creatures make venom, however they can still be poisonous... fun fact
Yes, venom is a poison made by animals. :)
I should also point out that in my above posts I'm only saying what my read/take is of the rules on rays and such. I would love to have the dev's let us know exactly how they are meant to work and have even started threads asking for it to be clarified. With the kineticist and the warlock coming out, these are even more important to figure out.
The final printing of the Kineticist has language that clarifies what affects their blast.
Does it JUST explain their blast or rays and such in general?
|
Rather than bicker about wording that many people already feel is ambiguous, let's help the Design Team figure out what ramifications (if any) might occur if all instances of "ranged weapons" were instead replaced with "ranged attack rolls".
FEATS:
- Point Blank Shot ("+1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged
weaponsat ranges of up to 30 feet")- Precise Shot ("shoot or throw ranged
weaponsat an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty")- Deadly Aim (remains unchanged, as the word "weapon" is never used)
- Bullseye Shot (remains unchanged, as the word "weapon" is never used)
CLASS FEATURES:
- Inspire Courage ("+1 competence bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls")
SPELLS:
- Bless (remains unchanged, as the word "weapon" is never used)
OTHER:
- Cover (remains unchanged, as the word "weapon" is never used)
PBS: +1 bonus for ranged attack rolls, and +1 to hit point damage of ranged attacks utilizing this bonus to hit. Only works when within 30' of target. <-- ugly, but it covers the point
PS: Make ranged attacks into melee without taking the -4 penalty for making a ranged attack into melee combat.Inspire Courage: +1 competence bonus to attack rolls, and +1 competence bonus to hit point damage for attacks utilizing this bonus to hit.
That wording should limit both effects to providing their damage bonus only on hit point damage, and only to attacks that require an attack roll.
My view. Did you make a ranged attack roll? Then add Bardic Performance, shooting into melee, cover, point blank shot, arcane strike, and anything else that applies.
Arcane Strike ... is debateable.
My view. Did you make a ranged attack roll? Then add Bardic Performance, shooting into melee, cover, point blank shot, arcane strike, and anything else that applies.Arcane Strike ... is debateable.
I don't see how Arcane Strike is substantially different than Bardic Performance as far as their interaction with ranged weapons, rays and ranged touch spells.
The argument goes something like this: Arcane Strike imbues something with a portion of your arcane power as a swift action. The thing to be imbued must exist at the time the swift action is spent. Rays/orbs/what have you do not exist yet to be imbued, as they exist only during the casting of the spell.
The argument goes something like this: Arcane Strike imbues something with a portion of your arcane power as a swift action. The thing to be imbued must exist at the time the swift action is spent. Rays/orbs/what have you do not exist yet to be imbued, as they exist only during the casting of the spell.
it's a good thing swift actions can happen during other actions...
The pattern seems to be that they apply for the attack roll but not for the spell effect.
The argument goes something like this: Arcane Strike imbues something with a portion of your arcane power as a swift action. The thing to be imbued must exist at the time the swift action is spent. Rays/orbs/what have you do not exist yet to be imbued, as they exist only during the casting of the spell.
From the playtest, you can use arcane strike on mystic bolts and they are impermanent and don't exist when you use the swift action. It counts Arcane Strike as an ability "that affect all weapon attacks"
So it seems that you activate arcane strike and for the duration of 1 round, you get the benefit with weapons as opposed to only getting the benefit with weapons present at the time of activation.
The argument goes something like this: Arcane Strike imbues something with a portion of your arcane power as a swift action. The thing to be imbued must exist at the time the swift action is spent. Rays/orbs/what have you do not exist yet to be imbued, as they exist only during the casting of the spell.
I guess by your logic, then Spellstrike only applies with the weapon you imbue the spell with, and once that weapon is gone, then the spell is gone too.
As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
There is no limit as to how many weapons that is. You could have 20 different weapons on your person, and they would all receive this benefit.
That being said, I highly doubt it's intended for Arcane Strike to work with spells, because spells aren't weapons.
