fine.
Do you honestly believe that Dancing Dervish (which has an even stricter restriction for the off hand) also doesn't work with spell combat? Even though this is standard PFS play?
Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. The one you are also delivering with the other hand?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hmm,
Two weapon fighting feat:
Quote: Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting. Can a magus take this feat and get rid of his spell combat penalties?
Afterall, spell combat functions like two-weapon fighting, no?
LoneKnave wrote: Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. The one you are also delivering with the other hand? The one that requires two hands to be used in a single action, yes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The spell cast is not the weapon-like part, the touch itself is. If you cast a melee touch spell you could, for example, give that touch to your familiar. Now you've cast a melee touch spell without making any attacks. On the flip side, your familiar can now make a melee touch attack without having cast a spell.
Weapon Focus (Melee Touch) isn't even technically about spells, it's for all melee touch. It just happens to be that spells are the prime source of such a thing.
Precise Strike only requires that you do not attack with a weapon in your other hand, not that you cannot hold one. As such spell combat's rule about the off-hand cast being treated as a weapon is irrelevant unless you attack with it. Using Spell-Strike transforms the attack into a weapon attack with the primary weapon, which also is not attacking with a weapon in the other hand and thus allows Precise Strike. Bizarrely, you could deny yourself Precise Strike by casting a fireball with Spell Combat as that is an "attack", and spell combat treats that casting as a "weapon", so now you've attacked with a weapon in your other hand even though that spell is not normally treated as a weapon at all!
It's worth pointing out that technically Precise Strike never references the term "off-hand" and instead uses "other hand", so discussions of TWFing become irrelevant as well. In fact, as worded, someone with Precise Strike could not even take their high BAB attack at +6 with their right hand then the lower one with their left hand at +1. At least not without losing the damage bonus.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So that's a yes?
You are mixing it up with spell combat. Spellstrike does not require you to have an empty hand. You could cast a spell, and then strike with it with a two handed weapon in the same action even. It does not use both hands, unless you want it to.
Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. So, which of these things do you take objection to Precise Strike applying to:
Standard action cast spell, move action move 25', free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Spell Combat, full attack, cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, next round standard action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Some? All? None?
I'm trying to pin down your actual argument because to be honest, you're exceptionally bad at making a clear, decisive statement about what you're actually talking about.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. So, which of these things do you take objection to Precise Strike applying to:
Standard action cast spell, move action move 25', free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Spell Combat, full attack, cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, next round standard action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Some? All? None?
I'm trying to pin down your actual argument because to be honest, you're exceptionally bad at making a clear, decisive statement about what you're actually talking about. The first 3. Any time you are using the attack granted by casting the spell (which requires the use of your off-hand).
Okay, so how do you explain that you can use a two handed weapon to spell strike in the same action if it requires your off hand?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. So, which of these things do you take objection to Precise Strike applying to:
Standard action cast spell, move action move 25', free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Spell Combat, full attack, cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, next round standard action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Some? All? None?
I'm trying to pin down your actual argument because to be honest, you're exceptionally bad at making a clear, decisive statement about what you're actually talking about. The first 3. Any time you are using the attack granted by casting the spell (which requires the use of your off-hand). I see. So then, would it be logical to say that if it can be done with no use of the off-hand at all, you believe it's acceptable to use with Precise Strike?
EDIT: To put it another way, would it be fair to say that you would accept anything that a one-handed Magus can do?
Because they are both 2-handed actions? All I am arguing is that you can't claim to not be using your other hand as part of the attack when you use that hand to generate the attack.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. So, which of these things do you take objection to Precise Strike applying to:
Standard action cast spell, move action move 25', free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Spell Combat, full attack, cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, next round standard action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Some? All? None?
I'm trying to pin down your actual argument because to be honest, you're exceptionally bad at making a clear, decisive statement about what you're actually talking about. The first 3. Any time you are using the attack granted by casting the spell (which requires the use of your off-hand). I see. So then, would it be logical to say that if it can be done with no use of the off-hand at all, you believe it's acceptable to use with Precise Strike?
EDIT: To put it another way, would it be fair to say that you would accept anything that a one-handed Magus can do? Correct, if it does not involve the use of two "hands" (as weapons may or may not be localized to an actual hand), precise strike applies. If the action requires the use of two-hands simultaneously and an attack is made, precise strike does not apply.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
That doesn't invalidate Precise strike. Using that hand to cast a spell is not using that hand to attack with a weapon. That's why precise strike works with Spell Combat.
Calth wrote: Because they are both 2-handed actions? All I am arguing is that you can't claim to not be using your other hand as part of the attack when you use that hand to generate the attack. I thought the problem is they were the same action? If they are different actions, why would precise strike care?
But okay, how about this:
-You cast a touch spell
-put your rapier into the hand you cast the spell with (free action), or pull one out with quickdraw (free action).
-spellstrike with that hand
Would you allow precise strike then? If not, why not?
Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: That was brought up, which is why I refer to only the free attack granted by casting a spell. So, which of these things do you take objection to Precise Strike applying to:
Standard action cast spell, move action move 25', free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Spell Combat, full attack, cast spell, free action deliver spell with Spellstrike
Standard action cast spell, next round standard action deliver spell with Spellstrike.
Some? All? None?
I'm trying to pin down your actual argument because to be honest, you're exceptionally bad at making a clear, decisive statement about what you're actually talking about. The first 3. Any time you are using the attack granted by casting the spell (which requires the use of your off-hand). I see. So then, would it be logical to say that if it can be done with no use of the off-hand at all, you believe it's acceptable to use with Precise Strike?
EDIT: To put it another way, would it be fair to say that you would accept anything that a one-handed Magus can do? Correct, if it does not involve the use of two "hands" (as weapons may or may not be localized to an actual hand), precise strike applies. If the action requires the use of two-hands simultaneously and an attack is made, precise strike does not apply. I see.
So in the three situations above that you disagree with:
#1: A one-handed Magus may cast a spell with their sole hand, move (and draw a weapon as part of that move, or be wielding a Spiked Gauntlet), and use their free action to deliver the spell with the same hand. The free action is, literally by definition, distinct from the act of casting. I would be very interested in your argument as to how the standard and free action possibly can be simultaneous when they're separated by another action.
#2: A one-handed Magus (wielding a Spiked Gauntlet) may cast a spell with their sole hand and use their free action to deliver the spell. Again, the two actions are not simultaneous, even though in this case they're not separated by another action.
You can see this particularly well in action with Ray spells, where the action of casting provokes an AoO, and the action of delivery provokes an AoO, keeping in mind that the rules explicitly state that one action can never provoke multiple AoOs from the same creature.
The only one that you're really arguing is #3, Spell Combat. I suggest you seriously consider and rephrase your argument to remove Spellstrike from consideration.
LoneKnave wrote: Calth wrote: Because they are both 2-handed actions? All I am arguing is that you can't claim to not be using your other hand as part of the attack when you use that hand to generate the attack. I thought the problem is they were the same action? If they are different actions, why would precise strike care?
But okay, how about this:
-You cast a touch spell
-put your rapier into the hand you cast the spell with (free action), or pull one out with quickdraw (free action).
-spellstrike with that hand
Would you allow precise strike then? If not, why not? Hadnt thought about that, and yes, RAW, that would work. I still think its against the RAI of precise strike, but that wont be clarified until the ACG errata comes out.
_Ozy_ wrote: Rays are called out specifically, but there are damage dealing ranged touch attacks that are not rays. I'm pretty sure Ray covers all ranged touch effects.
But let's move this slightly. What are we debating?
We know that Point Blank Shot works on rays and on ranged touch effects (from spells, Supernatural abilities, etc.)
So are you saying PBS works on a ranged touch but you can't gain Weapon Focus on ranged touch?
Or are you saying neither works?
James Risner wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Rays are called out specifically, but there are damage dealing ranged touch attacks that are not rays. I'm pretty sure Ray covers all ranged touch effects.
But let's move this slightly. What are we debating?
We know that Point Blank Shot works on rays and on ranged touch effects (from spells, Supernatural abilities, etc.)
So are you saying PBS works on a ranged touch but you can't gain Weapon Focus on ranged touch?
Or are you saying neither works? By RAW Rays and Ranged Touch are distinct. There are abilities that work with Rays and not Ranged Touches. It's a squares and rectangles thing.
I'll let you two debate the specifics since we've clarified, from the original poster of that line of commentary, that it's totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, but I do want to get the actual RAW clear that the two are not interchangeable.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
No, rays explicitly do not cover all ranged touch attacks. An acid splash is not a ray, nor are the ranged touch attacks from splash weapons. Only spells with the designation 'ray' are considered rays. Furthermore, it's my belief that even if all ranged touch attacks were considered suitable for weapon feats, weapon focus (ranged touch attack) seems incredibly and overly broad as that would also cover bombs and other splash weapons.
The initial debate was whether casting a spell was the same as attacking with a weapon. It's my assertion that one can't get weapon focus and specialization for spells like fireball. The person you were supporting upthread says that you can.
_Ozy_ wrote: No, rays explicitly do not cover all ranged touch attacks. An acid splash is not a ray, nor are the ranged touch attacks from splash weapons. Only spells with the designation 'ray' are considered rays. Furthermore, it's my belief that even if all ranged touch attacks were considered suitable for weapon feats, weapon focus (ranged touch attack) seems incredibly and overly broad as that would also cover bombs and other splash weapons.
The initial debate was whether casting a spell was the same as attacking with a weapon. It's my assertion that one can't get weapon focus and specialization for spells like fireball. The person you were supporting upthread says that you can.
I never said that. Ever. I said you can get weapon focus for touch spells, both ranged and melee, which is allowed in 3.5, and is where the ray ruling comes from.
Casting a spell does not automatically count as an attack even if it's one that would grant an attack. You may cast bladed dash without taking the attack from it, or cast a melee touch spell then hold the charge for later, or cast haste. All of these things grant an attack, but they aren't themselves attacks.
