I have a player who, for reasons I won’t go in to, is considering taking 3 levels in cleric (fire domain). This will give her access to the fireball spell. 1d6 points of damage per caster level. Is this 3d6 as a level 3 cleric or maxed at 10d6 for her 9 additional levels as a ranger?
You would use your cleric level as your caster level for any spell cast using your cleric spell slots.
Also, Fireball is a 3rd level spell, and Clerics don't get access to 3rd level spells until level 5, so she'd have to take a 5 level "dip" into cleric to get fireball.
If she did this, and went Cleric 5/Ranger 10 her fireball would deal 5d6 damage, and have a save DC of 13 + her wisdom modifier.
don't mix up the following:
'character level' = total of all class levels a character have.
'class level' = total of levels in one class a character have. class abilities use that class's level when referring to anything that functions 'level' into it's use -UNLESS specifically calling out for 'character' or 'spell' levels!
-for example the familiar class ability uses the class that give it for calculating what abilities it gets in the table, but the total character level for counting the familiar abilities that function on it's HD. (so looking at what level changes the nat armor and int bonus is under class level, looking at changes to abilities dc that calculate hd is character level)
'spell level' = the power level of spells. goes from 0 to 9 (most of the time..) each casting class have different rate at which it is granted new levels of spells.the cleric's spell casting ability give access to 3rd level spells (and domain spells) at the 5th cleric's class level.
Like others have said it does not work like that. The Witchguard archetype will add fireball to his spell list if he chooses elements as his patrons. Another alternative would be to simply use magic items. A necklace of fireballs starts out at 1,650 gp. If he is willing to invest in UMD he could also use wands of fireball.
Either solution is better than dipping 5 levels in cleric for a 5d6 fireball. Also keep in mind as a cleric you only get a single domain spell, and cannot use your regular spells for domain spells unless it is also on the cleric spell list, which fireball is not.
Ok, thanks all, my thought was that both cleric and ranger were “caster” classes and was wondering if they stacked for “caster level”. Grateful for the quick responses!
Mysterious Stranger wrote: Like others have said it does not work like that. The Witchguard archetype will add fireball to his spell list if he chooses elements as his patrons. Another alternative would be to simply use magic items. A necklace of fireballs starts out at 1,650 gp. If he is willing to invest in UMD he could also use wands of fireball.
Either solution is better than dipping 5 levels in cleric for a 5d6 fireball. Also keep in mind as a cleric you only get a single domain spell, and cannot use your regular spells for domain spells unless it is also on the cleric spell list, which fireball is not.
The 3 level dip into cleric was not for the fireball, that was just something I was preparing to have to deal with as GM, but realizing I was looking at spell level not class level makes that irrelevant anyways. Thanks for the help though, this will certainly help me to become a better GM in the future (this is my first campaign and all my players are new as well)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
An alternative is to dip 1 level into Wizard so the character could their wands. You only need 1 class level for wands and staves. Unfortunately, this solution will restrict you to the caster level of the wands and staves.
OmniMage wrote: An alternative is to dip 1 level into Wizard so the character could their wands. You only need 1 class level for wands and staves. Unfortunately, this solution will restrict you to the caster level of the wands and staves. In the case of the Wand, that's good news if the OP's PC is only planning to dip 3 levels in Cleric!
I'm concerned by the fact that this Ranger will be disappointed with his Fireballs, and I think your way makes more sense, OmniMage. There are more spells that make more sense to seize upon rather than Fireball such as Color Spray, Sleep, Flaming Sphere, or Scorching Ray that have effects that are not so level dependent as Fireball and are cheaper wands.
Plus, there are a lot of buffing and utilitarian spells that are really nice to just have the wand for like Swift Girding which lets you dress in even the heaviest armor in 1 Standard Action. Blur, Blink, and Greater Invisibility, and lets not forget the Lucky Charms set of level 2 Ability Enhancing Spells.
And of course, even at Level 1 a Ranger can use Ranger Wands such as Cure Light Wounds, Lead Blades, and Gravity Bow.
A whole bunch of doors open with even that 1 level dip in caster classes.
OmniMage wrote: An alternative is to dip 1 level into Wizard so the character could their wands. You only need 1 class level for wands and staves. Unfortunately, this solution will restrict you to the caster level of the wands and staves. I think that technically you could take a one level dip into Cleric with the appropriate domains and be able to cast it from a wand or staff. The largest problem then is finding a divine wand of fireball.
If you're dipping 1 level I'd say Bloodrager is the way to go.
Full BAB, Wand access (for some pretty useful spells - including Fireball), the ability to Bloodrage a few times per day, and (with the right bloodline) a nice passive buff when you are bloodraging.
As others have pointed out though, your wand of fireball will be at 3d6. Ice you invest in a staff you'll get 8d6 I believe, but it won't be cheap (and I'm not sure how recharging it will go).