I mean come on, I can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with my Fireball spell, right?
I mean come on, I can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with my Fireball spell, right?
Well that's a spell without an attack roll. A better spell to ponder is chill touch a weapon, as I think you "can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with" it.
Well that's a spell without an attack roll. A better spell to ponder is chill touch a weapon, as I think you "can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with" it.
I mean come on, I can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with my Fireball spell, right?
Only if it is cast before the attack of opportunity is present, otherwise no it can't.
Well that's a spell without an attack roll. A better spell to ponder is chill touch a weapon, as I think you "can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with" it.
I mean come on, I can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with my Fireball spell, right?
Requiring an attack roll doesn't mean anything. If it says it's a weapon, then it's a weapon. This is like Coup de Grace, where it's functionally no different from a Death Effect, but it's not a Death Effect, because it doesn't say it's a Death Effect.
If it doesn't say it's a weapon, or it counts as a weapon only for certain circumstances, and not all circumstances like it's supposed to, then it's not a weapon. This is like a Spell-Like Ability being similar to a Spell, but it's not actually a Spell. i.e. Weapon-Like Spells function nearly identical to weapons, but they aren't actually weapons.
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).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
The spell does allow them to threaten squares, but only because of this clause. It certainly isn't because Chill Touch is a Manufactured Weapon.
Also, if Spells are Weapons, then I can be a Magus that can indefinitely stack Shocking Grasps with themselves (or even other touch spells), and 1-shot basically anything that I so solemnly choose, which is obviously not intended.
Darksol the Painbringer: In pathfinder Weapon isn't the same thing as Manufactured Weapon. Very few things actually call out as needing a Manufactured Weapon but a LOT of things call out a need for a weapon.
As to spells, both rays and touch attacks are called out as being like weapons. The real question are the non-ray spells that work in all ways like a ray spell. For instance, what is the functional difference between a ray of frost and a jolt cantrip? The deal different elemental damage and one is listed as a ray. Why is one weapon like and the other not?
As to the Magus, they have to "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon" and a spell isn't that so I don't see an "indefinitely stack Shocking Grasps" as an issue. A spell counting as a weapon in no way allows it to count as one of the classifications of manufactured weapons (light, 1 handed, two handed).
|
|
Also, don't forget that when you cast a new spell, any charges held from previous spells go away.
If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Darksol the Painbringer: In pathfinder Weapon isn't the same thing as Manufactured Weapon. Very few things actually call out as needing a Manufactured Weapon but a LOT of things call out a need for a weapon.
As to spells, both rays and touch attacks are called out as being like weapons. The real question are the non-ray spells that work in all ways like a ray spell. For instance, what is the functional difference between a ray of frost and a jolt cantrip? The deal different elemental damage and one is listed as a ray. Why is one weapon like and the other not?
As to the Magus, they have to "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon" and a spell isn't that so I don't see an "indefinitely stack Shocking Grasps" as an issue. A spell counting as a weapon in no way allows it to count as one of the classifications of manufactured weapons (light, 1 handed, two handed).
I know they're separate, and for good reason. But if you notice, the clause I mentioned applies to all weapons that aren't Manufactured.
So, if a spell (and I mean any spell) is a weapon, then I can threaten and make Attacks of Opportunity with them unless it specifically says I can't (as with Unarmed Strikes). Claiming that I can't use Fireballs for my Attacks of Opportunity (would certainly make for an awesome class feature) means that Spells aren't actually weapons, and therefore should not be treated as such unless they're called out to function as them, whether in a general sense, or for specific exceptions.
The point is that it either is, or is not a weapon. Can they have features similar to weapons? Sure. Look at Flame Blade, Mage Blade, Spiritual Weapon, etc. Those are weapon-like spells. But that doesn't make them weapons (as far as game terms are concerned). Look at Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow. Those are spells that count as weapons for specific purposes. But that doesn't make them weapons. And if they aren't weapons, or don't count as weapons for the requisite purposes of effects dependant upon them, then the rules for weapons shouldn't apply to them.
