| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Paizo said no after all the "cheese" the PFS GMs had to go through.
A dangerous precedent. The strict restrictions of Pathfinder Society actually promotes what you refer to as "cheese." Because of this skewed nature, Pathfinder Society Organized Play should NOT be used as a gauge when determining the rules for the overall game.
It only ever ends in tears.
Heh, James. You quoted me saying that we had >100 FAQ requests. That is the funny part. haha
I'm going to number your bullet points:
1. Fact in how angry each side gets about the subject.
2. How many threads are created about it.
3. How many FAQ clicks per thread.
4. How easy it is to answer.
5. How much blowback the other side will return.
1. Hm... you might be right on this one. Alright, c'mon guys. You need to get angrier about how right your opinions are on this. I mean... gees! No one has even had a post removed in this thread yet. Its like your not even trying!
2. claudekennilol included ...what? 8 threads in his initial post including his own?
3. The only one that really had any FAQ hits though was SKR's posted opinion on it which was 5. It also had 18 favorites. So basically, I guess your right. It is only this thread that we can count.
4. SKR answered it pretty succinctly. I have a feeling that a simple answer like that will not satisfy everyone, though. It wouldn't satisfy me. I would prefer something more like a list of what applies and why. I'm thinking that a full answer would only be a single paragraph, though.
5. Nah, I disagree with this one. There has been a lot of blowback on several poor judgement calls on other rules changes before. Slashing Grace and Crane Wing come to mind. I don't think Paizo considers this, honestly. IMO, they make what calls they think will work best for their game from their perspective of balance.
So basically that leaves us with needing more FAQ requests and people being angrier. I think that is doable.
I'll start:
Anyone that thinks that weapon-like spells, abilities or effects shouldn't apply feats, abilities and effects that apply to weapons is a Clorbag Varblernelk!
...I reserve the right to define "weapon-like spells, abilities or effects" any way I'd like and some later date.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
promotes what you refer to as "cheese." Because of this skewed nature, Pathfinder Society Organized Play should NOT be used as a gauge when determining the rules for the overall game.
It only ever ends in tears.
Actually, from my view, not releasing errata promotes cheese. 3.5 was virtually unplayable due to frankly absurd views held my the majority of the forum public regarding rules.
PFS in general allows a good mechanism to detect and resolve the absurd material. It gets errata and the game is better. So apparently, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS in general allows a good mechanism to detect and resolve the absurd material. It gets errata and the game is better. So apparently, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Indeed we must be. My players and I generally hold a negative view of PFS and how it has impacted the overall game as of late.
It's notable that the clarification for rays was needed because there wasn't, initially, a rule stating that they were considered weapons for things other than feats (exactly as is currently the case for kinetic blasts). The FAQ I linked even mentioned weapon-like spells that aren't rays, though admittedly the spells mentioned are even more weapon-like than rays in that they use words like "blade" or specify particular weapons that they mimic.
It was addressed in the complete arcane from 3.5. With the initial backwards compatibility, it was indirectly answered. I'm glad to see the FAQ put it someplace everyone could find and made it a pathfinder answer as the game becomes less 'backwards compatible' with each new book/ruling.
It was on page 72, in a section called "FEATS AND WEAPONLIKE SPELLS". It explains what falls under weapon-like for both ranged and touch spells. The have a nice section on what feats work and a combat section that explains what kind of effects work and which doesn't. Paizo REALLY should look at complete arcane as they did a very good job explaining how things work.
Interesting note: 3.5 allowed Weapon Focus: (ranged spells) or (touch spells).
graystone: Wasn't it Ranged Touch or Rays?
graystone: Wasn't it Ranged Touch or Rays?
Nope!
Rays fall under Ranged. Check page 73 of Complete Arcane.
"Weapon Focus: Choose one category of weaponlike spells (ranged spells or touch spells) and gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made with such spells. You can gain this feat a second time, choosing a different category of weaponlike spells."
touch spells = range touch. ranged = ranged attack roll or ranged touch attack roll spells. Rays are called out as being under the ranged category.
|
Good to know, I didn't have that 3.5 supplement.
Clearly if you can take Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast), it's a weapon.Then you must allow Spell-Like Abilities to fulfill the pre-requisites set forth for PrC qualifications and the like, because that's exactly what you're suggesting. And Paizo said no after all the "cheese" the PFS GMs had to go through.
How does "kinetic blasts are weapons" -> "SLA are spells"? It's easy to rule that SLA, like spells, can benefit from weapon-enhancing abilities if they also fit Y criteria, without saying that SLA are identical to spells.
