A similar topic was discussed in this thread a while ago and I tend to side with those who claim that a weapon created by magic (or other forms of energy) is still manufactured.
Maybe a native speaker can clarify this further but in my tongue the word "manufactured" is very similar to "created", the only difference being that it usually describes stuff that wouldn't occur naturally.
It's not a question of being a native speaker, it's a question of whether 'manufactured' means 'not a natural weapon', or 'weapon manufactured by conventional means'... that's a subtext that can't be deduced from the text as it exists, so clarifying by those who know the RAI is needed.
|
It's not a question of being a native speaker, it's a question of whether 'manufactured' means 'not a natural weapon', or 'weapon manufactured by conventional means'... that's a subtext that can't be deduced from the text as it exists, so clarifying by those who know the RAI is needed.A similar topic was discussed in this thread a while ago and I tend to side with those who claim that a weapon created by magic (or other forms of energy) is still manufactured.
Maybe a native speaker can clarify this further but in my tongue the word "manufactured" is very similar to "created", the only difference being that it usually describes stuff that wouldn't occur naturally.
*nods*
There is also the problem that nowhere in the game does it define what a "manufactured weapon" is. IIRC, "manufactured weapon" is only used like 2-3 times, one of them being in the haste spell.
I'm wondering if Haste would work fine if "Manufactured" were just replaced by "non-improvised", but "magically you're really fast" might well make you better able to swing a barstool, so that doesn't make a lot of sense either.
It feels like that clause in Haste was intended to prevent you from making extra shocking grasps or scorching rays, but the rest of the rules prevent anyway so that Haste doesn't need to.
Ghoul touch when the wizard keeps missing. How many attacks does a 5th level wizard under the effect of haste make with a held charge of ghoul touch?
|
Touch attacks while holding a spell charge is a specific kind of standard action.
My interpretation of haste would boil down to:
"Can you use this weapon, device, thing to make a full attack? If so, haste applies"
So mystic bolts and kinetic blades would both be "yes".
So would splash weapons, if you had more than one drawn or the ability to draw them as a free action.
|
I just want to know something.What can it be causing a problem for them to not release a faq about it.
Do you want an official answer, benefitting from research into the original authors intent and agreed consensus from the entire development team, or one developers personal opinion? One takes time, one may be wrong, and both may not be the answer you are looking for.
I wouldn't overthink the change in the haste wording. It is entirely possible that Paizo never meant to exclude anything, but rather wanted to highlight the fact that unlike in 3.5 haste now does affect natural attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh can we rename this the Rules Pedantry (with questions allowed) section?
No.
|
|
I just want to know something.What can it be causing a problem for them to not release a faq about it.Do you want an official answer, benefitting from research into the original authors intent and agreed consensus from the entire development team, or one developers personal opinion? One takes time, one may be wrong, and both may not be the answer you are looking for.
I want that guy that write the text to explain to me.I mean ı am thinking about it for three days now.I want an answer man.What was the point.
|
|
I want that guy that write the text to explain to me.I mean ı am thinking about it for three days now.I want an answer man.What was the point.I just want to know something.What can it be causing a problem for them to not release a faq about it.Do you want an official answer, benefitting from research into the original authors intent and agreed consensus from the entire development team, or one developers personal opinion? One takes time, one may be wrong, and both may not be the answer you are looking for.
Not really gonna happen. The closest you can get is a response from the Pathfinder Design Team account.
|
|
I want that guy that write the text to explain to me.I mean ı am thinking about it for three days now.I want an answer man.What was the point.
And when they can take the time to determine who wrote that text, and decide if the answer is still something they want in the game, they will get an answer out to us all.
What can it be causing a problem for them to not release a faq about it.
Sometimes FAQs can take five or six years to be answered.
Everybody is agreed that Haste *should* work with Kinetic Blade/Mystic Bolts right? So it shouldn't be controversial in the least to run it this way?
Everybody is agreed that Haste *should* work with Kinetic Blade/Mystic Bolts right? So it shouldn't be controversial in the least to run it this way?Correct. But for Pedantic GMs or PFS...
I occasionally browse the PFS threads with rules discussions and I'm always surprised to see an overwhelming consensus to how a rule works and then a 5-star GM or venture-person say something like, "I disagree and will never run it that way at my table."
I'd guess that's probably the main reason people push so hard for answers to relatively simple FAQs.
|
Ghoul touch isn't a weapon, it's an attack yes, but it's not a weapon.
"Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
...
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
..."
While the spell itself is not a weapon... it is delivered with a weapon; your unarmed strike. Anything that increases your ability to hit with an unarmed strike should increase your ability to hit with a normal melee touch attack.
Of course, whether haste will allow you another attack will still hinge on whether haste will allow an extra non-natural, non-manufactured attack like a non-monk/brawler unarmed strike.|
|
Ghoul touch isn't a weapon, it's an attack yes, but it's not a weapon."Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
...
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
..."