Also, if we went with my argument of Spells = Weapons, then the Magus is not casting a Spell, he's casting a Weapon, so he can definitely stack them as much as he wants, since he's not technically breaking that rule.
I know they're separate, and for good reason. But if you notice, the clause I mentioned applies to all weapons that aren't Manufactured.
I'm not sure which clause you mean. If it's the "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, I don't see the point. Those are unarmed attacks not ranged attacks. That section has NOTHING to do with them. I can't AoO with a bow (non-snap shot) so why the argument with a ranged spell?
Second, fireball once again doesn't have an attack roll and is therefor not even a weapon-like spell. I have no idea why you are fixated on it.
3rd, the WHOLE point of this thread is how much are some spells treated or counted as weapons. If they aren't true weapons then how weapon-like are they? If they count as weapon for some feats and abilities and not for other, how do we determine which are allowed. That's the crux of the thread. Just saying "they aren't weapons" is willfully ignoring the question.
EDIT: And as I pointed out, Magus has a requirement on weapons used past JUST being a weapon. Spells aren't "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon". It also ignore the 'holding a charge' proviso "If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates." SO casting a second spell weapon would dissipate the first. Multiple shocking grasps no work.
I know they're separate, and for good reason. But if you notice, the clause I mentioned applies to all weapons that aren't Manufactured.I'm not sure which clause you mean. If it's the "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, I don't see the point. Those are unarmed attacks not ranged attacks. That section has NOTHING to do with them. I can't AoO with a bow (non-snap shot) so why the argument with a ranged spell?
Second, fireball once again doesn't have an attack roll and is therefor not even a weapon-like spell. I have no idea why you are fixated on it.
3rd, the WHOLE point of this thread is how much are some spells treated or counted as weapons. If they aren't true weapons then how weapon-like are they? If they count as weapon for some feats and abilities and not for other, how do we determine which are allowed. That's the crux of the thread. Just saying "they aren't weapons" is willfully ignoring the question.
EDIT: And as I pointed out, Magus has a requirement on weapons used past JUST being a weapon. Spells aren't "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon". It also ignore the 'holding a charge' proviso "If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates." SO casting a second spell weapon would dissipate the first. Multiple shocking grasps no work.
I'm fixated on Fireball because it helps develop the crux of the issue better, for starters. Secondly, I could use any other spell to demonstrate the same point. I guess I'll use Lightning Bolt this time.
Thirdly, and most important, a spell is only as weapon-like as it says it is, or leads on to be. We already have definitions for Rays and similar stuff be defined as having certain weapon-like qualities and only those weapon-like qualities. So it should already be apparent as to whether or not the spell would be plausible with Feat Y or Ability X based on the effect of the spell.
For example, it's safe to assume that Acid Arrow isn't much different from a Ray effect, so the same rules that apply to Rays also applies to Acid Arrow, because it produces a weapon-like effect. Lightning Bolt, on the other hand, doesn't count, since the effect it produces isn't weapon-like at all, such as not requiring an attack roll for the spell to work.
|
Fireball allows for saves for half damage. For the purposes of the various examples of class abilities and feats that can effect a weapon, fireball is not applicable. The caster never rolls to hit anything, so there is no damage to put a bonus on.
The damage is static, barring any wizard abilities that add a little on the top, and doesn't get bonuses from some guy playing a flute or a feat to make you swing harder.
I didn't hit the FAQ because I don't see the need for clarification. Most spells that roll to hit are Rays, and even if they are not, the basic question should be... Do I roll to hit to do damage? Yes? No?
Is the damage typed or elemental or is it damage that effects something other than HP? If your doing STR damage, then the flute music isn't gonna help.
.02 cents
thaX: No one other than Darksol is talking about fireball spells and the like. it's a question on those non-ray spells that have a to hit roll and deal damage. The FAQ's to date say ray spells are weapon-like but that doesn't carry over to non-ray spells officially.