5d6 is only 17.5 damage with a standard-action. Even if it were 10d6, that doesn't come remotely close to what an archer can dish out on a full-attack once he's out of the baby levels.
As a general rule, never dip caster classes for saving-throw magic.
Leave AoE to evoker wizards and sorcerers who can really pump the numbers.
Well it depends how many targets you can hit.
Even if they make all their saves (~8 damage each), if you hit 20 people with a fireball that's 160 damage. Now that still likely leaves all 20 standing, but if everyone in the party (assume 4 man party) has a wand of fireball that could end up at 640 DPR for the party. You'd have to be a fairly high level party to beat that.
Now obviously you're unlikely to fight 20 enemies at once, let alone 20 enemies who bunch together close enough to be hit by a single fireball. The point is that you'd only use this if there are enough enemies on the field to warrant an AoO effect - comparing a single target fireball to an archer is silly.
I do agree that dipping for a fireball is probably silly, but when you come across that swarm that's vulnerable to cold you'll be happy.
I forgot to mention that using wands is a legit strategy for full spellcasters. Its main advantage is that lets you bypass that pesky limit called spells per day. Try not use it up too quickly though, as it trades money for spells.
Other advantages include: Does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Does not suffer arcane spell failure.
In theory, you could recharge staves by paying another spell caster to cast charges into it. The base rate for spells from hired spell casters is 10 gp. Wands are 15 gp per charge, scrolls are 25 gp, potions are 50 gp. So a paying spell caster would be the cheapest method. They could charge you 280 gp (4 spell level * 7 caster level * 10 gp base rate) per charge to recharge a staff of fire.
It is worth noting that a staff of fire uses 2 charges for a fireball, and 3 for a wall of fire, so you will not be getting the full value of a charge. This is a trick to reduce the market price of the staff. It assumes that there will be a spell caster there supplying spells for free, not a spell caster being paid to recharge the staff. It might be cheaper in the long run to have a staff custom made that uses 1 charge per high level spell.
Slim Jim wrote: 5d6 is only 17.5 damage with a standard-action. Even if it were 10d6, that doesn't come remotely close to what an archer can dish out on a full-attack once he's out of the baby levels. MrCharisma wrote: Even if they make all their saves (~8 damage each), if you hit 20 people with a fireball that's 160 damage. Yeah, Fireball will do that 17.5 (or 8) Damage in a 20' Radius, and that can add up to a lot.
Slim Jim wrote: Leave AoE to evoker wizards and sorcerers who can really pump the numbers. Yeah, but Color Spray works pretty much as well for a low level caster as for a high level caster, using that dweomer through a Wand does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity, and a high AC character like a Ranger wouldn't feel squeamish about moving right up to the line of scrimmage in order to blast the full cone like a squishy Wizard would.
There are other Spells. How about Scorching Ray? Granted, higher levels Wizards do indeed get to shoot more rays, but a CL3 Wand of Scorching Ray still does a respectable 4d6 as a Ranged Touch Attack, and because there is an Attack Roll, it would benefit from such things as Vital Strike Feats and Sneak Attack Damage. I have a character build for a Ninja that uses Wands of Scorching Ray after Vanishing: Ranged Touch Attack vs. Flatfooted AC that locks in your Sneak Attack Damage! I dare you to say that out loud without your face splitting into a supervillain grin!
You may have a point about leaving Fireball to the true Wizards, but
Slim Jim wrote: As a general rule, never dip caster classes for saving-throw magic. Really seems like an overstatement. Depending on what you are trying to do, a little dip can be very worthwhile.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: There are other Spells. How about Scorching Ray? Granted, higher levels Wizards do indeed get to shoot more rays, but a CL3 Wand of Scorching Ray still does a respectable 4d6 as a Ranged Touch Attack, and because there is an Attack Roll, it would benefit from such things as Vital Strike Feats and Sneak Attack Damage. I have a character build for a Ninja that uses Wands of Scorching Ray after Vanishing: Ranged Touch Attack vs. Flatfooted AC that locks in your Sneak Attack Damage! I dare you to say that out loud without your face splitting into a supervillain grin! Sneak attack, yes... vital strike, no... Vital Strike explicitly requires use of the attack action, the attack roll for scorching ray is part of the spell casting, it is not an attack action.
See the Dreamed Secrets feat.
https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Dreamed Secrets
If your ranger doesn't mind losing his mind to Outer Gods, then, Iä!, fireball is his at level 13.
