title. Are rays considered a "weapon"? I'm asking primarily if I can apply feats like arcane strike/point blank shot/weapon finesse to ray typed spells?
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some ways rays are considered weapons for the purpose of feats that affect ranged weapons.
This FAQ outlines some of the options.
Weapon Specialization: Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?
All four of those are valid choices.
Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
Arcane Strike adds damage to all of your weapons, but based on the FAQ, it should only work on rays that already cause hit point damage. Rays are ranged weapons so Point Blank Shot will give the +1 to hit at close range, but again it should only add to damage if the ray causes hit point damage. Weapon Finesse only works on melee weapons, but you don't need it anyway since rays, being ranged weapons, already use dexterity to hit.
|
Although, I've never interpreted Arcane Strike (specifically) to work with Rays.
When you spend your swift action to "imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power", the Ray doesn't yet exist. Likewise, if you cast the Ray first, you can't "hold the charge" long enough to use Arcane Strike. It's discharged immediately.
But plenty of ppl rule them to work together.
I agree with Nefreet. If there was a magic pool that, if you dipped your weapon in it, gave some benefit to the next strike made with that weapon, your ray would be out of luck since it doesn't yet exist to be dipped, even though it can otherwise benefit from effects that affect weapons.
Would a swarmbane clasp work with a ray or other weapon-like spells or spell-like abilities (like with upcoming kineticist's blast)? From this FAQ I would say yes but I'd like to poll others before I invest in it for my PFS pyrokineticist.
I know it's accepted to work that way, but I would love to see some rules text that explicitly says that point-blank shot works with anything that has a ranged attack roll.
The link Nefreet put up is to a thread that has Sean K Reynolds (while he was still the guy doing FAQs and giving official answers on the boards) basically confirming that.
Ok... so since this is something I have to be able to point to from you Sean or the PDT FAQ in order to use it in PFS, as some GMs have been applying the penalty for firing into melee, but not allowing us to get the bonus to damage for things like point blank shot, Inspire courage, etc.
------------------
If a spell or ability requires an attack or ranged attack roll, even if it is not necessarily a ray, it takes the normal ranged attack penalties for firing into melee/cover, and also recieves any bonuses to damage that would apply (only applicable to hit point damage, not spells like enervation etc).
-------------------
Correct?Yes, correct.
|
I know it's accepted to work that way, but I would love to see some rules text that explicitly says that point-blank shot works with anything that has a ranged attack roll.The link Nefreet put up is to a thread that has Sean K Reynolds (while he was still the guy doing FAQs and giving official answers on the boards) basically confirming that.
Ok... so since this is something I have to be able to point to from you Sean or the PDT FAQ in order to use it in PFS, as some GMs have been applying the penalty for firing into melee, but not allowing us to get the bonus to damage for things like point blank shot, Inspire courage, etc.
------------------
If a spell or ability requires an attack or ranged attack roll, even if it is not necessarily a ray, it takes the normal ranged attack penalties for firing into melee/cover, and also recieves any bonuses to damage that would apply (only applicable to hit point damage, not spells like enervation etc).
-------------------
Correct?Yes, correct.
So basically you're saying that the only place that this is in "rules text" is from some random post by an ex-dev, and not in an actual FAQ, errata, blog post, or printed book? (I already know all this, I'm making a point).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between FAQ/Errata/Blog Post/Etc and "clarifying how the existing rules work".
At one point, early in the game's existence, many rules were taken for granted, and the Designers (such as SKR at the time) felt that they were the most common of common sense that there was no need to include them in print, and thicken the CRB any more.
Only after years of parsing rules text for ambiguities that don't exist have we come to the point where this gets questioned.
Although, I've never interpreted Arcane Strike (specifically) to work with Rays.
When you spend your swift action to "imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power", the Ray doesn't yet exist. Likewise, if you cast the Ray first, you can't "hold the charge" long enough to use Arcane Strike. It's discharged immediately.
But plenty of ppl rule them to work together.