That and It'd be nice to get an idea just what 'weapon' feats do or don't work on them (ray or not).
|
|
I didn't hit the FAQ because I don't see the need for clarification. Most spells that roll to hit are Rays, and even if they are not, the basic question should be... Do I roll to hit to do damage? Yes? No?
So you didn't hit the FAQ because you want individual GMs to make the call whether or not it applies because you yourself already have an opinion on how it should be? (the opinion is with the majority, but that opinion is still not codified)
hopefully this will be FAQed tomorrow.
|
|
It is a common occurrence in our area and is pretty straight forward for us. Not really a problem like Thunder and Fang or humans getting a tail slap.
You could have a new GM show up and read that line that says "weapons" and realize that spells aren't weapons and you would have no grounds to overturn it, even though, like you say, a majority of GMs in your area already interpret it this way.
Would it not be easier for all GMs to interpret it in the way the majority already does?
If you want to add arcane strike to your damage with shocking grasp, the uncontested way to do it, is via spellstrike, since arcane strike DOES add to the weapon damage you're using as your spell carrier.thaX: No one other than Darksol is talking about fireball spells and the like. it's a question on those non-ray spells that have a to hit roll and deal damage. The FAQ's to date say ray spells are weapon-like but that doesn't carry over to non-ray spells officially.
That and It'd be nice to get an idea just what 'weapon' feats do or don't work on them (ray or not).
It's not so much "want" as wondering if it's meant to. It's "want"ing to know how exactly weapon-like spells interact with everything else that requires a weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same logic that requires only things called out as ranged "weapons" would mean that we literally cannot calculate the attack bonus for any ranged attack that is not labeled as a ranged "weapon," because the rule for calculating that attack bonus uses the same language:
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
So I think we're over-parsing here as far as distinctions between what is and is not a a ranged weapon.
The annoying thing about this FAQ is that most people on both sides are entirely unwilling to accept the other side has a point. So we end up with a chasms between the two sides.
Because both sides believe that the other side(s) haven't actually conveyed an accurate point. And quite frankly, that won't ever change until the FAQ is released.
If we're going to assume that ALL SPELLS behave similar to Ranged Weapons, then you apply ALL the benefits and drawbacks of Ranged Weapons (or what is commonly applied from the other examples) to every single spell in the game, as that's what is being asked here.
This means that you can take feats like Weapon Specialization (Fireball), Improved Critical (Ice Storm), Deadly Aim, Hammer the Gap, etc., and apply their benefits to This also means that casting these spells provoke two attacks of opportunity, and that with feats like Snap Shot, you can use these spells to perform Attacks of Opportunity, since they are weapons you can "make attacks" with.
Quite frankly, if you want that sort of thing to occur, I heard of this pretty interesting prestige class that's not totally useless if you want to accomplish that concept.
And if you want to be selective about it, there aren't really any definitive grounds for what constitutes whether a spell does or does not behave like a ranged weapon outside of what's already defined ( such as if it's a ray, or weapon-like spell), and you would need the FAQ to do that; the point you're arguing is the point that you need the Devs to clarify, and until they do, the argument doesn't exactly hold water.
The point here is that you change a lot of the dynamics of spells that otherwise most likely shouldn't function that way, and mostly for the worse. While I agree casters should get nerfed, I don't think this is the right way to do it, especially when this actually enables even more shenanigans, most commonly with blasters or save/suck specialists.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
List:
1) Weapon Specialization (Fireball)
2) Improved Critical (Ice Storm)
3) Deadly Aim
4) Hammer the Gap
5) spells provoke two attacks of opportunity
6) Snap Shot, you can use these spells to perform Attacks of Opportunity
1) No, because no Attack Roll is used. Weapon Specialization (Scorching Ray) should be fine.
2) No, but Improved Critical (Scorching Ray) should be fine.
3) Deadly Aim works so long as the spell is an attack roll that deals damage and not a touch attack. I can't think of a spell that qualifies, but there might be some.
4) Hammer the Gap is only relevant when doing a Full Attack action. You may (subject to table variance) be able to do so with Spell Combat and cast Scorching Ray first. Then Hammer the Gap will kick in with the attack rolls and hits you make on the Scorching Ray to deal more damage on the weapons. Actually it works either way (weapon first then hammer the scorching or scorching first then hammer the weapons.)