Chell Raighn wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: There are other Spells. How about Scorching Ray? Granted, higher levels Wizards do indeed get to shoot more rays, but a CL3 Wand of Scorching Ray still does a respectable 4d6 as a Ranged Touch Attack, and because there is an Attack Roll, it would benefit from such things as Vital Strike Feats and Sneak Attack Damage. I have a character build for a Ninja that uses Wands of Scorching Ray after Vanishing: Ranged Touch Attack vs. Flatfooted AC that locks in your Sneak Attack Damage! I dare you to say that out loud without your face splitting into a supervillain grin! Sneak attack, yes... vital strike, no... Vital Strike explicitly requires use of the attack action, the attack roll for scorching ray is part of the spell casting, it is not an attack action. Huh,
Vital Strike wrote: you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Okay.
Scorching Ray wrote: Casting Time 1 standard action... Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. So you are casting a spell or whatever using a Wand is when you use a wand of or cast Scorching Ray, but you are making a Ranged Touch Attack. That sounds like an Attack to me. Plus, you can treat a Ray as a Weapon and take Weapon Focus, Weapon Speicalization, and Point Blank and Precise shots for Ray Spells.
d20pfsrd.com, Magic, Attacks wrote: All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. That suggests that casting a Ray Spell or using a Ray Wand is making an Attack, and so should be able to benefit from Vital Strike Feats.
d20pfsrd.com, Magic, Aiming a Spell, Rays wrote: 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.... If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
So, is there a reason to suppose that a Ranged Touch Attack is not an attack such as can benefit from Vital Strike?
What if you used something like a Briliant Energy Longbow or heck, just a firearm? Firearms make Ranged Touch Attacks. Can you use Vital Strike with a Flintlock Musket? Why would you be able to use VS with 1 and not the other?
I guess the answer to every question is "check with your GM," but I'm thinking I have RAW support on this one.
But even if you are right, that ability to use Wands that make Ranged Touch Attacks is pretty cool even if you can't use Vital Strike on them, especially if you use it to reliably deliver Sneak Attack Damage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: but I'm thinking I have RAW support on this one. Relevant FAQ
FAQ wrote: Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?
No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.
The action you used when casting the spell, was Cast a spell, not attack. That casting the spell gives you a free attack with the spell doesn't make it an attack action.
Vital Strike is an odd duck that relies on a specific kind of standard action to be used, not just any attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The thing that may he difficult to understand is that there is a specific action called the "Attack Action" which is defined in the rules.
Normally it doesn't matter at all, since you can make your first attack and then decide if you want to continue with your full-attack or take a move action instead, but there are a few feats/abilities that state "Attack Action" as their method of activation - Vital Strike is one such feat.
What this means is that you can't always use it with a "Standard Action" attack, as many of them are NOT "Attack Actions", eg. A Double Barrelled Pistol has an option to fire both barrels at once (at -4 to hit) as a standard action, this is NOT an "Attack Action", and therefore cannot be combined with Vital Strike.
Casting a spell is likewise it's own variant of Standard Action, which means you cannot combine it with the "Attack Action", which in turn means it cannot be combined with Vital Strike.
This is non-intuitive, so unless you see it all spelled out for you it's unlikely you'll get this specific piece of rules-minutae.
(If someone has rules quotes for that I'd be grateful, I've followed the rules but I'm stumped if anyone asks where to find them.)
Kasoh wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: but I'm thinking I have RAW support on this one. Relevant FAQ
FAQ wrote: Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?
No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.
The action you used when casting the spell, was Cast a spell, not attack. That casting the spell gives you a free attack with the spell doesn't make it an attack action.
Vital Strike is an odd duck that relies on a specific kind of standard action to be used, not just any attack. That is a relevant FAQ, but it deals mostly with Full Round Actions, which we are not talking about here. Vital Strike can only be used on single Attacks that are single actions and are Standard Actions.
Casting most Ray Spells according to the rules I cited seem to be Standard Actions that are Attacks. Ray Spells are considered to be weapons.
Let's look further though.
d20pfsrd.com, Gamemastering, Combat, Actions in Combat, Attack wrote: Making an attack is a standard action. So is casting Scorching Ray: check.
Ranged Attacks wrote: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions. And the description of rays I quoted describes them as weapons, as do other things such as the fact that you can take Weapon Specialization Ray, Precise Shot, the fact that when you use Rays you make Attack Rolls, etc.
There is the matter that maybe a Touch Attack does not quality as an Attack.
d20pfsre.com, Casting Spells in Combat, Touch Attacks wrote: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack... Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage.... Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. It really seems to me that making a Ranged Touch Attack as part of Casting a Spell does indeed count as an Attack, and I really think it can benefit from Vital Strike.
(He was probably already writing that when I posted my comment, so don't jump on him. If anyone does have the relevant text at hand maybe post that.)
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mysterious Stranger wrote: Like others have said it does not work like that. The Witchguard archetype will add fireball to his spell list if he chooses elements as his patrons. Another alternative would be to simply use magic items. A necklace of fireballs starts out at 1,650 gp. If he is willing to invest in UMD he could also use wands of fireball.