That isn't the way that I had read Arcane Strike working, but I see what you are saying. I'm going to have to reconsider this.
|
|
There's a difference between FAQ/Errata/Blog Post/Etc and "clarifying how the existing rules work".
At one point, early in the game's existence, many rules were taken for granted, and the Designers (such as SKR at the time) felt that they were the most common of common sense that there was no need to include them in print, and thicken the CRB any more.
Only after years of parsing rules text for ambiguities that don't exist have we come to the point where this gets questioned.
Ambiguities that don't exist like feats and abilities that apply specifically to weapons somehow apply towards anything with an attack roll?
Anything with an attack roll that deals hp damage is a weapon whether that weapon is a knuckle sandwich, a vorpal sword, a machine gun or a polar ray. How is this ambiguous?
|
|
Anything with an attack roll that deals hp damage is a weapon whether that weapon is a knuckle sandwich, a vorpal sword, a machine gun or a polar ray. How is this ambiguous?
Because there are spells, SLAs, and super-natural abilities that it apparently works with that don't have the Ray descriptor. So specifically what you said isn't ambiguous, but what is accepted isn't printed anywhere of significance.
Anything with an attack roll that deals hp damage is a weapon whether that weapon is a knuckle sandwich, a vorpal sword, a machine gun or a polar ray. How is this ambiguous?
It becomes ambiguous because many effects or feats treat different categories of "weapons" differently: Align weapon, Magic weapon, Deflect arrows, Missile Shield, Ray Shield, etc.
And these effects draw a line between natural vs. manufactured weapons--which are both clearly "weapons" in the Fighter Weapon Groups table, so that raises the question of whether things that are much, much further afield than "natural weapons" would still count as "weapons" for the purposes of any given effect.
Basically, it comes down to this: if all "things that use an attack roll and deal hp damage" are equally "weapons", then we wouldn't need descriptions like "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
(Note: Here, I'm just explaining why people could find it ambiguous. I'm not actually making an argument one way or another. I just think it's important to try to understand the other person's point of view before declaring something "obvious". I don't believe that any written text in history has ever been 100% clear without even a single alternate interpretation.)
I don't believe that any written text in history has ever been 100% clear without even a single alternate interpretation.
I'm not sure what you mean.
:)
|
|
Ambiguities that don't exist like feats and abilities that apply specifically to weapons somehow apply towards anything with an attack roll?There's a difference between FAQ/Errata/Blog Post/Etc and "clarifying how the existing rules work".
At one point, early in the game's existence, many rules were taken for granted, and the Designers (such as SKR at the time) felt that they were the most common of common sense that there was no need to include them in print, and thicken the CRB any more.
Only after years of parsing rules text for ambiguities that don't exist have we come to the point where this gets questioned.
It's easy for you to say that now.
Since Pathfinder began, there have been innumerable posts about this rule and that interaction, and a plethora of new material written by many different authors.
But, when the game began, there was much less confusion, and your "RAW" stance on many rules interactions would have been considered silly.
Today, there are enough other ppl parsing every word in a sentence to warrant the need for FAQs every Friday.
Just please recognize that how you see the world today is not how it's always been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ambiguities that don't exist like feats and abilities that apply specifically to weapons somehow apply towards anything with an attack roll?There's a difference between FAQ/Errata/Blog Post/Etc and "clarifying how the existing rules work".
At one point, early in the game's existence, many rules were taken for granted, and the Designers (such as SKR at the time) felt that they were the most common of common sense that there was no need to include them in print, and thicken the CRB any more.
Only after years of parsing rules text for ambiguities that don't exist have we come to the point where this gets questioned.
It's easy for you to say that now.
Since Pathfinder began, there have been innumerable posts about this rule and that interaction, and a plethora of new material written by many different authors.
But, when the game began, there was much less confusion, and your "RAW" stance on many rules interactions would have been considered silly.
Today, there are enough other ppl parsing every word in a sentence to warrant the need for FAQs every Friday.
