Spell & Shooting into melee

[Amaurot]

Does firing a NON-ray, NON-weapon-like ranged touch spell,
such as a Reach-metamagiced-Shocking Grasp, into melee
suffers -4 penalty?

[LazarX]

Any type of ranged attack firing into melee suffers the penalty unless you have precise shot, or if it's an auto-hit like magic missle. You may also have additional penalties due to cover.

[Sphynx]

The rules say no, Amaurot, however in the Pathfinder Society, they house rule that it does indeed suffer a -4 penalty. The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

Thus it is generally accepted as a house rule for most games, but it is not a canonical ruling.

[Amaurot]

Sphynx wrote:

The rules say no, Amaurot, however in the Pathfinder Society, they house rule that it does indeed suffer a -4 penalty. The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

Thus it is generally accepted as a house rule for most games, but it is not a canonical ruling.

May I ask for a citation please?

[Sphynx]

A citation for what? I quoted the rulebook, page 184. Are you looking for a prd link?

[Amaurot]

Oh, I was asking for the PFS house rule, because I am running one actually.

[Sphynx]

Sorry, can't help with that. I don't do PFS anymore.

[LazarX]

The PFS rule, The Pathfinder one, for that matter, is that all ranged attacks use the same rules and restrictions, UNLESS an attack form specifically says otherwise. This includes spells, arrows, gunshots, thrown hammers, whatever.

[Gisher]

You might want to visit and FAQ this thread.

[RedDogMT]

Sphynx wrote:

The rules say no, Amaurot, however in the Pathfinder Society, they house rule that it does indeed suffer a -4 penalty. The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

Thus it is generally accepted as a house rule for most games, but it is not a canonical ruling.

There is no house rule here. It falls under the core rules. The Reach Spell metamagic feat would turn a touch attack into a ranged touch attack and a ranged attack is subject to the -4 penalty for Shooting into a Melee.

[Deighton Thrane]

That's only true if you take the "If you shoot" part of the rule to mean if you shoot anything. If instead you take it as "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon" to mean when attacking with a weapon, then spells would not be included, unless said spell created a weapon, like a ray.

Personally I think the second reading is the proper reading, even if I have no problem with people ruling it as the first. Also I don't think either is a houserule, but a legitimate interpretation of a rule that could be clearer.

[LazarX]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

That's only true if you take the "If you shoot" part of the rule to mean if you shoot anything. If instead you take it as "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon" to mean when attacking with a weapon, then spells would not be included, unless said spell created a weapon, like a ray.

Save that there is no text to qualify the ranged attack rolls in that manner. It does not say if you make a ranged attack, with a bow, a weapon, or spit. The rules clearly address making ranged attack rolls in an all encompassing general manner.

This also applies to feats such as Precise Shot, and it's superior cousin. If you take that feat that means you are good for any form of ranged attack you make, whether bow, spit, or spell.

[Deighton Thrane]

I think we have vastly different ideas of what clearly and all encompassing mean. Also only improved precise shot uses the term "ranged attack", while precise shot uses the same "shoot or throw a ranged weapon". It's consistent, and can be taken to mean that penalties for cover apply to all ranged attacks, while attacking into a melee only applies to shot or thrown ranged weapons.

I believe if precise shot and attacking into melee was meant to apply to all ranged attacks, it would simply say ranged attacks like the improved precise shot feat.

[LazarX]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

I think we have vastly different ideas of what clearly and all encompassing mean. Also only improved precise shot uses the term "ranged attack", while precise shot uses the same "shoot or throw a ranged weapon". It's consistent, and can be taken to mean that penalties for cover apply to all ranged attacks, while attacking into a melee only applies to shot or thrown ranged weapons.

I believe if precise shot and attacking into melee was meant to apply to all ranged attacks, it would simply say ranged attacks like the improved precise shot feat.

Keep in mind that different sections of the rules are written by different people who might be using different terms to say the same thing.

[claudekennilol]

Gisher wrote:

You might want to visit and FAQ this thread.

What he said.

[Deighton Thrane]

claudekennilol wrote:

Gisher wrote:

You might want to visit and FAQ this thread.

What he said.

Already done.

[Sphynx]

RedDogMT wrote:

Sphynx wrote:

The rules say no, Amaurot, however in the Pathfinder Society, they house rule that it does indeed suffer a -4 penalty. The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

Thus it is generally accepted as a house rule for most games, but it is not a canonical ruling.