Either solution is better than dipping 5 levels in cleric for a 5d6 fireball. Also keep in mind as a cleric you only get a single domain spell, and cannot use your regular spells for domain spells unless it is also on the cleric spell list, which fireball is not.
As an alternative to the witchguard, the flamewarden archetype, although it doesn't allow fireball, does allow the ranger to prepare a bunch of fire descriptor spells from the druid list that would otherwise not be available:
1st- burning disarm, produce flame, touch of combustion (ifrit)
2nd- burning gaze, fiery runes, fire sneeze, fire trap, flame blade, flaming sphere, fury of the sun (ifrit), heat metal, pale flame
3rd- ash storm, flashfire, heatstroke
4th- elemental mastery (ifrit, suli [fire only]), flame strike, greater flaming sphere, geyser, obsidian flow, volcanic storm
I can't remember the last time, past 3rd-level, I managed to get more than three targets in a fireball radius, without Widen Spell. It's certainly not going to happen that often unless the GM is feeding your happiness.
The other problem is that enemy's will start making their saves against one's never-rising DC (if a dip-caster or a wand-caster). Three targets hit by 17.5 is maybe reasonable at 6th level, but doing only 9pts to three different targets is super lame.
Just to provide the relevant text about vital strike and ray spells.
Source
James Jacobs wrote: Vital Strike does not allow you to sneak out extra damage with spells unless that spell works like a weapon.
You could vital strike with a flame blade. Not with a scorching ray.
And
James Jacobs wrote: The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.
But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.
It wasn't ever intended to give spellcasters a way to double their damage dice, and you can expect it to be reworded in an upcoming FAQ sooner or later to enforce this role.
MrCharisma wrote: If anyone does have the relevant text at hand maybe post that. Chell Raighn wrote: Just to provide the relevant text about vital strike and ray spells. That's not a very nice thing to say, is it? I've been providing lots of relevant text to this discussion. I don't like your dismissive tone. You have not proven that the text I offered is irrelevant.
I've been bringing more relevant text than this stuff you posted here! I'm quoting actual rules, and James Jacobs is not making official rules posts, here. He is just offering opinion. His opinion may be better evidence than my opinion, but I am not offering my opinion as evidence. I am supporting my opinion with evidence. No matter whose, opinion is trumped by evidence.
Also, James is directly contradicting the rules, saying that Scorching Ray doesn't "work like a weapon." Scorching Ray can benefit from Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Precise Shot. Scorching Ray requires an Attack Roll. It's described in the Attacks Section of the Combat Section of the Core Rulebook (Ranged Touch Attack). And the Ray subsection of the Magic Section of the rules says Rays "are aimed like weapons." Scorching Ray definitely "works like a weapon"! He might get to change the rules, but he does not get to contradict them.
Rules-as-intended arguments are non-starters. We are the customers. They want our money. We have the right to a reliable product. We are not responsible for what they meant to say. They are responsible for what they did say. I have been quoting what the did say in the actual rules.
James Jacobs wrote: you can expect it to be reworded in an upcoming FAQ sooner or later to enforce this role. Well then, let's have it Mr. Jacobs! You may fix your defective product all you want, but you do not get to handwave this!
Meanwhile, what I am talking about is NOT going against the intent of the rule, as imagined by James Jacobs.
James Jacobs wrote: The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. That's exactly what I'm doing here! The title of this thread is "Ranger casting Fireballs"! I mean, Ranger, and not Fighter, and Scorching Ray, and not Fireball, but this is useage of Scorching Ray is clearly within the intent of the rules as stated by James Jacobs quoted in your post.
So you know, scott, 'to reinforce this rule' is different than saying the text isnt correct. He admits it needs some clarification, but the intent and the text align.
Weables wrote: So you know, scott, 'to reinforce this rule' is different than saying the text isnt correct. He admits it needs some clarification, but the intent and the text align. Fair to say, but this is still opinion being offered as evidence, and opinion offered as evidence is bad.
James Jacobs states that Vital Strike is supposed to work with spells that work like weapons, and the rules clearly show that Scorching Ray does work like a weapon.
The matter at hand is in-line with the intent of the rules as opined by James Jacobs. Vital Strike is intended to give fighter types an edge, and that is exactly what we're talking about here.
Square with the RAW. Square with the RAI. Square with the opinion. Square with the evidence.
The intent and text line up indeed!
Casting a ray spell is a standard action, and thus cannot stack with Vital Strike. The presence of an attack die roll, while a factor in other considerations (such as obtaining sneak-attack), is irrelevant here.
Slim Jim wrote: Casting a ray spell is a standard action, and thus cannot stack with Vital Strike. The presence of an attack die roll, while a factor in other considerations (such as obtaining sneak-attack), is irrelevant here. I've been all over this already. I have brought abundant evidence that refutes what you said. Why don't you read though it so you can address it properly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Because someone already posted the FAQ that addresses this. Casting a spell is not an Attack Action, it's a "Casting A Spell" Action.
