FAQ: Spells that target Weapons and Rays (Targeting and Existence)


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

When casting a spell that affects weapons (has a target: weapon touched, etc), does having the ray ability constitute a valid target for the spell?

Example: Magic Weapon spell and Lantern Archon's ray.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:

When casting a spell that affects weapons (has a target: weapon touched, etc), does having the ray ability constitute a valid target for the spell?

Example: Magic Weapon spell and Lantern Archon's ray.

Can you touch a ray? No? Then it isn't a valid target. No official response necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you have line of sight/effect to the ray or can you touch it when rhe spell is cast? The answer to this is your answer.


Jeraa wrote:
Quintain wrote:

When casting a spell that affects weapons (has a target: weapon touched, etc), does having the ray ability constitute a valid target for the spell?

Example: Magic Weapon spell and Lantern Archon's ray.

Can you touch a ray? No? Then it isn't a valid target. No official response necessary.

Then explain the presumption of this question:

Quote:
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

The answer to this is a unqualified "yes".

Given the unqualified "yes" and not a "yes, but...", it would seem some clarification if needed.

Please click the FAQ.

Thanks.


There are spells such as Angelic Aspect that effect weapons but target the wielder, not the weapon. Looks to me as if these are the type os spell that will treat a ray as a weapon.


Java Man wrote:
There are spells such as Angelic Aspect that effect weapons but target the wielder, not the weapon. Looks to me as if these are the type os spell that will treat a ray as a weapon.

Don't disagree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Java Man wrote:
There are spells such as Angelic Aspect that effect weapons but target the wielder, not the weapon. Looks to me as if these are the type os spell that will treat a ray as a weapon.
Don't disagree.

No FAQ is necessary. Rays being a weapon aren't an issue. That is undisputed. The issue is targeting. You can't target something that doesn't actually exist.

Weapon Focus works because rays are considered a weapon for that purpose, and because the feat affects the character, it doesn't target the ray itself. Magic weapon or heart of the metal don't work because they both require you to touch the weapon. There isn't anything to touch with a ray.

The issue isn't with rays being a weapon. It is with them not existing until actually used, so there is no valid target for those buffs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*casts strong jaw on his disintegrate*

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Quote:
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
The answer to this is a unqualified "yes".

It's not an "unqualified yes". You're leaving out most of the FAQ and skewing its context, which is very important in understanding what the question was that was being answered.

The entire FAQ wrote:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes.

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

The context of this FAQ was in regards to spells and effects that require attack and damage rolls.

For example, a Ray is a weapon with regards to Bardic Performance in that there is an Attack roll and a Damage roll, whereas Fireball has no Attack roll.

A Ray would no more benefit from Lead Blades than it would being made Masterwork.

Sczarni

Also, asking for an FAQ in the title will get your question scrubbed from the queue.


Nefreet wrote:


The context of this FAQ was in regards to spells and effects that require attack and damage rolls.

For example, a Ray is a weapon with regards to Bardic Performance in that there is an Attack roll and a Damage roll, whereas Fireball has no Attack roll.

A Ray would no more benefit from Lead Blades than it would being made Masterwork.

I've covered this in the other thread. Taking a single example and extrapolating it's limitations does not speak towards other spells effects. Especially when their descriptions could quite easily apply.

The english language has a certain level of abstraction -- which is part of the english language -- An example of this abstraction is that you could have a spell that could have the phrase of "targeting a person's voice" which has an obvious meaning when talking to anyone (means targeting their ability to speak). In this same manner, "ray" in the abstract means "ability to shoot non-material energy" just as much as the actual physical energy itself. It is well within the normal pattern of Paizo to use abstract language in place of long lawyerly phrases to keep word count down for publishing purposes.

That is why I am asking this question. For clarification which does not count against paizo's word count.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We're clarifying the FAQ for you.

Many of us were involved in its creation.

EDIT: HERE is the original question that was answered. You can more clearly see that the context of the FAQ revolves around attack and damage rolls.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Coincidentally I found this gem from the Pathfinder Design Team in that thread, which more directly answers what you're looking to have resolved:

"Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability."


I'm not going to repeat my responses to the same questions in the other thread. The second FAQ deals with magically created weapons like spiritual hammer, not rays and how it is not a "type of weapon" so it doesn't work with abilities that require that property (see the list of abilities).

