What Is and Isn't Considered A Weapon Like Spell?

[stoolpigeon87]

So we know that affects that boost plain weapon damage like a Bard's Inspire Courage also applies to "Weapon like spells and rays."

With that in mind, what the heck is and isn't a weapon-like spell? Are an Arcanist's attack exploits Weapon Like? Is Fiery Shuriken? Clearly anything that creates a melee weapon and any ray is considered a weapon, but what about Supernatural affects like said Arcanist or a Sound Striker Bard? What about other oddball spells like Snowball?

In a similar vein, what is and isn't a weapon? Is a Magus full attacking with Spell Combat considered armed or attacking with a weapon in his off hand? If so, shouldn't that spell get the same treatment from "x to weapon damage" effects? If it's a weapon sometimes but not always, where's the distinction?

Any insights or answers would be appreciated, thank you in advance.

[Caliban_]

stoolpigeon87 wrote:

So we know that affects that boost plain weapon damage like a Bard's Inspire Courage also applies to "Weapon like spells and rays."

With that in mind, what the heck is and isn't a weapon-like spell? Are an Arcanist's attack exploits Weapon Like? Is Fiery Shuriken? Clearly anything that creates a melee weapon and any ray is considered a weapon, but what about Supernatural affects like said Arcanist or a Sound Striker Bard? What about other oddball spells like Snowball?

In a similar vein, what is and isn't a weapon? Is a Magus full attacking with Spell Combat considered armed or attacking with a weapon in his off hand? If so, shouldn't that spell get the same treatment from "x to weapon damage" effects? If it's a weapon sometimes but not always, where's the distinction?

Any insights or answers would be appreciated, thank you in advance.

I'd kinda like to know myself. Personally, I think requiring an attack roll and doing damage should be enough, but I'm probably in the minority.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

FAQ and Dotted.

[Calth]

Ive gone by the interpretation that if a spell can crit, its a weapon-like spell. So yeah, spells that have attack and damage rolls. And yes, Ive had long arguments on these boards that the spell cast through spell combat should be considered attacking with a weapon.

[stoolpigeon87]

Requiring an attack roll to make a spell "weapon like" would be short and concise, and is what I assume is correct.

Also, if it were up to me, Magus would be able to use Precise Strike with Spell Combat if the second "off hand" spell didn't roll to hit. I think that'd be a fair compromise between balance, RAI, and RAW. It doesn't make a bunch of sense for a Magus to be considered "attacking with his off hand" when he is using said off hand to caste Shield on himself or whatever. But I digress.

Also FAQ'd, though I think it'd behoove me to remove the bit about Magii in the first post so it follows the guidelines for FAQing.

EDIT: TIL I learned you can't edit a post after a certain amount of time. Weird.

DOUBLE EDIT: Also, it'd be a good idea for Paizo to jump on this while the Occult Playtest is still in full swing, since one of the most unique classes in said playtest is all about blasting as a sort of "martial" class. Making all the rules regarding stuff like this concise and neatly clarified would remove a lot of rule headaches during the playtest, and would probably lead to better playtest results.

[Akerlof]

Calth wrote:

Ive gone by the interpretation that if a spell can crit, its a weapon-like spell. So yeah, spells that have attack and damage rolls. And yes, Ive had long arguments on these boards that the spell cast through spell combat should be considered attacking with a weapon.

I would also say it needs to do HP damage. Ray of Enfeeblement shouldn't get bonus Str damage from bard song (though it would get a bonus to its _attack roll_ from Inspire Courage, etc.)

But I rule that a weapon-like spell has to actually be "like a weapon," So Mage's Sword or Flame Blade = Yes; Shocking Grasp, Inflict Light Wounds = No. Look at the effect line: "One Sword," or "Sword-like beam," compared to the other two which just give a range of touch and one creature affected.

Quote:

In a similar vein, what is and isn't a weapon? Is a Magus full attacking with Spell Combat considered armed or attacking with a weapon in his off hand? If so, shouldn't that spell get the same treatment from "x to weapon damage" effects? If it's a weapon sometimes but not always, where's the distinction?

If you're spell striking, then absolutely not. The spell is a rider on your physical attack, not a separate attack. If you're not spell striking, you would get a bonus to your touch attack's roll, but no bonus to damage unless the spell is a weapon-like spell.

It works like Two Weapon Fighting because it has the same restrictions as two weapon fighting: Full round action, -2 to attack rolls, and you can't use your off hand for anything else: You're using your offhand (or metaphorical offhand in the case of a Still spell) to cast the spell.