Also while a spell like Flame Blade is a weapon-like spell (it summons a weapon for you), scorching ray is decidedly not. While rays can be selected with Weapon Focus they're not otherwise like a weapon. I really don't understand why you'd argue otherwise (I guess it's kind of like a laser).
When you're arguing against *Everyone* it's often a good idea to take a step back and ask yourself: "Am I the one missing something?" Maybe everyone else is wrong (it does happen), but statistically speaking it's unlikely.
MrCharisma wrote: Because someone already posted the FAQ that addresses this. The quoted FAQ doesn't address this. That FAQ mostly concerns itself with Full Round Actions such as Charge or Spring Attack.
FAQ wrote: Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge? … Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike. The "Q" in this FAQ literally addresses Spring Attack and Charge explicitly. You are going against the intent of the FAQ to extrapolate this to apply to Standard Action Attacks.
Admittedly, it does say
FAQ wrote: No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. But it does not say whether casting Scorching Ray is an Attack Action. For that, we needed to look at other rules, which I did in great detail, but which you have obviously ignored. I iterate:
Scorching Ray wrote: Casting Time 1 standard action Well that part is right. An Attack Action needs to be a Standard Action. What do the rules say about Attack Actions?
Attack Action wrote: Making an attack is a standard action. So, Attack Action says that making an Attack is a Standard Action, and Scorching Ray is an Attack that takes a Standard Action.
What else does Scorching Ray say?
Scorching Ray wrote: a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. So, you are taking a Standard Action to make an Attack Roll to make an Attack, according to Scorching Ray and the rules describing the Attack Action.
You might well say that not all Attacks are Attack Actions, but can you really say that taking a Standard Action to make an Attack that requires an Attack Roll is not an Attack Action? That's a lot to buy!
MrCharisma wrote: Also while a spell like Flame Blade is a weapon-like spell (it summons a weapon for you), scorching ray is decidedly not. That is completely false, and you should know better. Rays decidedly are weapon like spells! you can take Weapon Specialization Ray. You can take Improved Crit and Precise Shot for Ray.
The Core Rulebook on Rays specifically calls out Rays as weapn-like:
Ray wrote: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon The rules literally say that Rays are Weapon-like! I have already shown you this!
You make Attack Rolls when you fire a Ray: Ranged Touch Attacks.
d20pfsre.com, Casting Spells in Combat, Touch Attacks wrote: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack... Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage.... Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged Touch Attacks are literally mentioned in in the rules as a kind of Attack Action!
MrCharisma wrote: When you're arguing against *Everyone* it's often a good idea to take a step back and ask yourself: "Am I the one missing something?" Well, I am a man and not a sheep. I believe in finding the truth through examining the objective evidence, not blindly following the bleating of the flock. But I do listen.
I have not been ignoring you, Chell Raighn, nor James Jacobs, though you have been ignoring me. I have been examining the things you say. I have been looking into the rules. I have looked in several places, addressing the issue from different angles even after I had enough evidence to prove my point. I have been giving your arguments due diligence, weighing their value and counter-weighing it with evidence of my own. You on the other hand have made every effort to dismiss everything I have to say.
Perhaps, when you are arguing against someone who is stubbornly defending his position even when he is outnumbered, maybe you should take a step back and consider that maybe he can do this because he has the high ground. I have the high ground here: I am standing on top of a mountain of evidence. Maybe you should take a step back and examine it before attacking again!
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action.
You are not performing a standard attack action that meets the criteria for vital strike, you are casting a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch as result of the spell. Your standard action was casting the spell and that spell happened to result in an attack roll that is not itself a standard action and therefore fails to meet the criteria for vital strike.
born_of_fire wrote: Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action.
You are not performing a standard attack action that meets the criteria for vital strike, you are casting a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch as result of the spell. Your standard action was casting the spell and that spell happened to result in an attack roll that is not itself a standard action and therefore fails to meet the criteria for vital strike.
You are still taking a Standard Action. You are still making an Attack as per what Vital Strike Says:
Vital Strike wrote: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack That attack you are taking is called a Ranged Touch Attack. The Scorching Ray Spell lets you make an Attack that fits the Combat Section Definition of an Attack Action:
Actions in Combat wrote: Attack Scorching Ray is an Attack:
d20pfsrd.com, Magic, Attacks wrote: All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. So, Scorching Ray is an Attack, and according to the Combat Rules, it is an Attack Action.
What kind of Attack is it? Well, it is a Ranged Attack. Ranged Attacks are a kind of Attack Action you can take.
Ranged Attacks wrote: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. Now, James Jacobs says,
James Jacobs wrote: Vital Strike does not allow you to sneak out extra damage with spells unless that spell works like a weapon. But of course Scorching Ray does work like a weapon. You are making an Attack Roll, you can take Weapon Feats to Enhance it such as Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot. There is a section in Magic that describes Ray Spells.