5) You can't take an AoO with a spell. Mostly because you can't do a spell on an iterative attack. If you had a spell like that you could take on an iterative attack, you should be able to use that. Alchemists might qualify with the right setup. But a 1st level Wizard with Magic Missile could not AoO.
6) See #5
And if you want to be selective about it, there aren't really any definitive grounds for what constitutes whether a spell does or does not behave like a ranged weapon outside of what's already defined ( such as if it's a ray, or weapon-like spell), and you would need the FAQ to do that; the point you're arguing is the point that you need the Devs to clarify, and until they do, the argument doesn't exactly hold water.
This is pretty much where I am. We really need some input from the rules people on this.
List:
1) Weapon Specialization (Fireball)
2) Improved Critical (Ice Storm)
3) Deadly Aim
4) Hammer the Gap
5) spells provoke two attacks of opportunity
6) Snap Shot, you can use these spells to perform Attacks of Opportunity1) No, because no Attack Roll is used. Weapon Specialization (Scorching Ray) should be fine.
2) No, but Improved Critical (Scorching Ray) should be fine.
3) Deadly Aim works so long as the spell is an attack roll that deals damage and not a touch attack. I can't think of a spell that qualifies, but there might be some.
4) Hammer the Gap is only relevant when doing a Full Attack action. You may (subject to table variance) be able to do so with Spell Combat and cast Scorching Ray first. Then Hammer the Gap will kick in with the attack rolls and hits you make on the Scorching Ray to deal more damage on the weapons. Actually it works either way (weapon first then hammer the scorching or scorching first then hammer the weapons.)
5) You can't take an AoO with a spell. Mostly because you can't do a spell on an iterative attack. If you had a spell like that you could take on an iterative attack, you should be able to use that. Alchemists might qualify with the right setup. But a 1st level Wizard with Magic Missile could not AoO.
6) See #5
1. Never stipulated that sort of thing. Rays are weapon-like enough to constitute being affected by Weapon Focus/Specialization (Ray). That being said, if it's a Ranged Weapon, I don't see why you can't be forced to make an Attack Roll to see if you actually hit the proper square-corner (and therefore the entire Fireball effect is a critical hit).
2. See #1.
3. That shouldn't really matter. It makes no sense if, for example with Power Attack, I make a Touch Attack to not receive the Power Attack benefits, but if I make a Regular attack and discharge the spell that way, I receive the Power Attack benefits? That seems stupid per RAW, if RAI is that it applies regardless.
4. The saving grace with Hammer the Gap is that it specifically calls out a Full Attack Action. If that clause wasn't in there, I could certainly apply its effects to Scorching Ray.
5. Except we're calling it out as a Ranged Weapon because it can do XYZ. If I have Snap Shot, I threaten 5 feet with Ranged Weapons. Improved/Greater Snap Shot makes that 15 feet. If Spells are to function like Ranged Weapons, then why shouldn't I be able to make AoOs with them either?
You can't sit there and say it is and is not a Ranged Weapon. You can say that it has elements of Ranged Weapons, which is what the FAQ regarding Rays and Weapon-Like Spells already encompasses, but this FAQ is asking if the effects of Ranged Weapons applies to all spells. Summoners would have a hay-day with that, being able to summon creatures whenever an enemy provokes an AoO.
Now you see the point I'm making. A lot of the rules regarding Ranged Weapons would not properly apply to the spells that people want to have adjusted, and that's because the mechanics behind those spells don't properly apply.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. don't see why you can't be forced to make an Attack Roll to see if you actually hit the proper square-corner
2. See #1.
3. That shouldn't really matter.
4. The saving grace with Hammer the Gap is that it specifically calls out a Full Attack Action.
5. why shouldn't I be able to make AoOs with them either?
You have illustrated why we have a wide divide. Neither of us can comprehend why the other things such strange thoughts.