While the spell itself is not a weapon... it is delivered with a weapon; your unarmed strike. Anything that increases your ability to hit with an unarmed strike should increase your ability to hit with a melee touch attack.
Of course, whether haste will allow you another attack will still hinge on whether haste will allow an extra non-natural, non-manufactured attack like a non-monk/brawler unarmed strike.
Eh, I don't think I agree with that interpretation.
You're considered armed but you're not delivering it through the weapon, that's kinda the Magi's thing. So without a feat or class ability that lets you apply those weapon bonuses to delivering spells Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) or Weapon Focus (Claw) wouldn't apply when you try to deliver touch spells.
And the section you quoted calls delivering a touch spell an "armed" unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike.
|
|
Ghoul touch isn't a weapon, it's an attack yes, but it's not a weapon."Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
...
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
..."
While the spell itself is not a weapon... it is delivered with a weapon; your unarmed strike. Anything that increases your ability to hit with an unarmed strike should increase your ability to hit with a melee touch attack.
Of course, whether haste will allow you another attack will still hinge on whether haste will allow an extra non-natural, non-manufactured attack like a non-monk/brawler unarmed strike.Eh, I don't think I agree with that interpretation.
You're considered armed but you're not delivering it through the weapon, that's kinda the Magi's thing. So without a feat or class ability that lets you apply those weapon bonuses to delivering spells Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) or Weapon Focus (Claw) wouldn't apply when you try to deliver touch spells.
And the section you quoted calls delivering a touch spell an "armed" unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike.
Actually, thats not a magi thing. A wizard could always do that... so long as the weapon was their fist. A wizard could punch for damage and also release the spell at the same time. In fact... they don't get a choice on whether the spell releases or not. It always does. The magi thing is to transfer the spell from their hand... to a different weapon.
" If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. "
"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."
|
|
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
|
|
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
No, I'm saying that a melee touch attack uses your hand. The same weapon as punching.(Though, honestly, the definition of unarmed attack is not limited to hands and I haven't seen anything that limits touch spells to hands either)
Now, before you go further, are you willing to say that a melee touch attack is not a weapon... and thus does not qualify for weapon finesse?
|
|
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
No, I'm saying that a melee touch attack uses your hand. The same weapon as punching.
Now, before you go further, are you willing to say that a melee touch attack is not a weapon... and thus does not qualify for weapon finesse?
It's not the same though. Delivering a spell through simply touching someone is different than hitting someone and having the spell discharge as a rider effect.
For your question, not I do not think touch attacks are weapons but I would allow Weapon Finesse to work with them, acknowledging that as a houserule unless there's some rule about spells and weapon finesse I'm missing.
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.
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
No, I'm saying that a melee touch attack uses your hand. The same weapon as punching.
Now, before you go further, are you willing to say that a melee touch attack is not a weapon... and thus does not qualify for weapon finesse?
Let me ask you a question: If I hit an Unarmed Strike with a Touch Spell active, would I discharge the spell?
The Special Abilities FAQ inherently says no, because only feats that give specific selections, such as Weapon Focus, can be chosen with such "weapons." Any other feat that applies to weapons you wield doesn't apply to "weapons" you "wield."
A melee touch attack is an 'armed' unarmed strike.
Can you use Haste with unarmed strikes?
Per strictly interpreted RAW-
No, unless you have monk or brawler levels, and perhaps if your unarmed strike is made with a gauntlet.
|
|
Why do you say that? An unarmed strike is treated as a light weapon for feats and abilities.A melee touch attack is an 'armed' unarmed strike.
Can you use Haste with unarmed strikes?
Per strictly interpreted RAW-
No, unless you have monk or brawler levels, and perhaps if your unarmed strike is made with a gauntlet.
Because by RAW haste only works on natural attacks or manufactured weapons, which non-monk/brawler US does not fall under.
Hence this thread.
|
|
Why do you say that? An unarmed strike is treated as a light weapon for feats and abilities.A melee touch attack is an 'armed' unarmed strike.
Can you use Haste with unarmed strikes?
Per strictly interpreted RAW-
No, unless you have monk or brawler levels, and perhaps if your unarmed strike is made with a gauntlet.
Because by RAW haste only works on natural attacks or manufactured weapons, which non-monk/brawler US does not fall under.
Hence this thread.
So, weapon finesse doesn't work on melee touch attacks either?
Why would a monk qualify? Do their attacks count as natural weapons?
Strictly by RAW, no.
Yes, and also Manufactured. It's a perk of their version of IUS.
|
|
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
No, I'm saying that a melee touch attack uses your hand. The same weapon as punching.
Now, before you go further, are you willing to say that a melee touch attack is not a weapon... and thus does not qualify for weapon finesse?
It's not the same though. Delivering a spell through simply touching someone is different than hitting someone and having the spell discharge as a rider effect.
For your question, not I do not think touch attacks are weapons but I would allow Weapon Finesse to work with them, acknowledging that as a houserule unless there's some rule about spells and weapon finesse I'm missing.
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.