There is no house rule here. It falls under the core rules. The Reach Spell metamagic feat would turn a touch attack into a ranged touch attack and a ranged attack is subject to the -4 penalty for Shooting into a Melee.

If you want to say it falls under core rules, you need to support that statement with the rules. I have no objections to being wrong, particularly since our games use the same house rule. But, if I read the book/prd, I find no evidence stating it as canonical.

[LazarX]

Sphynx wrote:

RedDogMT wrote:

Sphynx wrote:

The rules say no, Amaurot, however in the Pathfinder Society, they house rule that it does indeed suffer a -4 penalty. The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

Thus it is generally accepted as a house rule for most games, but it is not a canonical ruling.

There is no house rule here. It falls under the core rules. The Reach Spell metamagic feat would turn a touch attack into a ranged touch attack and a ranged attack is subject to the -4 penalty for Shooting into a Melee.

If you want to say it falls under core rules, you need to support that statement with the rules. I have no objections to being wrong, particularly since our games use the same house rule. But, if I read the book/prd, I find no evidence stating it as canonical.

Which has been done earlier in the thread. The contested language is the absence of specific mention of ranged spell attacks. The counter to that argument is that the general rules of ranged attacks do not make any reference to the exclusion of ranged spells from the penalty. In other words, the burden of proof is to find text that excludes ranged attack spells from the general rule.

[Sphynx]

LazarX wrote:

Sphynx wrote:

RedDogMT wrote:

Sphynx wrote:

The rules say no, Amaurot, however in the Pathfinder Society, they house rule that it does indeed suffer a -4 penalty. The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

Thus it is generally accepted as a house rule for most games, but it is not a canonical ruling.

There is no house rule here. It falls under the core rules. The Reach Spell metamagic feat would turn a touch attack into a ranged touch attack and a ranged attack is subject to the -4 penalty for Shooting into a Melee.

If you want to say it falls under core rules, you need to support that statement with the rules. I have no objections to being wrong, particularly since our games use the same house rule. But, if I read the book/prd, I find no evidence stating it as canonical.

Which has been done earlier in the thread. The contested language is the absence of specific mention of ranged spell attacks. The counter to that argument is that the general rules of ranged attacks do not make any reference to the exclusion of ranged spells from the penalty. In other words, the burden of proof is to find text that excludes ranged attack spells from the general rule.

No, it hasn't. Those are interpretations, assumptions. The wording of the rule is very precise, it specifically picks out "ranged weapon" while using the verbs "throw" and "shoot". While I understand -why- people choose to use interpretations to create their house rules, it's still not canonical. A better argument would be to point at the wording of Magic Missile. However, just because Magic Missile doesn't take penalty for firing into melee, doesn't mean that firing into melee takes a penalty.

You can't claim something is a canonical rule by interpretation, but assumption, or even by FAQs. Canonical means either by-the-book, or per-errata. Until Paizo decides to make it canonical, it's still just a house-rule.

And no, the burden of proof is in showing that a rule exists. You don't prove a negative. There is a rule, "ranged weapons" get a -4. If you want to say there's a rule that something else gets a -4, you have to show that rule.

[Nefreet]

You claim that firing an Acid Splash into melee, and taking the -4 penalty to hit, is a PFS houserule.

Can you show me where you found that?

PFS largely uses the Pathfinder ruleset, and I am aware of no PFS-specific exception regarding this.

If you could provide such a link, that would clear up quite a bit of debate, as it would show that the general Pathfinder rules don't apply the penalty.

I look forward to reading what you've found.

[Sphynx]

Sorry for the delay, I minimize my forum time during the weekends...

No, I can't show you -any- PFS house rules, I no longer play PFS. However, it doesn't matter if the house-rule it or not, of it it was just the group I played in or not.

For a rule to exist, it has to be in the book or the prd or Errata. There is no rule in any of these places that state firing a non-weapon into melee accrues a -4 penalty for doing so. One does not try and "prove" a negative. If a claim is being made that a rule exist, that is the claim that needs the proof.

The book/prd is very clear in that it is only for weapons. I -hope- they fix the prd and add it to the errata, but until then, it's a house-rule in any game in which that rule is in use, since it's not a canonical rule (or if it is a canonical rule, nobody has been able to show where that rule is).