Just please recognize that how you see the world today is not how it's always been.
As a newcomer, I want to thank you for this post. A lot of things make sense to me now.
I know of no such feat that would work with that specific spell.I was hoping the "attack roll = weapon" crowd would try to answer
Point Blank Shot. Precise Shot. Improved Precise Shot... ;)
Edit: in short, decide what's best for your table. I prefer KISS. ^_____^
|
|
Anything with an attack roll that deals hp damage is a weapon whether that weapon is a knuckle sandwich, a vorpal sword, a machine gun or a polar ray. How is this ambiguous?It becomes ambiguous because many effects or feats treat different categories of "weapons" differently: Align weapon, Magic weapon, Deflect arrows, Missile Shield, Ray Shield, etc.
And these effects draw a line between natural vs. manufactured weapons--which are both clearly "weapons" in the Fighter Weapon Groups table, so that raises the question of whether things that are much, much further afield than "natural weapons" would still count as "weapons" for the purposes of any given effect.
Basically, it comes down to this: if all "things that use an attack roll and deal hp damage" are equally "weapons", then we wouldn't need descriptions like "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
(Note: Here, I'm just explaining why people could find it ambiguous. I'm not actually making an argument one way or another. I just think it's important to try to understand the other person's point of view before declaring something "obvious". I don't believe that any written text in history has ever been 100% clear without even a single alternate...
Gwen, this is not an appropriate example.
The quote you reference, on the monk unarmed strike, specifies that it is a weapon, but that it counts as both natural and manufactured. Whether it is a weapon was never in doubt.
The problem with spells is that some of them are part-time weapons (Cure Light Wounds, for example), and other are weapons but do not use attack rolls (Magic Missile), while others function in all ways like weapons (Scorching Ray), and yet others are weapon-like in that they have to make attack rolls, but have other affects when they hit (Disintegrate, IIRC).
So...there's this spell fiery shuriken that creates little fire-shurikens that each deal 1d8 with a successful ranged touch attack. You get 2 shuriken plus one more every 2 caster levels above 3.
Would the damage bonuses from weapon specialisation: ray, point blank shot, deadly aim and arcane strike apply to each shuriken? What if you somehow got divine favour cast on you? Would the damage bonus from that spell apply to each shuriken too?
|
|
Deadly aim, other than for guns, does not apply to ranged touch attacks.
Weapon focus: Ray and weapon specialization: Ray would not apply to shuriken.
PBS should apply.
Arcane strike? Depends on whether all the shuriken are thrown when cast, or if it is used one per round. Given the way the spell is worded, and arcane strike is worded: On the first round, cast then use, no. On subsequent rounds, for any left available, yes.
Edit: It might be possible, if you can use swift/immediate actions in the middle of other actions.
This thread seems to demonstrate how rules interpretations have become " too much is too much ".
|
I know of no such feat that would work with that specific spell.I was hoping the "attack roll = weapon" crowd would try to answerPoint Blank Shot. Precise Shot. Improved Precise Shot... ;)
Edit: in short, decide what's best for your table. I prefer KISS. ^_____^
which doesn't give me weapon focus....
Anything that is a spell that requires a range touch roll is a ray. Is dose not matter what fluff that game designer put in mechanically it still Ray and move on.
Interestingly, while weapon focus specifically allows rays, weapon specialisation does not. Then again, to get that thing, somehow you need to convince the system you have 4 levels of Fighter. I'm sure it's doable without multiclassing, but specialisation's always been a fighter specialty thing if memory serves.
As far as what is a ray? I'd be inclined towards MorningSunshine above, that any ranged touch counts. Maybe make the feat Weapon Focus (ranged touch)? Assuming that Weapon Focus (unarmed) would count against melee touch spells and melee attacks with spell charge held.
Why would Weapon Specialization need to specifically call out Ray?
If it works for Weapon Focus, it should work for Weapon Specialization.