[Caliban_]

Akerlof wrote:

Calth wrote:

Ive gone by the interpretation that if a spell can crit, its a weapon-like spell. So yeah, spells that have attack and damage rolls. And yes, Ive had long arguments on these boards that the spell cast through spell combat should be considered attacking with a weapon.

I would also say it needs to do HP damage. Ray of Enfeeblement shouldn't get bonus Str damage from bard song (though it would get a bonus to its _attack roll_ from Inspire Courage, etc.)

All rays are "Weapon-like", regardless of doing HP damage, per the current FAQ entry on this topic. Ray of Enfeeblement gives a penalty (not ability damage) so that part won't be affected, but it would get any attack bonuses.

Quote:

But I rule that a weapon-like spell has to actually be "like a weapon," So Mage's Sword or Flame Blade = Yes; Shocking Grasp, Inflict Light Wounds = No. Look at the effect line: "One Sword," or "Sword-like beam," compared to the other two which just give a range of touch and one creature affected.

Problem is, Rays are specifically called out as "Weapon-like" (as well as any spells that have an effect that resembles a weapon), but I don't know of any physical weapon that they resemble. So looking "like a weapon" doesn't seem to all there is to it.

Consider the Snowball spell - you conjure a packed ball of snow and throw it at your target. Is a ball of snow a weapon? (If it isn't, how is any different than a thrown rock? - it certainly does a lot more damage :p)

As far as Shocking Grasp (or any other melee touch spell) - depending on how you define "like a weapon" they could be said to resemble the "unarmed strike" weapon - you count as armed, do lethal damage, etc.

Or in other words, I think a handful of electricity is "like" and unarmed strike to the same extent that a 3 foot beam of fire projecting from your palm is "like" a scimitar. :p

Not that I push this interpretation at a table, because I truly think it is ambiguous and there are enough arguments over rules that are clear cut.

I'd really like to see an official clarification on it. After thinking about it, I think all that should be required is needing to make an attack roll. There are plenty of "weapon-like" Ray spells that don't do any damage (Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Sickness, Ray of Exhaustion).

[Calth]

Caliban_Loreseeker wrote:

Akerlof wrote:

Calth wrote:

Ive gone by the interpretation that if a spell can crit, its a weapon-like spell. So yeah, spells that have attack and damage rolls. And yes, Ive had long arguments on these boards that the spell cast through spell combat should be considered attacking with a weapon.

I would also say it needs to do HP damage. Ray of Enfeeblement shouldn't get bonus Str damage from bard song (though it would get a bonus to its _attack roll_ from Inspire Courage, etc.)

All rays are "Weapon-like", regardless of doing HP damage, per the current FAQ entry on this topic. Ray of Enfeeblement gives a penalty (not ability damage) so that part won't be affected, but it would get any attack bonuses.

Quote:

But I rule that a weapon-like spell has to actually be "like a weapon," So Mage's Sword or Flame Blade = Yes; Shocking Grasp, Inflict Light Wounds = No. Look at the effect line: "One Sword," or "Sword-like beam," compared to the other two which just give a range of touch and one creature affected.

Problem is, Rays are specifically called out as "Weapon-like" (as well as any spells that have an effect that resembles a weapon), but I don't know of any physical weapon that they resemble. So looking "like a weapon" doesn't seem to all there is to it.

Consider the Snowball spell - you conjure a packed ball of snow and throw it at your target. Is a ball of snow a weapon? (If it isn't, how is any different than a thrown rock? - it certainly does a lot more damage :p)

As far as Shocking Grasp (or any other melee touch spell) - depending on how you define "like a weapon" they could be said to resemble the "unarmed...

The touch attacks granted by melee touch spells are actually referred to as "armed" unarmed attacks, which is why they don't provoke AoOs.

[Caliban_]

Calth wrote:

Caliban_Loreseeker wrote:

As far as Shocking Grasp (or any other melee touch spell) - depending on how you define "like a weapon" they could

The touch attacks granted by melee touch spells are actually referred to as "armed" unarmed attacks, which is why they don't provoke AoOs.

Which is exactly what having Improved Unarmed strike does. Literally - that's how it is referred to in the rules

Quote:

"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, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Any touch spell makes you count as being armed - just like a weapon...

[Zhayne]

Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal Strength Damage. It inflicts a penalty; very different thing.

I still agree with the premise, though, that it has to be HP damage.

[Calth]

Zhayne wrote:

Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal Strength Damage. It inflicts a penalty; very different thing.

I still agree with the premise, though, that it has to be HP damage.

Ray of Enfeeblement is still a weapon-like spell, it just doesn't deal HP damage. Just like trip is a weapon attack that doesn't deal hit point damage, all weapon attack modifiers apply. If you have a bonus to attack roles with ranged weapons, ray of enfeeblement would benefit.