[SlimGauge]

Sphynx wrote:

The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

I parse that quote as "If you shoot <anything that can be shot> or throw a ranged weapon".

[Sphynx]

SlimGauge wrote:

Sphynx wrote:

The only rules about -4 is on page 184 where it specifically states that "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."

I parse that quote as "If you shoot <anything that can be shot> or throw a ranged weapon".

Good parsing, but only by actually filling in an object with the verb would it be grammatically correct. Without an actual object word/phrase between the 2 verbs, grammatically, those 2 verbs apply to the same object; which in this case is "ranged weapon".

To apply as you intended, it would need commas after the word "shoot" and after the word "weapon" to imply that "If you shoot at a target..."

[Slamy Mcbiteo]

Was there ever a FAQ or a ruling on this? I read the threat above I never saw an official response. I think it can be read either way..

[Slamy Mcbiteo]

I think this is the ruling that basically states the -4 applies to Rays since they are "as a ranged weapon", page 214 the core book under "Aiming a Spell" or PRD link

Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.

The Reach metamagic is a little unclear but I think it would work like a ray and not a spread. Since a Ray works like Range Weapon the -4 applies. I guess no FAQ needed I just needed to read a little more

[Sphynx]

Slamy Mcbiteo wrote:

I think this is the ruling that basically states the -4 applies to Rays since they are "as a ranged weapon", page 214 the core book under "Aiming a Spell" or PRD link

That is likely the rule that confused people. If you look at spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, you see that the Effect Ray is one of the lines on it. THAT spell definitely gets a -4 because, as your link shows, it is a ray and "aim as if using a ranged weapon". This however was not suppose to transcend to items which didn't have that effect. "doing ranged single-target damage" was never the requisite.

Now, what they -should- do is likely Errata some things, like the Kinetic Blast to include that line, but until then, all non-ray ranged attacks are not considered weapons for purpose of the -4.

[Nefreet]

Sphynx wrote:

No, I can't show you -any- PFS house rules, I no longer play PFS. However, it doesn't matter if the house-rule it or not, of it it was just the group I played in or not.

For a rule to exist, it has to be in the book or the prd or Errata. There is no rule in any of these places that state firing a non-weapon into melee accrues a -4 penalty for doing so. One does not try and "prove" a negative. If a claim is being made that a rule exist, that is the claim that needs the proof.

The book/prd is very clear in that it is only for weapons. I -hope- they fix the prd and add it to the errata, but until then, it's a house-rule in any game in which that rule is in use, since it's not a canonical rule (or if it is a canonical rule, nobody has been able to show where that rule is).

I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I asked you to show evidence. If such evidence could be shown, then that would mean the general rule was that firing Acid Splash into melee wouldn't suffer the -4 penalty.

You made a claim, and I was asking for you to support it. Since you cannot, let's delete the "PFS has a houserule" from this discussion, because it is simply not true.

And we're probably going to have to disagree on what is "clear". I am not an advocate of extreme literal readings. "RAW" is an impossibility. Text must be interpreted. I read the Core Rulebook as it was intended to be read: conversationally. When I read the statement about firing into melee, I interpret that to mean making any ranged attack roll. You obviously interpret that to mean only things classified as weapons. Given different paradigms of understanding, we're both correct.

[Sphynx]

Well, I think Slamy nailed it when he quoted the "Ray" rules. This makes it interesting as well because only "Ray"s get Critical Hits. So now it's possible to show that certain spells like "Acid Splash" are not Rays, so not only do not get the -4 to hit in melee, but also don't get a Critical either.

While a part of me felt like there was some accuracy to some spells receiving the -4, I'm glad to now have the official ruling/wording on it. It's really about if it is a Ray or not...

[claudekennilol]

This discussion should be had in THIS thread. To keep the forums concise, and relevant conversation in relevant places, please continue discussing it there. It also furthers that this actually is a Frequently Asked Question and needs to be addressed.

[Chess Pwn]

Nefreet wrote:

You claim that firing an Acid Splash into melee, and taking the -4 penalty to hit, is a PFS houserule.

Can you show me where you found that?

PFS largely uses the Pathfinder ruleset, and I am aware of no PFS-specific exception regarding this.

If you could provide such a link, that would clear up quite a bit of debate, as it would show that the general Pathfinder rules don't apply the penalty.

I look forward to reading what you've found.