It's probably one of those 'what spellcaster will have 4 levels of fighter?' things that made folks think it wouldn't need to be mentioned. I'd be fine with that interpretation, myself.
|
|
Anything that is a spell that requires a range touch roll is a ray. Is dose not matter what fluff that game designer put in mechanically it still Ray and move on.
This is incorrect.
A Ray spell is a very specific thing, mechanically, and is labeled as "Effect ray" in the spell's statblock.
All* Rays are ranged touch spells, but not all ranged touch spells are Rays.
Ray of Frost benefits from Weapon Focus. Acid Splash does not.
i would argue that arcane strike also is rightly working, i know RAW it does, but as Nefreet says up there you don't have the ray to power up when you use the swift action.
point is -you dont need to hold the weapon when you use arcane strike. nothing in the feat says you need to hold all your weapons. a quick drawer magus throwing daggers who uses arcane strike has ALL his weapons effected by it for that round. not just the one he happend to hold in his hand at that moment. and if you say he charged al lweapons he has on him. what about some1 who uses arcane stirke then picks a dagger from a table? feat works fine with that, no problem with a ray that wasn't there a moment ago.
the way i see arcane strike is more like the charge up action in "Taken" - you hit all attack botuns and the next attack you use is charged up. the increase of power is in the characters hands glowing and effecting what ever weapon he uses(or even feet for kicking monks)
The argument isn't that you aren't holding the weapon, but that the weapon(ray) doesn't exist at the time of activation.
The weapon you're throwing may not exist at that time either. Example: Dagger of Doubling...
The argument isn't that you aren't holding the weapon, but that the weapon(ray) doesn't exist at the time of activation.The weapon you're throwing may not exist at that time either. Example: Dagger of Doubling...
I was thinking that arrows created by a bow with the Endless Ammunition special ability might fall into the same category.
|
|
Ambiguities that don't exist like feats and abilities that apply specifically to weapons somehow apply towards anything with an attack roll?There's a difference between FAQ/Errata/Blog Post/Etc and "clarifying how the existing rules work".
At one point, early in the game's existence, many rules were taken for granted, and the Designers (such as SKR at the time) felt that they were the most common of common sense that there was no need to include them in print, and thicken the CRB any more.
Only after years of parsing rules text for ambiguities that don't exist have we come to the point where this gets questioned.
It's easy for you to say that now.
Since Pathfinder began, there have been innumerable posts about this rule and that interaction, and a plethora of new material written by many different authors.
But, when the game began, there was much less confusion, and your "RAW" stance on many rules interactions would have been considered silly.
Today, there are enough other ppl parsing every word in a sentence to warrant the need for FAQs every Friday.
Just please recognize that how you see the world today is not how it's always been.
Right, and you obviously know that that isn't how it is now. Any newcomer to the forum will need it in print (faq, blog, or book). PFS requires it to be in print (same) for it to matter. If there's a new PFS GM that's never read SKR's post (or even if he has) he doesn't have to abide by it because it's not in print.
|
|
Just please recognize that how you see the world today is not how it's always been.Right, and you obviously know that that isn't how it is now.
If by "it" you mean "your personal interpretation of the rules", then I agree.
If by "it" you mean "the PFRPG ruleset", then I disagree.
Nothing about the rules changed.
What changed is the culture and understanding of the reader base.
|
|
Just please recognize that how you see the world today is not how it's always been.Right, and you obviously know that that isn't how it is now.If by "it" you mean "your personal interpretation of the rules", then I agree.
If by "it" you mean "the PFRPG ruleset", then I disagree.
Nothing about the rules changed.
What changed is the culture and understanding of the reader base.
No, by "it" I mean what's printed. Tell me anywhere in print that it defines "anything with an attack or damage roll" as a weapon. Please do, that's really all I want.
If by "it" you mean "the PFRPG ruleset", then I disagree.Nothing about the rules changed.