Weapon-Like Spells/Abilities does not make them in and of itself Weapons. They have certain aspects of Weapons, and can be affected by certain effects, but you keep forgetting the only reason you can take Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast) is because it counts as a weapon for the purposes of the feat, and that's via the feat text. It also takes a FAQ to expunge the given examples to expand to subjects such as Kinetic Blast.
I don't see Kinetic Blasts on the Weapons table, nor am I able to craft and enchant Kinetic Blasts with Weapon Enhancements. They're Weapon-Like, not Weapons.
And the FAQ on rays says that weapon-like spells can benefit from bonuses that apply to weapon attack and damage, such as Inspire Courage. All we need is an FAQ saying that this also applies to SLA, and hopefully a comment on what exactly counts as a "weapon-like" spell or SLA (is requiring an attack roll and dealing HP damage sufficient)?
And Paizo said no after all the "cheese" the PFS GMs had to go through.A dangerous precedent. The strict restrictions of Pathfinder Society actually promotes what you refer to as "cheese." Because of this skewed nature, Pathfinder Society Organized Play should NOT be used as a gauge when determining the rules for the overall game.
It only ever ends in tears.
If it was promoted, I don't think it would have been changed back. PFS shows a lot of in-game impact for options, and is a large portion of what Paizo balances their game around. Granted, PFS has its own houserules, it still shows what you can expect from an as-is game, especially when it's Paizo-endorsed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that PrC qualification "cheese" was something that PFS, either GMs or Players, did not like. If it was a small enough problem, it would have been banned like other options, but it wasn't.
I'm not saying that PFS was the right or wrong precedent, all I'm saying is that it is most likely because of PFS that it was changed back.
But yes, I agree. It's not a perfect precedent, but it's perhaps the #1 precedent that Paizo follows.
|
I think the magic number is 123, though. Thats what I had on my Scorpion Whip FAQ before it was answered.Well, is >100 people hitting FAQ enough?The problem with something like this is that there isn't enough people having trouble with this to generate enough FAQ clicks.
[Shameless Plug]
Only 109 hits on this thread and no answer, yet.
[/plug]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Paizo said no after all the "cheese" the PFS GMs had to go through.A dangerous precedent. The strict restrictions of Pathfinder Society actually promotes what you refer to as "cheese." Because of this skewed nature, Pathfinder Society Organized Play should NOT be used as a gauge when determining the rules for the overall game.
It only ever ends in tears.
If it was promoted, I don't think it would have been changed back. PFS shows a lot of in-game impact for options, and is a large portion of what Paizo balances their game around. Granted, PFS has its own houserules, it still shows what you can expect from an as-is game, especially when it's Paizo-endorsed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that PrC qualification "cheese" was something that PFS, either GMs or Players, did not like. If it was a small enough problem, it would have been banned like other options, but it wasn't.
I'm not saying that PFS was the right or wrong precedent, all I'm saying is that it is most likely because of PFS that it was changed back.
But yes, I agree. It's not a perfect precedent, but it's perhaps the #1 precedent that Paizo follows.
One of the bigger problems with PFS, is that it is rife with bad encounter design. Single bosses with no backup minions making crane wing look far more powerful than it was. Things like that, that skew appearances, causing the developers to make ill-informed decisions that effect everyone else for the worse.
Nefreet: FAQ'd it.
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.
First, I agree with the interpretation that attack roll + hp damage roll should be enough to qualify as weapon-like, and suitable for ranged weapon feat trees. (And that Weapon Focus(ray) would apply to ranged touch/hp-damage ranged spells, even if not specifically called out as rays. I don't believe this is too powerful for casters because there is a larger opportunity cost for combat feats and fewer feat opportunities compared to more martial classes.)
Now to throw a wrench in the works:
Under normal, typical circumstances I agree that one can't take an AoO with a spell.
But, what about a caster holding a charge for a touch spell—would that caster get an AoO? I would think so, as the caster is treated in other respects as being armed.
(Side note: even if yes, Quicken Metamagic would not work to exploit because it's swift and not immediate.)
|
|
Under normal, typical circumstances I agree that one can't take an AoO with a spell.
But, what about a caster holding a charge for a touch spell—would that caster get an AoO? I would think so, as the caster is treated in other respects as being armed.
Yes. Since you are treated as "armed" while holding the charge, you can indeed make AoOs with a held touch spell.
That is still different than being able to cast Shocking Grasp as an AoO.
|
|
the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.
It appears so.
It even looks like you could combine it with Rapid Shot.
I'm surprised there was no FAQ update today.
I don't see Kinetic Blasts on the Weapons table, nor am I able to craft and enchant Kinetic Blasts with Weapon Enhancements. They're Weapon-Like, not Weapons.