1) There is no rule for that, but there is a rule for my side.
2) See #1.
3) It matters because specific trumps general. The Specifics of Deadly Aim forbid this.
4) Any similar wording would block it.
5) Attack of Opportunities have to use weapons. Weapons are things you can use with the Attack action and the full attack action. You can't use spells because there is no rule.
There are rules for applying things related to weapon like spells. Weapon like is has an attack roll and deals hit point damage
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same logic that requires only things called out as ranged "weapons" would mean that we literally cannot calculate the attack bonus for any ranged attack that is not labeled as a ranged "weapon," because the rule for calculating that attack bonus uses the same language:
So I think we're over-parsing here as far as distinctions between what is and is not a a ranged weapon.With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
I think Shisumo pointed out something very relevant here, so I figured I'd repost it.
Who here believes Dexterity should be a factor in your attack rolls with Acid Splash? Clearly not the people thinking that the -4 for firing into melee shouldn't apply, either.
1.1. don't see why you can't be forced to make an Attack Roll to see if you actually hit the proper square-corner
2. See #1.
3. That shouldn't really matter.
4. The saving grace with Hammer the Gap is that it specifically calls out a Full Attack Action.
5. why shouldn't I be able to make AoOs with them either?
You have illustrated why we have a wide divide. Neither of us can comprehend why the other things such strange thoughts.
1) There is no rule for that, but there is a rule for my side.
2) See #1.
3) It matters because specific trumps general. The Specifics of Deadly Aim forbid this.
4) Any similar wording would block it.
5) Attack of Opportunities have to use weapons. Weapons are things you can use with the Attack action and the full attack action. You can't use spells because there is no rule.
There are rules for applying things related to weapon like spells. Weapon like is has an attack roll and deals hit point damage
Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
So, by the rules, you only select the point where the spell originates. By RAW, it doesn't say you don't make an attack roll for it. Although it's not spelled out in that an attack roll is required, it's also not too much of a stretch to say that it's not much different than using a Splash weapon to target a square (and only the square) whose AC is 5.
3. And yet the specifics of Power Attack, per RAW, would allow me to apply them to Melee Touch spells. Quite frankly, it seems stupid how the Melee form would by RAW be applicable, but the Ranged form by RAW would not. It's a contradicting principle in my opinion, if this rule were to be enforced.
4. Never stipulated that. All I said was, if such wording did not exist, I could theoretically use it for anything that made more than one attack, such as Scorching Ray.
5. No they don't. If I have a Shocking Grasp active from a missed touch, and an enemy attempts to Grapple me without the feat, you're telling me that I can't use the Shocking Grasp to make the Attack of Opportunity because it's not a weapon? Even though for those purposes, it counts as a valid use of taking the Attack of Opportunity, as defined in the rules? You kind of ruined your argument here with that, especially if the argument is that All Spells function as Weapons.
Also, if they were to function like Ranged Weapons, you think the range increment of spells like Magic Missile and Fireball were ridiculous, well...~2,000 feet away, at first level, you're randomly Magic Missiled by a Wizard who used Scry (or something similar to determine your location for 100% precision), and boom; 1st level Rocket Tag begins.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. Some spells affect an area. Although it's not spelled out in that an attack roll is required
3. it seems stupid how the Melee form would by RAW be applicable, but the Ranged form by RAW would not
4. I could theoretically use it for anything that made more than one attack, such as Scorching Ray.
5. If I have a Shocking Grasp active from a missed touchBonus: Also, if they were to function like Ranged Weapons
1) Let's not insert anything in the rules. I base all my rulings on rules as written. So no attack rolls for Fireball. This has also been detailed in forum post after forum post to reject things that add to damage rolls from being added to fireballs.
3) I can't help you think the RAW is stupid, I'm just here to explain my interpretation of the RAW.
4) Lets eschew theory crafting and stuck to solid ground of the RAW. You can't do this because it requires a full attack action.
5) That you can do. You didn't cast the spell just now, you used an action on a previous turn to cast and are just waiting to deliver it via a melee touch attack.
