I currently had another thread going about a unique build for a druid which was essentially a thrower but used things like Thorn Javelin and Produce Flame in place of typical thrown weapons. Things got interesting but it lead me to some confusion on "produce flames" and after a lot of research it would appear that I am not the only one.
So, Produce Flames:Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.
In addition to providing illumination, 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.
Does this mean that feats such as Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Vital Strike would all be applicable to this spell? Would Precise Shot even be necessary or do you not take the -4 penalty for enemy in melee? Also, since it is considered a thrown weapon would you add a Str. modifier to the damage? Would your Dex. affect your hit chance?
Assuming all of the above information is able to be applied I think adding Extend Spell and another metamagic feat or two could make this spell a lot of fun and a viable weapon replacement, or at least weapon addition.
Green Scourge is really great for Flame Blade builds, which is similar to Produce Flame. Might be a fun option to check out?
Secret Wizard wrote: Green Scourge is really great for Flame Blade builds, which is similar to Produce Flame. Might be a fun option to check out? I should mention that this is essentially my first Pathfinder character.
Ok, let's go slower then I guess:
1. Thrown or melee, Produce Flame deals the same damage.
2. Produce Flame is a fun ability and all, but it should be noted that it's a spell. You'll eventually run out of juice. So while it's nice to have around, you should keep other options with you.
3. Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot work perfectly with this. Rapid Shot should work too (though remember you can run out quickly as you'd toss two balls simultaneously).
4. Vital Strike however doesn't work. Vital Strike enhances weapon damage, and this is spell damage.
5. Precise Shot would be needed to shoot at an enemy engaged with another creature on melee. Say, if the Fighter of your group is down a pit engaging an orc in melee, you'd need Precise Shot or incur a -4 penalty to tossing a flameball at the orc.
6. When throwing, DEX modifies your attack roll. When using it in melee, STR.
1. So, would Str. modifier affect damage?
2. True, however it lasts one minute per caster level, so at level 4 I could throw 4 of them with one spell; Extend Spell and I can throw it 8 times over 4 rounds with one spell, which is pretty decent when used in addition to other thrown weapons that benefit from the same feats sans Extend Spell.
3. I figured as much.
4. "Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon." Does this not mean that it is considered a weapon? The way I understood it is that you cast the spell to get the flames and then the flames are considered a weapon after that; just like Thorn Javelin.
5. That is what I figured.
6. But does damage modifier also come up with this other than the hit chance? And since Dex. is required for the to hit chance when thrown and there is Spell Resist involved, is it really worth it?
7. I very much appreciate the help. Thank-you.
1. Nope, spell says exactly how much damage is.
4. I could be wrong on this one actually.
6. Shrug
7. Love ya.
Secret Wizard wrote: 1. Nope, spell says exactly how much damage is.
4. I could be wrong on this one actually.
6. Shrug
7. Love ya.
1. But if you were wrong about 4 then it would be considered a ranged weapon for all intents and purposes and a strength modifier would then be applied?
4. See 1
7. You're sweet.
For example, when you look at a chart style list of weapons, both melee and ranged, none of them mention that they do damage based off of a modifier as well, they only state their base damage. So, I feel like this description of PF is kind of like a masterwork weapon, such as dealing 1D6+1 damage, in which case it would still have a Str. modifier even though it isn't listed in the weapon description.
Physical weapons get to deal that extra damage. No matter how hard you throw fire it's still on fire, and there are no rules to support adding your Strength modifier to damage with spells like Produce Flame. If it was 1d6 and +1 to +5 and ability score modifiers it wouldn't be a first level spell.
Azten wrote: Physical weapons get to deal that extra damage. No matter how hard you throw fire it's still on fire, and there are no rules to support adding your Strength modifier to damage with spells like Produce Flame. If it was 1d6 and +1 to +5 and ability score modifiers it wouldn't be a first level spell. But it is considered a thrown weapon..... If it can be used in melee and in ranged as a thrown weapon then it is kind of like a spear which gets mods no matter how you use it. Only difference is that a spear isn't considered a ranged weapon.
Note that the feat Close Quarters Thrower lets you throw a weapon without provoking an attack. One of the reasons I mentioned Nature Fang Druid is that they can grab this feat without prerequisites (by using Slayer Talents to pick up Ranger Throwing Style bonus feats). Their Studied Target ability will also add to PF damage (and to the DC of any saves against the spell!).
The topic made me think of a Nature Fang wielding a scimitar in one hand and throwing flames with the other - at range just flames, but up close, both.
Edit: strength doesn't add to immaterial weapons. Otherwise magic rays and such would benefit. See the spell Flame Blade for clarification.