I could say the same for a Bite or any other Natural Attack
Unarmed Strike appears on the weapon table, but you can't craft and enchant them.
Yes, for that reason I mentioned the Natural Attacks as they don't even appear in the Weapon Table of the CRB
I'm surprised there was no FAQ update today.It was already posted that there likely wouldn't be one. There was some technical difficulties caused by the anti-spam measures that removed the FAQ rankings. There will probably be no FAQs until it's fixed.
Oh. I thought Mark had said they were trying to work around that. I guess that approach didn't work. I've had the flu all week, so I haven't really kept up on things here.
I don't see Kinetic Blasts on the Weapons table, nor am I able to craft and enchant Kinetic Blasts with Weapon Enhancements. They're Weapon-Like, not Weapons.I could say the same for a Bite or any other Natural Attack
So it's settled then. I can enhance Kinetic Blasts with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, since it's apparently on the same level as a Natural Weapon. /sarcasm
Getting serious now, I'd prefer to think of the reason that they didn't include Natural Weapons in the Weapons Table is because there are many forms of Natural Weapons; it'd be difficult to encompass all of the Natural Weapons, since there are so many. Whereas there's only one form of Unarmed Strike.
Of course, If you want to ignore the Natural Attacks entry of the Universal Monster Rules, then you'll end up breaking a lot of the monsters in the Bestiary, as well as the factor that you couldn't, for example, select Weapon Focus (Bite), since it's not a weapon, nor is it an exception listed in the feat description.
Logic dictates we stick with the more conservative and RAI ruling, in that Natural Weapons, are still Weapons. They're just in a separate category of Weapons.
@ Imbicatus
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
You can change how an Unarmed Strike works, even its very core functions for combat. But because of this very sentence in the Weapons section, it will still be a Light Weapon.
It's not only listed once, but twice in the Weapons section. I don't see any sentence like that mentioned for Kinetic Blast. (Similarly, I don't see it for Natural Weapons, but that's probably because not all Natural Weapons are Light Weapons.)
Gisher: You got me sick! It was your virus that transferred through the interwebs. I knew it.
Did someone say that you cant enchant an Unarmed Strike? Huh?... Yeah you can.
Also, what is this about the spam thing? Can I also blame me being sick on that?
Hasn't this been FAQed already? I thought they replied "Rays and spells that take the actual form of weapons (acid arrow, flame blade, etc.) = weapons, and nothing else" ?
No, they said that feats work for weapon like spells. The one's you quoted are clear. The question now is, are spells with attack rolls considered weapon-like to also benefit. If not that means that the penalties for aiming at someone in combat wouldn't apply since those are for weapons.
... The question now is, are spells with attack rolls considered weapon-like to also benefit. If not that means that the penalties for aiming at someone in combat wouldn't apply since those are for weapons.
Yes, feats apply—as do penalties—on spells that require attack rolls.
It's an "attack roll" (often, a "ranged attack roll"). You add your Base Attack Bonus, Dex bonus, size bonus/penalty, and everything else. Just like it says in the "Combat" section under attack rolls (which, you'll noticed, is what is used for "weapons").
Point blank shot, precise shot, and the like, apply.
You know, that is a good point. If the feats didn't apply, the penalties wouldn't either.
Huh.
That would make perfect sense. Unfortunately there are people out there that say the penalties should apply, but not the bonuses.
|
... The question now is, are spells with attack rolls considered weapon-like to also benefit. If not that means that the penalties for aiming at someone in combat wouldn't apply since those are for weapons.Yes, feats apply—as do penalties—on spells that require attack rolls.
It's an "attack roll" (often, a "ranged attack roll"). You add your Base Attack Bonus, Dex bonus, size bonus/penalty, and everything else. Just like it says in the "Combat" section under attack rolls (which, you'll noticed, is what is used for "weapons").
Point blank shot, precise shot, and the like, apply.
Sure, explicitly to ray spells. To spells that list as a weapon, like Acid Arrow.
How about spells that make RTA that are not rays, nor have weapon-like names?
Acid Splash, as an example.
Also, does using the Reach metamagic make a touch spell into something weapon-like for the purpose of PBS, etc.?
Which is probably why the language used in the Ranged Tactics Toolbox is so explicit for the Channel Ray feat.
Sure, explicitly to ray spells. To spells that list as a weapon, like Acid Arrow.
How about spells that make RTA that are not rays, nor have weapon-like names?
Acid Splash, as an example.
The answer is the same. (Although you might see table variation around Weapon Focus, the other feats work the same.)