Ray wrote: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon There is abundant evidence that Scorching Ray and all other Ray Spells fit James Jacob's definition of "works like a weapon."
So, you are raising in interesting point: maybe the casting of the spell is the Standard Action, and the Attack Roll itself is not an extra Action.
Touch Attacks wrote: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack Single Armed Attacks are Attack Actions. Touch Attacks are Attack Actions. But does a Ranged Touch Attack count as a Touch Attack?
Touch Attacks wrote: Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. Ranged Touch Attacks are a kind of Touch Attack. Touch Attacks use the Attack Action.
So, that is an interesting point that you make the Ranged Touch Attack as part of casting a spell, but Ranged Touch Attacks are Attack Actions according to the rules as I have shown.
But I just found another FAQ to look at:
FAQ wrote: When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?
Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack,
So, if casting Scorching Ray in a Threatened Square provokes 2 Attacks of Opportunity, 1 for casting a spell, the other for making a ranged attack, then it certainly should count as an Attack Action such as described by Vital Strike.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Actions in Combat wrote: Attack Scorching Ray is an Attack: Scorching Ray is a spell which includes an attack roll, this is not the same thing.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. You've proven that your square is a rectangle, and you're using that as proof that the rectangle we're talking about is the same as your square.
Honestly, I'm perfectly happy for you to play it your way in your games. It won't have any effect on me.
MrCharisma wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Actions in Combat wrote: Attack Scorching Ray is an Attack: Scorching Ray is a spell which includes an attack roll, this is not the same thing.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. You've proven that your square is a rectangle, and you're using that as proof that the rectangle we're talking about is the same as your square.
Honestly, I'm perfectly happy for you to play it your way in your games. It won't have any effect on me. Right, but that one piece of evidence is not my whole case. I brought an abundance of evidence that proves my point. If I have a Dexterity of 16, and I am wearing a chain shirt, you can't just say, "He's wearing a chain shirt, so his AC is 14!
That one quote demonstrates that Scorching Ray is an Attack, but I go on to prove the whole thing using lots of evidence.
Do better.
Scott wrote: James Jacobs wrote: Vital Strike does not allow you to sneak out extra damage with spells unless that spell works like a weapon. But of course Scorching Ray does work like a weapon.
No, it doesn't "work" like a weapon. You merely get to make a ranged attack die roll "as if" using a ranged weapon. The ray is still a ray, not a "weapon". --This is in clear contrast to spells such as Spiritual Weapon, Flame Blade, Holy Ice Weapon, and so forth that create durational manifestations to be explicitly used *as* weapons. Scorching Ray, in contrast, is an instantaneous one-shot effect, and sans anything explicitly stated in the rules, its 4d6 fire damage should not be construed by the players as being "weapon damage dice" for purposes of doubling via Vital Strike.
It does not matter that no FAQ has been issued regarding rays and Vital Strike, because it doesn't pass the smell-test in the first place. I.e., this is one of those situations where, if anything "official" were ever posted to a FAQ-button-hammered thread in the Rules forum, it would likely come in the form of Paizo's famously elliptical "No comment necessary".
~ ~ ~
(Scorching Ray is, of course, only the camel's nose under the tent. Once a GM has been tricked into accepting its usage with Vital Strike, the player's ulterior goals of Empowered Reach Vampiric Touch, Empowered Reach Rime Frigid Touch, and Improved Vital Strike Empowered Hellfire Ray, are realized.)
Slim Jim wrote: No, it doesn't "work" like a weapon. You merely get to make a ranged attack die roll "as if" using a ranged weapon. It is false that that that is my only reason for my saying rays work like a weapon.
But the fact that the rules say you aim it like a weapon is in fact one way in which it is like a weapon.
Slim Jim wrote: The ray is still a ray, not a "weapon". --This is in clear contrast to spells such as Spiritual Weapon, Flame Blade, Holy Ice Weapon, and so forth that create durational manifestations to be explicitly used *as* weapons. Scorching Ray, in contrast, is an instantaneous one-shot effect, and sans anything explicitly stated in the rules, its 4d6 fire damage should not be construed by the players as being "weapon damage dice" for purposes of Vital Strike. Those other spells you mentioned create weapons. Scorching Ray works like a weapon: you aim it like a weapon. You make an Attack Roll like you do with a weapon. You can take weapon-specific Feats for rays like a weapon. It is like a weapon in many ways.
Not all rectangles are squares, but even non-square rectangles are parallelograms, and so are squares, just like both Spiritual Weapon and Scorching Ray are weapon-like.