None of that speaks toward the question that I'm asking now. Moreover, you are expanding the explanation of the FAQ beyond it's intent.

The question of the original faq does not resolve around attack and damage rolls -- the question is global, and the example given covers atack and damage rolls. Moreover, the example in this thread is about the Magic Weapon spell, which targets weapons and gives attack and damage bonus rolls, and would not apply for the same reason you believe that would not apply with the spell in the original thread.

You are not understanding (or deliberately ignoring) the intent of the question.


blahpers wrote:
*casts strong jaw on his disintegrate*

While this is a joke, I'd actually allow this as a GM if Strong Jaw was quickened to actually fit the time window Disintegrate's effects are taking place, since the biggest reason this doesn't work is because Disintegrate's effects are finished once the action for casting the spell is done, and Strong Jaw can't be reasonably applied to the "object" in question.

Otherwise...yes. 160D6 damage incoming. (Unless they make their save, in which case it's only 20D6. It still hurts as much as simply casting any other spell though.)

Sczarni

Then what question are you asking?

You can't cast Magic Weapon on a Ray.

The extra clarification I quoted pretty much covers that combination.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the question is perfectly understandable. And was answered quite well with quotes.

Just because people say no doesn't mean they don't understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Coincidentally I found this gem from the Pathfinder Design Team in that thread, which more directly answers what you're looking to have resolved:

"Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability."

This pretty much answers it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Coincidentally I found this gem from the Pathfinder Design Team in that thread, which more directly answers what you're looking to have resolved:

"Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability."

This pretty much answers it.

I thought so when I cited it in the original thread. Yet here we are. I suspect that a third thread is imminent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What a hilarious thread.

"Hey guys, watch this! I'm going to cast quickened Magic Weapon on my Disinte OW OW OW OH GOD MY HAND, MY HAND, WHYYYYYYY??"

Sczarni

Gisher wrote:
the original thread

Good to know.

A couple times in this thread the OP mentioned "the other thread". I figured they'd just resurrected an old thread in another Forum somewhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Realizing now this is the second thread in less than a day for the same question (which was answered sufficiently) I'm both put out and let down.

You can't cast a spell on something that doesn't exist at the time of casting. That simple.


Quintain wrote:
Nefreet wrote:


The context of this FAQ was in regards to spells and effects that require attack and damage rolls.

For example, a Ray is a weapon with regards to Bardic Performance in that there is an Attack roll and a Damage roll, whereas Fireball has no Attack roll.

A Ray would no more benefit from Lead Blades than it would being made Masterwork.

I've covered this in the other thread. Taking a single example and extrapolating it's limitations does not speak towards other spells effects. Especially when their descriptions could quite easily apply.

The english language has a certain level of abstraction -- which is part of the english language -- An example of this abstraction is that you could have a spell that could have the phrase of "targeting a person's voice" which has an obvious meaning when talking to anyone (means targeting their ability to speak). In this same manner, "ray" in the abstract means "ability to shoot non-material energy" just as much as the actual physical energy itself. It is well within the normal pattern of Paizo to use abstract language in place of long lawyerly phrases to keep word count down for publishing purposes.

That is why I am asking this question. For clarification which does not count against paizo's word count.

The spell descriptions are one of the few places in the rules that are written in a completely "lawyerly" manner. I don't think I've ever seen "target: creature's voice" it would always say "target: 1 creature."

The target line is there to tell you what you have to touch. I think it's pretty clear.


Quote:


The spell descriptions are one of the few places in the rules that are written in a completely "lawyerly" manner. I don't think I've ever seen "target: creature's voice" it would always say "target: 1 creature."

Spell descriptions are also modified by the spell text. Example: anything targeting an ally -- which is a completely whimsical abstract concept.

Marks of Forbiddance

Spoiler:
Targets one enemy and one ally

Now, Ray is also a ranged weapon. Simply having the ability to shoot a ray is no different, mechanically, than having a bow/arrow in hand. E.g. With the right feats, you threaten, and are considered to be "armed" and can even make attacks of opportunity.

But if the ray only exists when it is being shot, how can you threaten and be armed? Seems we have a Schrodinger's weapon on our hands.