The description of these as a "weapon" is, as I mentioned, in the Combat section under "ranged attack". RTA is a ranged attack. Ranged attacks use weapons. Thus, these spells are weapons.
probably to some extent anything that use an attack roll is a weapon. Usually the mess comes down to WHAT weapon is, as some spells are rays while some are not, then we have kinetic blasts an mystic bolts that work like rays but are a separate type of weapon for feats etc.
|
... The question now is, are spells with attack rolls considered weapon-like to also benefit. If not that means that the penalties for aiming at someone in combat wouldn't apply since those are for weapons.Yes, feats apply—as do penalties—on spells that require attack rolls.
It's an "attack roll" (often, a "ranged attack roll"). You add your Base Attack Bonus, Dex bonus, size bonus/penalty, and everything else. Just like it says in the "Combat" section under attack rolls (which, you'll noticed, is what is used for "weapons").
Point blank shot, precise shot, and the like, apply.
The problem is that point blank shot, precise shot, etc, use the term "ranged weapons" not "ranged attacks" which is why there is the question as to what counts as a ranged weapon, other than Rays or weapon like spells. Things like Acid Splash, which isn't a ray and doesnt conjure a weapon but still uses a ranged attack roll.
No, it's not a problem. It uses a ranged attack roll. Ranged attack rolls are only for weapons. Therefore, such spells are weapons. It's really that simple. (The same is true, as was pointed out, for kinetic blasts, which are Spell-Like.)
You're creating a problem that doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) exist. The issue comes, partially, from a long 3E history.
To my knowledge, there has been no ruling in Pathfinder, ever, that differentiates between ray and other ranged touch spells. Some rulings have referred to rays specifically, that is true, but such rulings have never excluded other RT spells.
|
|
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
No reference to "weapon" in here.
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
Again, no reference to "weapon" in here.
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Well, a reference to weapon here, but more of a generic statement, not that all melee attacks are made with weapons.
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Again, a reference to weapons, but much of it doesn't apply to spells, since most spells that are ranged have a defined-by-caster-level maximum range, and no range increments.
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
Weapon referenced, but, per previously cited, you can make ranged attacks with things that, apparently, aren't weapons.
A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit. If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Special Abilities), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit.
Explicit rules including spells that make attack rolls in being able to make critical hits. No reference to spells as weapons, though.
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
So, touch attacks can critical, again, but are not necessarily weapons, since it doesn't mention weapons at all.
Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
Restatement of ranged attacks provoke AoOs, but nothing saying they are ranged weapons, nor wether they take the penalty on firing into melee, or suffer from cover or concealment.
Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage.
So, not all damage comes from attacks, per this rules snippet.
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
So, this implies that cover applies against all ranged attacks, with a weapon or otherwise.
Nothing that says all attacks are made with weapons, though...
You can take weapon focus with it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, those are three categories. No, it's not a problem. I don't understand why you keep making it one. (Although yes, Paizo could be more explicit, but there isn't really a huge need to.) Just because you keep saying it's a problem doesn't mean it's actually a problem.
As for the citation (it's the same one I've mentioned three times):
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Okay, let's start here. The attack roll is a d20. We add bonuses. Which bonuses do we add?
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
Please notice there are only two choices: melee weapon or ranged weapon. If we're making an attack roll—and we know we're doing so when we apply our BAB and trying to hit something—we're using a weapon.
As for the examples above (Throw Anything, monkey flinging poo), these are weapons within the context of the system.
Either "ranged touch attack" is a subset of "ranged attacks" and they are all weapons, or they are not, meaning you can't gain cover vs ranged touch attacks. You can't have it both ways.
They are weapons for the purposes of this roll. Cover applies, as does firing into combat, concealment miss chance, or any other element of the Combat Modifiers table.
|
|
Yes, those are three categories. No, it's not a problem. I don't understand why you keep making it one. (Although yes, Paizo could be more explicit, but there isn't really a huge need to.) Just because you keep saying it's a problem doesn't mean it's actually a problem.
The problem isn't the "you" you're referring to. If it were literally that simple, then there wouldn't be this 200 post thread about it. Surely you can't be so obstinate that you think this conversation is merely all because one person misunderstands it? It's because it's not well defined, so people can (and have) rightfully misinterpret the intent because as written abilities such as Precise Shot don't apply to Acid Splash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TomG: Just because you say that it is NOT a problem doesn't mean that it isn't.
It is something that needs clarity. My proof is 123 FAQ requests on this thread alone as well as all of the requests on all of the other threads on this same issue. Also for all the PFS GMs (and for that matter home GMs) who rule differently than the way you believe that it works due to a lapse in the wording of the rules.
What is your proof that it is not a problem? It seems that you are in the minority here so I think you have the burden of proof (even though I gave mine).