There might not be a rule that supports the ability to do this, but I haven't found a rule that says you can't either. If you only did things in this game that a rule deliberately said you could do then there would be a ton of stuff that player's couldn't do that they do all the time. Since there isn't a rule saying one way or the other then I think that by the description stating it is a thrown weapon and thrown weapons get Str. mods that it would in fact get a Str. mod. Especially if you need to rely on Dex. to make it hit. I don't know for certain, but I don't believe most spells have to rely on Dex. to make them hit. I could be wrong though. So, if it has to use one ability for a draw back, then why not one as a positive?
If you can convince a GM to add STR, more power to you. But see my edit above as to why most probably wouldn't allow it.
Palestag wrote: There might not be a rule that supports the ability to do this, but I haven't found a rule that says you can't either. If you only did things in this game that a rule deliberately said you could do then there would be a ton of stuff that player's couldn't do that they do all the time. Since there isn't a rule saying one way or the other then I think that by the description stating it is a thrown weapon and thrown weapons get Str. mods that it would in fact get a Str. mod. Especially if you need to rely on Dex. to make it hit. I don't know for certain, but I don't believe most spells have to rely on Dex. to make them hit. I could be wrong though. So, if it has to use one ability for a draw back, then why not one as a positive? I am highly considering that Nature Fang build. I am also interested in a Pack Leader where I would use a level 1 bird as a scout and for utility purposes and my main companion be a tiger. Then when I was level 8 and the tiger 7 I could consider getting like an elephant or triceratops or something like that as well.
However, I realize Str. wouldn't be applied to most spells which makes sense. Most spells don't count as a weapon though, this one does. Ray attacks are just that, magic produced ray attacks. This is a magically created weapon, just like Thorn Javelin which certainly gets a Str. mod added to it. So, why not this one? It is the same thing.
It's basically 'physics' - a ball of fire has no mass, so throwing it harder doesn't matter. PF hurts by burning, not by 'hitting'. If PF actually hit harder because of strength, that would mean it was at least partly a physical object, and if that was true, armor would protect against it. But it's a touch attack that ignores armor because all that matters is that the flame reaches the target to burn. It's like saying strength doesn't apply to flamethrower damage.
I just read Flame Blade and I still think Str. can be added to Produce Flame. First of all, FB is not mentioned to be considered a weapon but is only said to be wielded like a scimitar, not that it is a scimitar. Whereas the PF is explicit in saying that it is considered a weapon. Also, FB goes so far as to say that Str. isn't added which they do not do for PF.
I'm with you on the physics thing for sure. This is however a fantasy game and this ball of fire couldn't been thrown in the first place if we bring physics into it, considering that it has no mass. So, if it can be thrown then it can be thrown harder. The ray spells point is moot because they are not considered a weapon.
As for the armor, it is a magical fire weapon, it ignores it. Whatever. Take for example the cleric domain spell acid dart: it does touch AC and is a magic spell. This dart obviously has mass yet it ignores armor.
PF also states that throwing the flames as a thrown weapon deals the same damage as the melee touch attack, and the melee touch attack certainly doesn't add strength. A touch attack, whether ranged or melee, is literally just that - touching the target instead of hitting it.
I'll toss in my vote on the side that says you're not adding STR to produce flame. The spell is evocation (you're manipulating heat), not conjuration (actually creating the heat).
I think that is so they don't have to be repetitive in stating its base damage. When in melee form it is not considered a weapon, it becomes a weapon when thrown. A weapon has a Str. mod. So in melee touch no mod, bud as as a thrown weapon it has a mod. It is safe to say that Paizo never intended for it to work this way, but with their wording I have to operate under the assumption that they did intend for it. If not, they could have made the flame act as a ray spell for a ranged attack, or even ingested and used as a breath attack, but they decided it was a thrown weapon instead.
Mr. Shiny wrote: I'll toss in my vote on the side that says you're not adding STR to produce flame. The spell is evocation (you're manipulating heat), not conjuration (actually creating the heat). At first I thought you had made the best point yet; now I think this works in my favor. If I created the heat then that is all I did, created a ball of fire. If I manipulated the heat then I can bend to be different than just a ball of fire. Perhaps it has mass now because it has been manipulated, or some other explanation.
Again, I am basically brand new to this game. I don't mean to be an arrogant ass or anything and I do love to play devil's advocate, but this is truly the way I am seeing all of this play out in terms of description.
Acid Dart isn't a physical dart any more than Flame Blade is a physical blade, or Fireball is a physical ball.