Bonus) The good news is that if you sit down at most tables, they are weapon like. Some of the properties of being weapon like is that anything that enhances attack rolls or damage rolls of weapons will aid them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to add arcane strike to your damage with shocking grasp, the uncontested way to do it, is via spellstrike, since arcane strike DOES add to the weapon damage you're using as your spell carrier.thaX: No one other than Darksol is talking about fireball spells and the like. it's a question on those non-ray spells that have a to hit roll and deal damage. The FAQ's to date say ray spells are weapon-like but that doesn't carry over to non-ray spells officially.
That and It'd be nice to get an idea just what 'weapon' feats do or don't work on them (ray or not).
The problem is that this thread is horribly worded as a FAQ question in that it is asking for a single answer for an all encompassing range of issues.
The answer to it has to be yes and no. As somethings may apply, and others which are more corner specific, may not.
Here's a tip for everyone.... be honest in your request for a FAQ answer. If you've a corner agenda that you're not sharing when you post your question, you're not doing yourself, nor anyone else any favors by doing so. If you put up a question for FAQ because you've got a particular corner issue in mind, come clean with the latter
That's overly pointed when I clearly just want consistency. I want spells, SLAs that work like spells, and anything similar to ranged weapons to just be treated the same. If you're not happy with it then so be it, but don't try to shove words in my mouth that I didn't say or alternate agendas in my head when I have none.
|
|
First thing, we need to make sure everyone understands that there are, currently,m three kinds of spells that can be used to directly attack or damage others. All of them will break invisibility if cast.
Type 1) Target or targets must make a saving throw, spellcaster does not make an attack roll.
This type of spell includes fireball, lightning bolt, flame strike, cone of cold, and even color spray, among many others.
Type 2) Ray spells, which make (usually) a ranged touch attack against a target or targets.
Per earlier FAQs, these spells, as a type, are treated as ranged weapons, with the penalty for firing into melee, and the benefits of feats and abilities that affect ranged attacks, whether it is Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, or Bardic Inspire Courage.
This type of spell includes Ray of Frost, Ray of Enfeeblement, Scorching Ray, Weird Words, etc. Most of them are either "ray" spells, or explicitly say they are treated like ray spells.
Type 3) Ranged spells that are not defined as rays, but make ranged touch attack rolls to hit.
This is the group of spells that this FAQ request is seeking clarification about.
These spells include any spell which makes a ranged touch attack, but is not a ray.Examples include Acid Splash.
As the rules are currently written, and as the FAQs stand at this time, it is unclear whether these Type 3 spells should suffer the penalties of firing into melee, and gain the benefits of feats and abilities that give bonuses to ranged weapon attacks and ray spells.
So, to put it in cantrip form:
Does Acid Splash take a penalty for being used to attack someone in melee?
Equally, would Point Blank Shot negate that penalty?
Does it gain a benefit to hit and, in this case, damage, from buffs like Inspire Courage?
Note that, while I can only think of Acid Splash off the top of my head, there are other spells that fall into this classification, some of which have been mentioned up-thread.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Kinevon, type 3 also includes things like Bard Soundstriker's Weird Words.
SKR confirmed that Weird Words (and the ranged touch attacks) get the benefit of Point Blank Shot, Arcane Strike, and more bonuses to ranged weapon attacks.
Some GM's may choose to exclude type 3 from these benefits and penalties, but that isn't the understanding of a developer at the time (he was still on the developer team at the time.)
|
|
Kinevon, type 3 also includes things like Bard Soundstriker's Weird Words.
SKR confirmed that Weird Words (and the ranged touch attacks) get the benefit of Point Blank Shot, Arcane Strike, and more bonuses to ranged weapon attacks.
Some GM's may choose to exclude type 3 from these benefits and penalties, but that isn't the understanding of a developer at the time (he was still on the developer team at the time.)
Actually, because of the discussion, and SKR's post, and the phrasing of the FAQ updating the ability, is why I included Weird Words in the Type 2 spell list, rather than the Type 3 list.
100!