You use the same weapon regardless. The fact that the weapon doesn't have to hit with enough force to deal its normal damage should not matter.
For instance, you can make a touch attack with a claw. You are still using the claw to make the touch attack and should benefit from any training in the use of that claw.Remember, the difference here is only that to get the desired effect we only need to touch the creature and not hit it hard enough to do damage. Doing so would use the same training you have in using the weapon you are performing the touch with.
@ Lorewalker: Just because you use the same weapon doesn't mean it adheres to the same rules. Monk Unarmed Strikes and anyone elses' Unarmed Strikes are strictly different, even though they use the same weapon, an Unarmed Strike.
I'll ask you again: If I make an Unarmed Strike and have a cast Touch Spell active, do I deliver that Touch Spell with that Unarmed Strike? Think carefully on the answer you give, as you'd be quite surprised with the result.
|
|
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
No, I'm saying that a melee touch attack uses your hand. The same weapon as punching.
Now, before you go further, are you willing to say that a melee touch attack is not a weapon... and thus does not qualify for weapon finesse?
Let me ask you a question: If I hit an Unarmed Strike with a Touch Spell active, would I discharge the spell?
The Special Abilities FAQ inherently says no, because only feats that give specific selections, such as Weapon Focus, can be chosen with such "weapons." Any other feat that applies to weapons you wield doesn't apply to "weapons" you "wield."
Not quite sure what you are asking... so I'll try to answer what I think you asked...
"Holding the Charge: 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."
Strictly by RAW, no.
Yes, and also Manufactured. It's a perk of their version of IUS.
Got it.
So, the Will o' Wisp stat block is wrong? Because it is applying Weapon Finesse to a melee touch attack.
More than that. Anything which has a Touch Attack that isn't using a Manufactured weapon is wrong based on the Special Abilities FAQ.
Of course, there is always "Specific trumps General," but it's not specific enough to warrant such exception to the otherwise general rule.
|
|
Why do you say that? An unarmed strike is treated as a light weapon for feats and abilities.A melee touch attack is an 'armed' unarmed strike.
Can you use Haste with unarmed strikes?
Per strictly interpreted RAW-
No, unless you have monk or brawler levels, and perhaps if your unarmed strike is made with a gauntlet.
Because by RAW haste only works on natural attacks or manufactured weapons, which non-monk/brawler US does not fall under.
Hence this thread.
So, weapon finesse doesn't work on melee touch attacks either?
Why would a monk qualify? Do their attacks count as natural weapons?
Nope,manufactured weapons.
Nope,manufactured weapons.
Monk (and Brawler) IUS explicitly says their unarmed attacks count as both natural and manufactured weapons when relevant. So they're good with Haste, Weapon Finesse, and Magic Fang.
The punching-fighter denied access to his cestus, or whatever, is in more dire straits for somewhat nonsensical reasons.
Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.
If they choose to use their Unarmed Strike/Natural Attack to discharge the spell then yes whatever bonuses they have to those modes of attack would apply, but you're not making the spell against touch AC either.
Whereas if you're using a touch attack you're effectively attacking with the spell and wouldn't get any of the bonuses from US or NAs.
No, I'm saying that a melee touch attack uses your hand. The same weapon as punching.
Now, before you go further, are you willing to say that a melee touch attack is not a weapon... and thus does not qualify for weapon finesse?
Let me ask you a question: If I hit an Unarmed Strike with a Touch Spell active, would I discharge the spell?
The Special Abilities FAQ inherently says no, because only feats that give specific selections, such as Weapon Focus, can be chosen with such "weapons." Any other feat that applies to weapons you wield doesn't apply to "weapons" you "wield."
Not quite sure what you are saying... so I'll try to answer what I think you said...
"Holding the Charge: 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...
Not relevant to my point.
How can you execute an Unarmed Strike? Hand, of course. But also legs, knees, elbows, headbutts, and several other limbs.
How can you execute a Natural Attack? There's all kinds, such as Bites, Gores, Claws, Hooves, Tail Swipes...the list goes on.
And per RAW, you can use all of those limbs and attacks to deliver a Touch Spell. Most of which, aren't associated with the hands that you assume you'd normally deliver the spell.
Point is, delivering the spell simply through your hands (or some other form of contact) is different than making an attack that just-so-happens to have a rider effect on top of it, which means these are different matters of delivering the spell (and by the rules, different results from carrying it out from the different methods of delivering the spell).
|
|
You use the same weapon regardless. The fact that the weapon doesn't have to hit with enough force to deal its normal damage should not matter.
For instance, you can make a touch attack with a claw. You are still using the claw to make the touch attack and should benefit from any training in the use of that claw.
Remember, the difference here is only that to get the desired effect we only need to touch the creature and not hit it hard enough to do damage. Doing so would use the same training you have in using the weapon you are performing the touch with.
Except it's not the same. You do not get to apply US bonuses to touch attacks because they are different things, unless you have an ability that allows you to do so. Just like you can't apply US bonuses to Natural Attack and vice-versa without something that allows you to do so.