Well either way, it's your GM you would need to convince, not us.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder, from what I can tell and have heard other posters say, is a game where "the rules don't say I can't" isn't what you want. You want "the rules say I can" to back up your statements.
BadBird wrote: Acid Dart isn't a physical dart any more than Flame Blade is a physical blade, or Fireball is a physical ball.
Well either way, it's your GM you would need to convince, not us.
That point aside, my argument is solid and I think you know that. I don't know how acid dart isn't in someway physical though. It may not be a literal dart but if it is made of acid in anyway that would be physical in a sense that fire is not. Acid can be bottled, or held, or felt aside from the burn it would cause whereas fire can not.
Azten wrote: Pathfinder, from what I can tell and have heard other posters say, is a game where "the rules don't say I can't" isn't what you want. You want "the rules say I can" to back up your statements. I think the rules say that I can do this. The rules say you add your Str. modifier to thrown weapons and this is a thrown weapon. That is kind of what I've been saying this whole time.
If the acid dart thing doesn't apply then I believe my other argument on the whole physics thing still holds up; which is: if physics is a variable then the ball of fire can not be thrown in the first place, but since it can be thrown then it can be thrown harder. As well as that this is a fantasy game and it is a magical ball of fire and therefor does not have to apply to the same laws of physics that we understand to be true in this world. I'm not going to pretend like I am a physicist or have much grasp on theoretical physics, but I mean, come on. It is magic fire. It's not like you and I went camping and I tried to grab the campfire out of the pit and whip it at you.
Palestag wrote: If the acid dart thing doesn't apply then I believe my other argument on the whole physics thing still holds up; which is: if physics is a variable then the ball of fire can not be thrown in the first place, but since it can be thrown then it can be thrown harder. As well as that this is a fantasy game and it is a magical ball of fire and therefor does not have to apply to the same laws of physics that we understand to be true in this world. I'm not going to pretend like I am a physicist or have much grasp on theoretical physics, but I mean, come on. It is magic fire. It's not like you and I went camping and I tried to grab the campfire out of the pit and whip it at you. Physics isn't a factor you can use to argue this really. Physics don't allow you to reverse gravity at will or summon fire out of nothing. You can't use a physics argument at all. Magic is Magic. Just because you can throw fire with a spell doesn't mean it can be thrown "harder". Also, its a general rule that touch attacks don't add your strength to damage, and this is a ranegd touch attack.
Palestag wrote: BadBird wrote: Acid Dart isn't a physical dart any more than Flame Blade is a physical blade, or Fireball is a physical ball.
Well either way, it's your GM you would need to convince, not us.
That point aside, my argument is solid and I think you know that. I don't know how acid dart isn't in someway physical though. It may not be a literal dart but if it is made of acid in anyway that would be physical in a sense that fire is not. Acid can be bottled, or held, or felt aside from the burn it would cause whereas fire can not. From a considerable amount of experience with this stuff, I'd say your argument isn't automatically invalid, but it's arguably shaky in light of the general way the system treats energy damage that originates from a spell. I would bet that the vast majority of people would rule on the side of 'no'. It could also potentially be regarded as a rather 'rules-lawyer' approach, where one is trying to circumvent the general spirit of the rules-system on a dubious technicality in order to get what one is after. Don't take that as some kind of criticism or anything; it's subjective. But people can often see things like this in that light. The best thing is to ask a GM, lay out your arguments as clearly as possible, once, and then cheerfully accept whatever they rule.
Edit: incidentally, 'acid' in Pathfinder is a type of energy damage. Think of 'acid' damage as like 'fire' damage - you don't need actual physical stuff that burns to inflict fire damage, and you don't need actual physical acid to inflict acid damage. The line is blurry, but that's how it works; otherwise a character in a robe should suffer more from 'acid' than one in a suit of full plate.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Produce Flame wrote: 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. How much damage does the melee attack do? Does it apply Str damage? Let's look at that line now.
Produce Flame wrote: You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). No mention of adding Strength to damage, so you can't.
Physics isn't a factor you can use to argue this really. Physics don't allow you to reverse gravity at will or summon fire out of nothing. You can't use a physics argument at all. Magic is Magic. Just because you can throw fire with a spell doesn't mean it can be thrown "harder". Also, its a general rule that touch attacks don't add your strength to damage, and this is a ranegd touch attack. I don't know if you read the feed or not but I agree with you. My physics argument is in response to one telling me that is why I can not do this. I don't know where this confusion came from. What I was saying is that physics can't be applied and if you do apply it everything falls apart. I understand that touch attacks don't use strength in general but there is almost always an exception to every rule in this game and this seems to be one. It is a touch attack in the form of a thrown weapon. Thrown weapons use strength.