Now, it may not qualify for certain abilities due to not being part of a declared weapon group (see the FAQ you guys keep misinterpreting), but just as the ability exists, the "weapon" used to attack exists (and IMO, per the FAQ I posted in the prior thread, should be modifiable via spells, just as the FAQ states).

As a matter of fact, this idea, conceptually, is no different than the monk's ability to have his unarmed strikes be enchantable which is conclusion based on the idea that "the monk is a weapon", despite not actually holding normal weapons. An unarmed strike, after all, only "exists" when making an attack -- otherwise, it is just their hands/legs/head/whatever.

Having a ray attack as one of your attacks (not a spell), is no different, really. It is just a ranged weapon vs a melee one.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Now, Ray is also a ranged weapon. Simply having the ability to shoot a ray is no different, mechanically, than having a bow/arrow in hand.

Yes, it is different. It (generally) takes a standard action to cast the spell that has the effect 'ray'. It takes no action to simply hold your bow/arrow.

Quintain wrote:

E.g. With the right feats, you threaten, and are considered to be "armed" and can even make attacks of opportunity.

But if the ray only exists when it is being shot, how can you threaten and be armed? Seems we have a Schrodinger's weapon on our hands.

Answer: You can't. Just because you have a ray spell memorized or are a spontaneous caster with an unused spell slot and a ray spell on your spells known list does not mean you threaten with or can use a ray as an AoO.

Quintain wrote:

Now, it may not qualify for certain abilities due to not being part of a declared weapon group (see the FAQ you guys keep misinterpreting), but just as the ability exists, the "weapon" used to attack exists (and IMO, per the FAQ I posted in the prior thread, should be modifiable via spells, just as the FAQ states).

Your 'ray weapon' does not exist except in the (indivisible) split second between the spell casting completion and attack resolution.


SlimGauge wrote:


Yes, it is different. It (generally) takes a standard action to cast the spell that has the effect 'ray'. It takes no action to simply hold your bow/arrow.

Ok, what about non-spell rays -- see Lantern Archon or Ghaele Azata?

SlimGauge wrote:


Answer: You can't. Just because you have a ray spell memorized or are a spontaneous caster with an unused spell slot and a ray spell on your spells known list does not mean you threaten with or can use a ray as an AoO.

Ok, what about non-spell rays -- see Lantern Archon or Ghaele Azata?

SlimGauge wrote:


Your 'ray weapon' does not exist except in the (indivisible) split second between the spell casting completion and attack resolution.

Nor does an "unarmed strike" exist outside of the action used to attack. But that is enchantable via spells.

Ok, what about non-spell rays -- see Lantern Archon or Ghaele Azata?

You keep talking spells. I'm not talking spells.

Silver Crusade

*blink* *blink*

Your fists and feet continue to exist even when you're not punching and kicking people.

The Celestial's Ex Rays abilties are the same as ray spells, they don't exist until they shoot them.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Nor does an "unarmed strike" exist outside of the action used to attack. But that is enchantable via spells.

An unarmed strike IS an action, not a physical thing. The spell "Magic Weapon" cannot target an unarmed strike (unless you're a Monk).

Magic Weapon spell wrote:
"You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

Note that Ray is not mentioned here.

The spell Magic Fang is mentioned. Magic Fang has a target of 'living creature touched', not 'weapon touched'.

Quintain wrote:
Ok, what about non-spell rays -- see Lantern Archon or Ghaele Azata?

If it's a spell-like ability, it works like a spell EXCEPT where specifically modified by the spell-like ability rules.

If it's a supernatural ability, it works like other magic except as modified by the supernatural ability rules.

Quintain wrote:
You keep talking spells. I'm not talking spells.

Doesn't matter. This 'ray weapon' still cannot be targeted by something that has a target of 'weapon touched'.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You wield a Bow.

You do not wield a Ray.


Rysky wrote:

*blink* *blink*

Your fists and feet continue to exist even when you're not punching and kicking people.

The Celestial's Ex Rays abilties are the same as ray spells, they don't exist until they shoot them.

Yes, and the monster's ability exists as well. It could be that the (ex) lantern archon ray or the same for the Ghaele Azata's ray could have some undescribed biological element -- similar to hands and feet.


Nefreet wrote:

You wield a Bow.

You do not wield a Ray.

You don't wield your hand or feet, either.