Slim Jim wrote: It does not matter that no FAQ has been issued regarding rays and Vital Strike, because it doesn't pass the smell-test in the first place. I.e., this is one of those situations where, if anything "official" were ever posted to a FAQ-button-hammered thread in the Rules forum, it would likely come in the form of Paizo's famously elliptical "No comment necessary". Maybe no comment is necessary. The rules clearly demonstrate that Rays are weapon-like. The rules clearly state that Ranged Touch Attacks are Attack Actions. But the relevant FAQ clearly states that that the Attack Roll from a Touch Attack is it's own action distinct from the casting of the spell. But the FAQ does take it a step further to state that when you cast Scorching Ray in melee, you provoke 2 attacks of opportunity: 1 for casting a spell, and another for making a Ranged Attack. And Ranged Attacks are Attack Actions. The Core Rulebook says so.
Slim Jim wrote: (Scorching Ray is, of course, only the camel's nose under the tent. Once a GM has been tricked into foolishly accepting its usage with Vital Strike, the player's true goals of Empowered Reach Vampiric Touch, and Improved Vital Strike Empowered Hellfire Ray, will be realized.) Ah, now that is a point that I had not considered: that there might be even more broken ways to exploit this aspect of the rules that would ruin a game. But even if that were the case, that does not mean that I am not giving my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say. Nor does it mean that anything I am reporting about the rules is false. What it means is that you and I have discovered a problem with the rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rule of thumb: if you have a useful combo involving vital strike, the combo doesn't work. The 'attack action' can be redefined as necessary to make sure, for example, that you cannot vital strike on a standard action charge or with a spring attack or cleave or with attacks readied by overwatch style or any other combo that you might choose to do.
Whatever your cunning trick is vital strike Does. Not. Work.
Edit: to be clear, if none of those work then anything more dubious like scorching ray does not have a hope (of injuring a devil) in Hell.
avr wrote: Rule of thumb: if you have a useful combo involving vital strike, the combo doesn't work. The 'attack action' can be redefined as necessary to make sure, for example, that you cannot vital strike on a standard action charge or with a spring attack or cleave or with attacks readied by overwatch style or any other combo that you might choose to do.
Whatever your cunning trick is vital strike Does. Not. Work.
Edit: to be clear, if none of those work then anything more dubious like scorching ray does not have a hope (of injuring a devil) in Hell.
Well, Spring Attack and Charge are not Standard Action Attacks at all, but rather Full Round Actions.
And while Cleave is a Standard Action, Cleave specifically targets multiple opponents with multiple attack rolls, and Vital Strike is specific about being 1 attack vs. 1 target. (And that, of course means a high level Wizard would not be able to use Scorching Ray to cast multiple beams and get VS on all of them.).
But all that aside, I take what I think is your main point: Vital Strike is very dodgy in the way that it is worded, and a player can expect a GM to invent some reason for VS to not work for you, whether it has merit in the rules-as-written or not.
You should always vet your character build with your GM in advance.
Slim Jim wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Slim Jim wrote: (Scorching Ray is, of course, only the camel's nose under the tent. Once a GM has been tricked into foolishly accepting its usage with Vital Strike, the player's true goals of Empowered Reach Vampiric Touch, Empowered Reach Rime Frigid Touch, and Improved Vital Strike Empowered Hellfire Ray, will be realized.) Ah, now that is a point that I had not considered: that there might be even more broken ways to exploit this aspect of the rules that would ruin a game. Yeah: most GMs are probably not ready for 67d6 ranged-touch attacks with rider effects. Are most GMs ready for 3 Gigantic Arsinotheria?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Are most GMs ready for 3 Gigantic Arsinotheria? That build only attained two at size huge, for some miserable few rounds per day, after a very slow, developmental slog to get it, and had glaring weaknesses (beyond spending 100% of funds on pure offensive) rendering it unsuitable for actual play. --Contrast to any regular caster who's achieved BAB6 cheesing the crap out of Vital Strike under a lenient interpretation. (As if martial/caster disparity weren't already enough of a problem as it is.) With that stuff in play, the game reduces to a binary cakewalk-or-deathfest depending on whether or not the PC or NPC has Smash From The Air.
IMO, a short-list of campaign-wrecking material that every GM should homebrew into the crapper would include: Paired Opportunists (and similar AoO+maneuver exponentialgasms of the sort you and I explored in that DPR thread), Vital Strike on scaling spells (see this thread), Transmutation/Polymorph (see Monktopus thread), Dirty Trick, and summoning spam. --If you're a beginner GM, or even a moderately experienced one, requesting your players shy away from builds exploiting those five particular aspects will alleviate copious amounts of aggravation and ruleslawyering. If you're used to supermutant-level rocket-tag, then and only then should anything go.
Slim Jim wrote: That build only attained two at size huge, for some miserable few rounds per day, after a very slow, developmental slog to get it, and had glaring weaknesses (beyond spending 100% of funds on pure offensive) rendering it unsuitable for actual play. --Contrast to any regular caster who's achieved BAB6 cheesing the crap out of Vital Strike under a lenient interpretation. Of course my sentiments here should not be dissuading us from exploring the most tricked-up DPR nonsense that our fiendish primate brains can conceive.