Really? In 3.5, they delegated the Weapon Focus feat to be either Weapon Focus (Ranged Spells) or Weapon Focus (Touch Spells). Pathfinder started with backwards compatibility. The only official rules change has been to add Weapon Focus (ray) to that list. To say nothing has changed is disingenuous and puts far to much into an off the cuff and now confirmed unofficial Dev post.
What changed is the culture and understanding of the reader base.
What changed is that personal views of devs are treated as such and not official pronouncements from on high. Often in the past I saw dueling dev quotes, where you'd have quotes from different dev's (or sometimes even the same dev) that'd say different things about the same rule. Now it's understood it's personal views and that difference is understandable. In the past where random text was treated as actual rules, there was no end to the debate.
So not as much a culture or knowledge change in the reader base but the dev's coming to the understanding that no one should HAVE to have intimate knowledge of every post ever made by every dev on every subject in every thread to understand how the rules where meant to be run. Thus, having official rulings in one place made MUCH more sense. It wasn't because the readers where horrible nit-picky people.
|
|
No, by "it" I mean what's printed. Tell me anywhere in print that it defines "anything with an attack or damage roll" as a weapon. Please do, that's really all I want.Just please recognize that how you see the world today is not how it's always been.Right, and you obviously know that that isn't how it is now.If by "it" you mean "your personal interpretation of the rules", then I agree.
If by "it" you mean "the PFRPG ruleset", then I disagree.
Nothing about the rules changed.
What changed is the culture and understanding of the reader base.
I never stated that "anything with an attack or damage roll is a weapon".
I actually disagree with that.
I'm talking about the understanding of the interactions between attack rolls and bonuses.
Attack rolls don't need to be made with weapons, to gain bonuses or penalties.
Hence why Acid Arrow, which isn't a weapon, is still affected by firing into melee, or gaining +1 to-hit from a Bard's song.
But with today's crowd, it's all or nothing. Take it or leave it. If that's blue, then that's gotta be blue, too, or else "it's broken".
THAT is purely a cultural phenomenon. Not a rules issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that is a spell that requires a range touch roll is a ray. Is dose not matter what fluff that game designer put in mechanically it still Ray and move on.
Eh, as others have said, thats not true. see Ray of Frost for an example of a ray. Also Ray of Exhaustion
Both of them have Effect Ray in their stat block.
Compare to Acid Splash or Acid Arrow. These are specifically not called out as Rays. They are not Rays. The area they are called out as rays is not a Fluff description, its in the mechanical description region.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
quotes from different dev's (or sometimes even the same dev) that'd say different things about the same rule.
I'd almost wager that every single time this "happened" the dev was talking about two different aspect and not saying something contradictory.
I know from my own experience, I've seen a lot of these type of things. For example, all the confusion about "there are two FAQ that say different things" nonsense that has happened in the past. Those FAQ still say the same thing today, if they did conflict they would have been changed.
quotes from different dev's (or sometimes even the same dev) that'd say different things about the same rule.I'd almost wager that every single time this "happened" the dev was talking about two different aspect and not saying something contradictory.
You'd lose that bet, if you made it, as I've been in some of those debate where it happened. Do you REALLY think every DEV does things 100% the same as every other DEV? That there is NEVER a disagreement on how things work? I didn't know there was a Paizo hive mind...
And before anyone asks, I'm NOT about to track down any examples, the exact same way I wouldn't search through every thread for some random dev post that might answer rules questions outside the FAQ/errata's. I recall the posts being contradictory not the thread or even the subjects after all this time.
I know from my own experience, I've seen a lot of these type of things. For example, all the confusion about "there are two FAQ that say different things" nonsense that has happened in the past. Those FAQ still say the same thing today, if they did conflict they would have been changed.
There has been that too. And sometimes you had posts about different things but the explanations proved to have contradictory theories/reasons for them showing different trains of thought. There is a difference between a individual dev's thoughts and the collective vote of the team.
I WILL revise the use of "often" though in my last post. It didn't happen on a regular basis but it did happen.