Quote:


An unarmed strike IS an action, not a physical thing. The spell "Magic Weapon" cannot target an unarmed strike (unless you're a Monk).

Yes, unless you are a monk. So you are saying there is rules precedent for this idea. Now, given the number of FAQs surrouding rays, could there be the same sort of idea in place but unstated given the level of complexity of the Pathfinder rules?

Maybe?

Quote:


Doesn't matter. This 'ray weapon' still cannot be targeted by something that has a target of 'weapon touched'.

Sure it can -- just like you can target a monk's unarmed strike with spells. Note that you aren't targeting the monk, but you are targeting his ability "unarmed strike" -- because the actual weapon used to attack is not defined until the strike happens -- and even then it's as general as "body".

Silver Crusade

Nothing in their writeup suggests this.

You need an actual existing weapon to affect with those spells of yours. Not an ability to make an attack. You can not cast a buff spell on a Barbarian's rage or a Wizard's spellcasting ability.

The rays do not exist until they activate the ability, and then they only last for that attack. If they were accessible beforehand or remained it would say so.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
see the FAQ you guys keep misinterpreting

It is entirely possible that everyone else in this thread is misinterpreting the FAQs and clarifications that have been quoted, and that yours may be the sole correct reading, but it's not a likely possibility.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

You wield a Bow.

You do not wield a Ray.

You don't wield your hand or feet, either.

Yes, you do.

A Ray is an instantaneous effect.

You no more wield it than a Cleric Channeling Energy.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:

When casting a spell that affects weapons (has a target: weapon touched, etc), does having the ray ability constitute a valid target for the spell?

Example: Magic Weapon spell and Lantern Archon's ray.

So you want a +1 Ray? Maybe...I suppose if you had a ray spell charged (as in casting, but holding the charge), and then someone else casts magic weapon on that charge, then your use of the ray would be +1 to attack, but that's really it. Your next use of the spell would be a different ray, not the same ray, just like if you cast magic weapon on a dagger and then throw it, drawing another dagger wouldn't result in that dagger also being affect by the spell.

But the main advantage to Magic weapon is being able to count as magic for DR and for harming incorporeal creatures, and the ray should aready count as magic and isn't subject to DR anyway, so I don't really see the point.


Guys. Guys. What if a guy delays his action to cast magic weapon with the triggering condition of a ray effect is cast! Does that mean he can target the ray in the brief period of null time it exists?

Obviously the answer is yes and I await the new magic buffed ray meta.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:
Sure it can -- just like you can target a monk's unarmed strike with spells. Note that you aren't targeting the monk, but you are targeting his ability "unarmed strike" -- because the actual weapon used to attack is not defined until the strike happens -- and even then it's as general as "body".

Magic Weapon does not work on Unarmed Strike, Monk or otherwise. The Spell itself, specifies that it doesn't work on Unarmed Strikes nor Natural Weapons. Magic Fang is the spell for affecting Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons in the same manner that Magic Weapon affects manufactured weapons.


Quote:


So you want a +1 Ray? Maybe...I suppose if you had a ray spell charged (as in casting, but holding the charge), and then someone else casts magic weapon on that charge, then your use of the ray would be +1 to attack, but that's really it. Your next use of the spell would be a different ray, not the same ray, just like if you cast magic weapon on a dagger and then throw it, drawing another dagger wouldn't result in that dagger also being affect by the spell.

But the main advantage to Magic weapon is being able to count as magic for DR and for harming incorporeal creatures, and the ray should aready count as magic and isn't subject to DR anyway, so I don't really see the point.

Barring your idea of individual shots of a ray being individual objects from the targetting perspective (I'd say that there would be a limited number of ray attacks able to be affected by the spell -- similar to ammunition), this is essentially all that I'm asking.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Magic Weapon does not work on Unarmed Strike, Monk or otherwise.

Magic Weapon can be cast on a Monk's Unarmed Strike.


Nefreet wrote:

Yes, you do.

A Ray is an instantaneous effect.

You no more wield it than a Cleric Channeling Energy.

Unless your hands and feet are defined as weapons/specifically trained in hand-to-hand combat, in the real-world sense, the common definition of "wield" is not used in that context.

That is why a simple fist fight isn't assault with a deadly weapon.

Sczarni

You can't "hold the charge" on a Ray spell, or any Ranged Touch spell.

