If a spell requires an attack roll of any kind it'll mention it. If nothing is mentioned it doesn't require one; there isn't a rule saying this that I know of because there's no positive requirement (anywhere) for such an attack roll.
As avr said, spells, targeted or not, do not require attack rolls, touch or other, unless specifically and explicitly written in the spell description.
Hideous Laughter does not require an attack roll.
Searing Light requires a touch ranged attack to be successful so as to affect its target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe in the rules for creating new spells? I think I remember something about balancing spells by either having an attack roll OR a save OR spell resistance. The more powerful a spell is the more likely it is to have 2 rolls associated with it (eg. attack roll and save), or sometimes all 3 rolls for very powerful spells (Disintegrate is one such example, requiring an attack roll, a spell resistance roll and a save to be successful).
I don't have time to look it up now, but you could look there.
Hideous Laughter requires a saving throw from the enemy to see if it is successful, while some other spells require a ranged touch attack. If the spell description doesn't say you have to make a ranged touch attack, then you don't have to make one. You won't find a rule because there is no rule, you just follow the spell's description.
Inthink the OP knows the rule, but is looking for a citation.
I know the O.P. wanted a positive that says "the spell caster doesn't need to hit with ranged attacks when it isn't indicated in the spell" but there isn't one, just as there isn't one for each thing the spell caster doesn't need to do, lest the list would get tedious after "the spell caster doesn't need to be standing on one leg and wrap himself in ham"^^
So I thought if enough of us concur in a clear fashion that no hit roll is required, it could be enough for his game master to realise he had misunderstood.
I wonder how does this game master handle Magic Missile.
I know that we are not supposed to consider any doubt a dummy doubt... but, REALLY??? What kind of master is that?
Reffer to here. It does not says that o need an attack to hit the spell, just see your target.
Also, on "Aiming a Spell" it says about conditions to aim a spell. Some spells are Targeted and some spells has an Effect.
It seens logical to me by the above sentence that, if an spells is Targeted it is not an Effect and vice-verse.
The same applys to the types of spell's Effect. If it is a Ray spell (that normally need a ranged touch attack), it is not a Cone spell, neihter a Burst spell, that does not need a ranged touch attack.
If it is not enought, you can check rules for (for instance) Ray of Enfeeblement. It explicitly says
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target.
As it does any spell that requires a ranged touch attack to strike the target.
Take a look at the rules from the GM's guide (I think) for designing spells.
It talks about the reason to add saving throws etc, and while it doesn't directly say "not all spells require an attack roll" it does have some language that might help.
Eg.
Most spells that directly affect creatures with a magical effect should allow a saving throw. Spells that create nonmagical materials that then strike or impede creatures (such as ice storm and sleet storm) do not normally require a saving throw.
Spells that require the caster to make an attack roll to hit (even if it's a ranged touch attack) may or may not require a saving throw (enervation and searing light do not, disintegrate does). Attack effects that do not require rolling damage should always allow a saving throw to reduce or negate the effect; otherwise, the spell becomes an obvious choice for anyone of the level to cast it.