My bad for the physics thing, didn't realize that was a response to someone.
As for the question at hand, the spell description itself actually says that the ranged attack does exactly the same damage as the melee attack.
Produce Flame wrote: Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.
In addition to providing illumination, 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.
Azten wrote: Produce Flame wrote: 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. How much damage does the melee attack do? Does it apply Str damage? Let's look at that line now.
Produce Flame wrote: You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). No mention of adding Strength to damage, so you can't. I already commented on this. Let me copy and paste that part for you.
I think that is so they don't have to be repetitive in stating its base damage. When in melee form it is not considered a weapon, it becomes a weapon when thrown. A weapon has a Str. mod. So in melee touch no mod, bud as as a thrown weapon it has a mod. It is safe to say that Paizo never intended for it to work this way, but with their wording I have to operate under the assumption that they did intend for it. If not, they could have made the flame act as a ray spell for a ranged attack, or even ingested and used as a breath attack, but they decided it was a thrown weapon instead
And
For example, when you look at a chart style list of weapons, both melee and ranged, none of them mention that they do damage based off of a modifier as well, they only state their base damage. So, I feel like this description of PF is kind of like a masterwork weapon, such as dealing 1D6+1 damage, in which case it would still have a Str. modifier even though it isn't listed in the weapon description
I understand what you are saying but you are going to have to tell me why what I said is wrong rather than coming at me with the same argument that has already been explained.
Alright man, I can't do anymore than quote the spell clearly stating that the ranged attack does the exact same damage. Believe what you want and have a good day.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Produce Flame is clearly an exception to the rule(which you say are everywhere in the game, so this should be no surprise) that thrown weapons add Str to damage, because it does not say you do. It says you deal 1d6 +1 per caster level. That's how the spell works.
Flame Blade was brought up as a way of saying you can't add a Str. mod. It sounds to me that the FB description only strengthens the argument that you can add a mod for Produce Flame. Another example would be Thorn Javelin. It is essentially the same spell. You use magic to use a thrown weapon.... a javelin. Can you not add a Str. mod to this javelin? If you can then why not be able to do it to another thrown weapon that comes about in the same fashion. Flame Blade says you can't and it also says it isn't a weapon; Produce Flame says it is a weapon and there is no mention of not adding a mod. However, there is mention in the rules that thrown weapons gain a Str. mod and this is in fact a thrown weapon.
Azten wrote: Produce Flame is clearly an exception to the rule(which you say are everywhere in the game, so this should be no surprise) that thrown weapons add Str to damage, because it does not say you do. It says you deal 1d6 +1 per caster level. That's how the spell works. I certainly never said they are everywhere. I said there is almost always an exception to every rule. Thorn Javelin does not say you can add a mod and neither does the description of any other weapon, yet you do.
Thorn Javelin does not tell you exactly what damage the javelin deals. Have a good day, and if you find a GM that allows this seemingly deliberately incorrect view more power to you.
That is because javelin damage is listed elsewhere, the damage for this spell is not. Just like adding mod damage is listed elsewhere, but not with this description or any other weapon description. Sort of solidifies the point that listing it over and over would just be repetitive, like listing the damage for this spell twice rather than saying it is the same. Does it really have to say melee touch is 1D6+1/ per level and when a thrown weapon it is 1D6+1/per level for this to make sense. It cant just say it is the same and since one is a thrown weapon and one is not that one gets a mod? What part of this is deliberately not understanding?
I mean, if TJ damage isn't listed how do you know what damage to apply? By looking elsewhere. So, if mod damage isn't listed how do you know something applies mod damage? By looking elsewhere.
BadBird wrote: Palestag wrote: BadBird wrote: Acid Dart isn't a physical dart any more than Flame Blade is a physical blade, or Fireball is a physical ball.
Well either way, it's your GM you would need to convince, not us.
That point aside, my argument is solid and I think you know that. I don't know how acid dart isn't in someway physical though. It may not be a literal dart but if it is made of acid in anyway that would be physical in a sense that fire is not. Acid can be bottled, or held, or felt aside from the burn it would cause whereas fire can not. From a considerable amount of experience with this stuff, I'd say your argument isn't automatically invalid, but it's arguably shaky in light of the general way the system treats energy damage that originates from a spell. I would bet that the vast majority of people would rule on the side of 'no'. It could also potentially be regarded as a rather 'rules-lawyer' approach, where one is trying to circumvent the general spirit of the rules-system on a dubious technicality in order to get what one is after. Don't take that as some kind of criticism or anything; it's subjective. But people can often see things like this in that light. The best thing is to ask a GM, lay out your arguments as clearly as possible, once, and then cheerfully accept whatever they rule.