Can you link to where PFS rules that Acid Splash takes a -4 to hit when your target is in melee please? I'm unaware of that rule and I don't know where to look to find where that's been said.

Because without that then it follows that there's no penalty since it's currently not a weapon.

[James Risner]

LazarX wrote:

In other words, the burden of proof is to find text that excludes ranged attack spells from the general rule.

+1

It has always been clarified over and over again that spells are weapons. So any bonuses (Arcane Strike, Good Hope, Inspire Courage) adds to them and any penalty (shooting into melee, point blank shot, cover) subtracts to the roll.

[Chess Pwn]

James Risner wrote:

LazarX wrote:

In other words, the burden of proof is to find text that excludes ranged attack spells from the general rule.

+1

It has always been clarified over and over again that spells are weapons. So any bonuses (Arcane Strike, Good Hope, Inspire Courage) adds to them and any penalty (shooting into melee, point blank shot, cover) subtracts to the roll.

Would you happen to be able to link one of those clarifications that non-ray spells are weapons. If you could that would be great and clear this whole thing up. :D

[James Risner]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Would you happen to be able to link one of those clarifications that non-ray spells are weapons.

Was linked above, but since it was in a thread I'll link it for you:

HERE

Basically, since 3.0 through 3.5 and from the beginning of PF the entire design of the system is that all spells are weapons. So anything that says "ranged weapon" applies to spells, abilities, weapons, etc.

[Chess Pwn]

Perfect, a Dev comment back when those were as official as FAQs. That clears it up for me, Thanks James!

[claudekennilol]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Perfect, a Dev comment back when those were as official as FAQs. That clears it up for me, Thanks James!

"back when"? Was it only two years ago that they were "that official"?

[Sphynx]

I do think they should errata things a bit... the Ray description should state that: any spell or special ability which is ranged and requires a roll to hit, is considered a ray.

Similarly, they should errata the Shooting into Melee to inclusively state that Ray spells also receive the penalty.

[Chess Pwn]

claudekennilol wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Perfect, a Dev comment back when those were as official as FAQs. That clears it up for me, Thanks James!

"back when"? Was it only two years ago that they were "that official"?

As far as I know it was. I know that in the last few years they said that posts weren't official anymore, but I believe that this one is old enough to count.

[James Risner]

Chess Pwn wrote:

As far as I know it was. I know that in the last few years they said that posts weren't official anymore, but I believe that this one is old enough to count.

Everything was wonderful, we got 2700 posts from SKR, 900 from SRM, and 500 from JB with the majority of them clarifying how the rules worked.

Then they started FAQing things. In the threads that resulted in some features being FAQ, some developers clarified additionally in the threads. But we started to get threads that some vocal minority of players didn't like the FAQ ruling. They would continue debating the validity of the ruling, I guess you could say.

This resulted in SRM saying essentially "fine nothing we say is official".

Now we have sad panda times. Where any clarification is "oh but it isn't official". Makes me sad. I liked it when things were official. I miss the old days.

[claudekennilol]

Chess Pwn wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Perfect, a Dev comment back when those were as official as FAQs. That clears it up for me, Thanks James!

"back when"? Was it only two years ago that they were "that official"?

As far as I know it was. I know that in the last few years they said that posts weren't official anymore, but I believe that this one is old enough to count.

..seriously? You can't have it both ways. It can't both be "within 2 years is fine" and "within a few years isn't official".

[Chess Pwn]

claudekennilol wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Perfect, a Dev comment back when those were as official as FAQs. That clears it up for me, Thanks James!

"back when"? Was it only two years ago that they were "that official"?

As far as I know it was. I know that in the last few years they said that posts weren't official anymore, but I believe that this one is old enough to count.

..seriously? You can't have it both ways. It can't both be "within 2 years is fine" and "within a few years isn't official".

There's nothing contradictory in what I said.

"Sometime within the last few years." That could be yesterday and fall under that line. I don't know the date that they said that forum posts aren't official as I hadn't started being on the forums until after it was said. But sometime posts stopped being official.
So lets say that the cut-off was the day after SKR made that post, that makes the cut-off a few years ago, and this post that is 2 years old "old enough to count"
I very well could be mistaken and that the few years that posts aren't official could be 3 or more years ago, in which case this post by SKR isn't old enough. If you want to know for sure ask if someone can give you dates or look it up yourself, I'm not going to bother doing it for you.