Holding the charge is purely for Touch spells (those with a range of "touch").


Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Guys. Guys. What if a guy delays his action to cast magic weapon with the triggering condition of a ray effect is cast! Does that mean he can target the ray in the brief period of null time it exists?

Obviously the answer is yes and I await the new magic buffed ray meta.

Lets say for a minute it was possible. As soon as he touched the ray (as required by the magic weapon spell) to buff it, the ray would of hit a target and discharged its effect. So the now buffed ray hits the guy buffing it for an enhanced effect, not the original target.

But it wouldn't work in any case. Ready actions happen just before the trigger event.

Quote:
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

Meaning your ready action triggers before the ray comes into existence. Nothing to touch. Rays hit instantaneously, meaning as soon as they come into existence they have already hit (or missed). There is no time available to target the ray. Either it doesn't exist yet, or has already hit/missed. There is no in between.


Nefreet wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Magic Weapon does not work on Unarmed Strike, Monk or otherwise.
Magic Weapon can be cast on a Monk's Unarmed Strike.

And yet, it targets "touched weapon". Which in the case of monks is very abstract.

Just like "ray".

Sczarni

Quintain wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Yes, you do.

A Ray is an instantaneous effect.

You no more wield it than a Cleric Channeling Energy.

Unless your hands and feet are defined as weapons and unless specifically trained, they aren't even in the real-world sense, the common definition of "wield" is not used in that context.

Clearly "common definitions" left this thread a while ago.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Magic Weapon does not work on Unarmed Strike, Monk or otherwise.
Magic Weapon can be cast on a Monk's Unarmed Strike.

And yet, it targets "touched weapon". Which in the case of monks is very abstract.

Just like "ray".

Not really.


Nefreet wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Yes, you do.

A Ray is an instantaneous effect.

You no more wield it than a Cleric Channeling Energy.

Unless your hands and feet are defined as weapons and unless specifically trained, they aren't even in the real-world sense, the common definition of "wield" is not used in that context.
Clearly "common definitions" left this thread a while ago.

Yep, they've been butchered wholesale. (I'm looking at you, Nefreet).

If you want to break down the concept of ranged weapon futher, you have the launcher and the ammunition (which is what does the actual damage). If you follow this design to the concept of rays, the "ray attack" is the ammunition, and whatever process creates the ray is technically the launcher.


Jeraa wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Guys. Guys. What if a guy delays his action to cast magic weapon with the triggering condition of a ray effect is cast! Does that mean he can target the ray in the brief period of null time it exists?

Obviously the answer is yes and I await the new magic buffed ray meta.

Lets say for a minute it was possible. As soon as he touched the ray (as required by the magic weapon spell) to buff it, the ray would of hit a target and discharged its effect. So the now buffed ray hits the guy buffing it for an enhanced effect, not the original target.

Obviously you solve this by buffing Magic Weapon with Reach Spell. There's no brakes on the magic ray train here boiz.


Quintain wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Magic Weapon does not work on Unarmed Strike, Monk or otherwise.
Magic Weapon can be cast on a Monk's Unarmed Strike.

And yet, it targets "touched weapon". Which in the case of monks is very abstract.

Just like "ray".

Monks are a suitable target because the spell explicitly says so. Note that it only applies to monks, not anyone else (even those who have Improved Unarmed Strike). Monks are special, and have a special exception that is explicitly stated.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think before this thread gets beyond the first page I will bow out. Would rather be spending my posting time in a Play-By-Post rather than trying to help clarify clarifications.

As I said before, you could entirely be right. When you GM, feel free to rule that way. Your players will be thrilled that they can Lead Blades their Scorching Ray, and they'll likewise be happy that the BBEG is spending their in-combat rounds buffing.

If you're playing instead of GMing, good luck finding a GM, whether it be a homegame or PFS, that agrees with your position.


Quote:


Monks are a suitable target because the spell explicitly says so. Note that it only applies to monks, not anyone else (even those who have Improved Unarmed Strike). Monks are special, and have a special exception that is explicitly stated.

That is correct. Could it be possible that the design team thought that rays would get this effect due to common understanding and left it unstated? -- since they defined it as a weapon? Or are you saying that the Pathfinder ruleset is complete and nothing ever needs clarification/modification?

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ: Spells that target Weapons and Rays (Targeting and Existence) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.