Edit: incidentally, 'acid' in Pathfinder is a type of energy damage. Think of 'acid' damage as like 'fire' damage - you don't need actual physical stuff that burns to inflict fire damage, and you don't need actual physical acid to inflict acid damage. The line is blurry, but that's how it works; otherwise a character in a robe should suffer more from 'acid' than one in a suit of full plate. I just saw this and you are pretty much right. I'm basically playing Devil's Advocate here. It is less to get what I want though, since using this as a weapon throughout an entire campaign would take a lot of feats and though great at first would taper off in a hurry and be a lot less useful later on, and it is more because this snowballed. For every reason that I can't there are two reasons why I can and I have just been waiting for a clear concise reason why I can't. This is the only thing I have seen in the rules that I will disagree with the majority on because the rest of it is pretty plain once you think about it. I think this takes more thought and effort but ultimately it is plain as well. Not every aspect can be listed (TJ damage) when it can be found elsewhere, like when to add a mod. And that it would be silly to say melee is 1D6+1 and a thrown weapon is 1D6+1 rather than to say it is the same. There is a strong chance I am arguing for the sake of arguing, but that doesn't mean I am not making sense and that what I am saying is wrong. Every point to why this can be done is there and counteracts every point that says why it can't.
Palestag wrote: And that it would be silly to say melee is 1D6+1 and a thrown weapon is 1D6+1 rather than to say it is the same. Produce Flame wrote: 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.
Produce flame creates a ball of fire you treat as a thrown weapon, but it doesn't indicate what kind of thrown weapon as Thorn Javelin does. Since it doesn't specify a weapon to mimic, you must use the text to determine its damage. It says use the Melee damage, which is 1d6 +1/CL. If the Melee attack doesn't use strength, neither does the ranged, because Melee attacks typically do use strength to add to damage.
I imagine somewhere in RAW-land, you can only add STR or DEX modifiers to attacks that already deal physical damage. The attacks mentioned here don't deal physical, thus can't have physical modifiers.
I have no citation to support this, but that's the fiat I'd put in place as a GM to squelch all conversations regarding it and similar skills that don't have an explicit "you get stuff" clause.
Note: Pathfinder (like many games) are permissive rule-sets. You do things that the game (and/or GM) say you can do. And as others have noted, because of this, you can (or can't) add your STR/DEX based on your ability to convince your GM.
Cattleman wrote: Note: Pathfinder (like many games) are permissive rule-sets. You do things that the game (and/or GM) say you can do. And as others have noted, because of this, you can (or can't) add your STR/DEX based on your ability to convince your GM. Elaborating on this a bit:
Particular features do what they say they do, and things that aren't explicitly allowed or forbidden are solely in the GM's purview. For this reason, it is usually a good idea to take the stance that the GM won't allow a thing before making decisions depending on its allowance. That doesn't relieve the GM of her responsibility to adjudicate non-obvious situations in good faith. "Since the rules don't cover it, no, your character cannot crouch, make a funny face, or go to the outhouse and relieve himself" is not a reasonable thing to say as a GM.*
Back on topic: It's not a very clear spell description. There are other spells that conjure objects that can be used as a "thrown weapon" and use your Strength modifier as normal. Additionally, AFAIK there's no rule preventing a battle poi from adding Strength damage even though it deals fire damage instead of physical damage. Since I've never noticed the "thrown weapon" text in produce flame, I've always treated it as any other ranged touch spell, but now I'm less sure about it.
*"That's not appropriate etiquette for this table" is, of course, reasonable.
OP: if you want to do strength damage when throwing Produce Flame, talk to your GM. If they say you can, great! If they say you can't, too bad.
Because ultimately your GM has final say, and posts on the Internet don't matter at all.
This has been very helpful; I see why you wouldn't be able to add a modifier and will operate as if that is a definitive rule. I am still wondering though if feats like Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot will work for this spell.
Palestag wrote: This has been very helpful; I see why you wouldn't be able to add a modifier and will operate as if that is a definitive rule. I am still wondering though if feats like Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot will work for this spell. I don't see why not. The flame acts as a (ranged) thrown weapon when thrown (though not a specific thrown weapon) and targets touch AC. Nothing in those feats preclude anything that would exclude Produce Flame from their benefit.
For example, Deadly Aim specifically calls out touch attacks as not being usable with the feat.
Palestag wrote: This has been very helpful; I see why you wouldn't be able to add a modifier and will operate as if that is a definitive rule. I am still wondering though if feats like Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot will work for this spell. This is the FAQ that you need.
|