What counts for precise strike is how you actually attack, not how you got the opportunity to do so. You can even hold two weapons while using precise strike so long as you only attack with one. This sounds pointless but would actually allow you to utilize Two-Weapon Defense, which is extremely thematically appropriate given the use of the Main Gauche. Two feats for a single +1 to AC is terrible, but legit.
Since spellstrike counts as an attack made with the weapon used to deliver the attack (NOT the hand that cast the spell), and spellcombat does not count casting as an attack (only as a weapon), you could spellcombat + chilltouch -> Spellstrike and still apply precise strike, so long as the spellstrike was delivered via the same weapon as you used/use for the rest of the attacks granted by spell combat.
Wow... We're arguing the difference between weapons and spells again?
UE: Arms and Armor wrote: Weapons: Next, choose your weapon with a plethora of weapon tables and descriptions. Swords and bows, polearms and firearms—they're all here, as well as rules for expanded fighter weapon groups, weapon qualities, and damage for weapons of unusual sizes. While that's fluff, lets consider more of the weapon section:
UE: Weapons wrote: All weapons deal hit point damage... Every weapon has a size category.... Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.... Do all spells deal hit point damage? Do all spells have a size category? Are spells classified on whether they do B, P or S?
I would feel ashamed to have to have a developer come out with an FAQ telling us what is and isn't a weapon simply because people ignore blatant intent.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote: Wow... We're arguing the difference between weapons and spells again?
UE: Arms and Armor wrote: Weapons: Next, choose your weapon with a plethora of weapon tables and descriptions. Swords and bows, polearms and firearms—they're all here, as well as rules for expanded fighter weapon groups, weapon qualities, and damage for weapons of unusual sizes. While that's fluff, lets consider more of the weapon section:
UE: Weapons wrote: All weapons deal hit point damage... Every weapon has a size category.... Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.... Do all spells deal hit point damage? Do all spells have a size category? Are spells classified on whether they do B, P or S?
I would feel ashamed to have to have a developer come out with an FAQ telling us what is and isn't a weapon simply because people ignore blatant intent.
The only developer intent there is supports that touch spells are weapons, so, I, for one, am not worried.
Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: No, rays explicitly do not cover all ranged touch attacks. An acid splash is not a ray, nor are the ranged touch attacks from splash weapons. Only spells with the designation 'ray' are considered rays. Furthermore, it's my belief that even if all ranged touch attacks were considered suitable for weapon feats, weapon focus (ranged touch attack) seems incredibly and overly broad as that would also cover bombs and other splash weapons.
The initial debate was whether casting a spell was the same as attacking with a weapon. It's my assertion that one can't get weapon focus and specialization for spells like fireball. The person you were supporting upthread says that you can.
I never said that. Ever. I said you can get weapon focus for touch spells, both ranged and melee, which is allowed in 3.5, and is where the ray ruling comes from. Uh, yes you said exactly that
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rdhf&page=4?Precise-Strike-Spell-Combat#15 9
Btw, PF is not 3.5. Ihave never seen RAW or FAQ saying you can get weapon focus (melee touch) or (ranged touch). Rays are explicitly included in both the RAW and FAQ as valid for weapon feats.
_Ozy_ wrote: Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: No, rays explicitly do not cover all ranged touch attacks. An acid splash is not a ray, nor are the ranged touch attacks from splash weapons. Only spells with the designation 'ray' are considered rays. Furthermore, it's my belief that even if all ranged touch attacks were considered suitable for weapon feats, weapon focus (ranged touch attack) seems incredibly and overly broad as that would also cover bombs and other splash weapons.
The initial debate was whether casting a spell was the same as attacking with a weapon. It's my assertion that one can't get weapon focus and specialization for spells like fireball. The person you were supporting upthread says that you can.
I never said that. Ever. I said you can get weapon focus for touch spells, both ranged and melee, which is allowed in 3.5, and is where the ray ruling comes from. Uh, yes you said exactly that
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rdhf&page=4?Precise-Strike-Spell-Combat#15 9
Btw, PF is not 3.5. Ihave never seen RAW or FAQ saying you can get weapon focus (melee touch) or (ranged touch). Rays are explicitly included in both the RAW and FAQ as valid for weapon feats. I said you can get weapon focus/specialization with touch spells, you are the one that started mixing categories of spell types.
Dude, this is what you said.
Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Wow, how would one go about getting weapon specialization for their burning hands or fireballs? The same way a fighter gets weapon specialization for his greatsword: select the feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth:
Can we agree that your issue does in fact lies with Spell Combat and not Spellstrike, as demonstrated by your acceptance of the fact that a one-handed Magus can use Spellstrike in a single round?
If so, then which do you believe:
1. Precise Strike states that you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand, so it doesn't work with Spell Combat at all
2. Precise Strike states that you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand, so it doesn't work with Spell Combat and a weapon-like spell
3. Something else
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