~ ~ ~
Mini-DPR thread now commences!
Submit your most destructive Vital Strike ray-spell build. Assume a single attack, unless you've a mechanic for deploying Vital Strike more than once per round.* Character level 12.
(*I'm guessing there aren't anything that can be used in conjunction with ray-casting.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Slim Jim wrote: Mini-DPR thread now commences!
Submit your most destructive Vital Strike ray-spell build. Assume a single attack, unless you've a mechanic for deploying Vital Strike more than once per round.* Character level 12.
Well, here's something I'd been fooling around with.
Half Elf with Arcane Training Alternate Racial Trait
With Arcane Training in Arcanist, this character can now use any Sorcerer or Wizard Wand, so Wand of Scorching Ray.
1Fighter1: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Wolf Cub, Indomidable Will, BAB+1
I consider Precise Strike essential, so I like taking it at level 1.
2F1Ninja1: Sneak Attack 1d6, Poison
3F1N2: Ninja Vanishing Trick, Extra Trick, Rogue Talent, False Attacker, Ki Pool, BAB+2
So, this character can Vanish as a Swift Action then maybe use Stealth to find a nice hidy-hole. On subsequent Rounds, this character can use his Wand of Scorching Ray to make Ranged Touch Attacks vs. Flatfooted AC that locks in Sneak Attack Damage.
False Attacker allows the character to make a Bluff Check as a Swift Action, and if successful, that Stealth Check at a -20 to maintain cover will not be necessary because False Attacker will make he targets think his Attacks came from some other direction.
4F1N3: Sneak Attack +1d6, No Trace+1, BAB+3
5F1N3Brawler1: SnakeBite Striker, Unarmed 1d6, Sneak Attack +1d6, Martial Cunning, Deadly Aim, BAB+4
6F1N3B1Alchemist1: Vivisectionist, Sneak Attack +1d6, Extracts, Mutagens, Brew Potion
7F1N3B1A2: Infusion, Accomplished Sneak Attacker, BAB+5
8F1N3B1A3: Sneak Attack +1d6, Swift Alchemy, BAB+6
9F1N3B1A4: Vital Strike, Glittering Infusion, BAB+7
Not so sure about Glittering Infusion. It looks cool. It's Glitterdust. It finds Invisible opponents and Blinds targets, which locks in SA Damage another way.
10F1N3B2A4: Weapon Focus Ray, BAB+8
11F2N3B2A4: Weapon Specialization, Devastating Strike, BAB+9
12F2N3B2A5: Sneak Attack +1d6, Poison Resistance, +4
So, with Vital Strike, the Base Damage of the Scorching Ray is 8d6. With a BAB of +8, Deadly Aim does +4 Damage, with Devastating Strike, that's +6 Damage. Point Blank Shot gives +1, and Weapon Specialization gives +2, + 6d6 Sneak Attack Damage.
so, 14d6 + 17 Damage every round as Ranged Touch Attacks vs. Flatfooted AC. so 66 points of damage/round. And bear in mind that I'm under reporting: I have not even considered things like what Extracts the Alchemist could use or other wands, or fact that Alchemal Allocation also lets the Alchemist use basically any spell of any class from levels 1-3.
I mean, if we're assuming rays work with Vital Strike then:
Disintegrate + Vital Strike = 48d6 (~168) damage at level 12.
That seems like a good place to start.
MrCharisma wrote: I mean, if we're assuming rays work with Vital Strike then:
Disintegrate + Vital Strike = 48d6 (~168) damage at level 12.
That seems like a good place to start.
since disintegrate gets the advantage of being 2d6 per caster level and we are limited to single target non-multi ray spells there's very little that can compete with that at a base level.
However, it could be augmented. Add in
*Spell specialization
*Mordant Envoy
*Bloatmage initiate
*Varisian tattoo
*Magical Lineage
*Wayang Spellhunter
*Empower Spell
and you get
68d6x1.5 (357 avg) damage at level 12.
LordKailas wrote: MrCharisma wrote: I mean, if we're assuming rays work with Vital Strike then:
Disintegrate + Vital Strike = 48d6 (~168) damage at level 12.
That seems like a good place to start.
since disintegrate gets the advantage of being 2d6 per caster level and we are limited to single target non-multi ray spells there's very little that can compete with that at a base level.
However, it could be augmented. Add in
*Spell specialization
*Mordant Envoy
*Bloatmage initiate
*Varisian tattoo
*Magical Lineage
*Wayang Spellhunter
*Empower Spell
and you get
68d6x1.5 (357 avg) damage at level 12. Ah, I wasn't thinking of Disintigrate as a Ray Spell. I was thinking in terms of spells level 1-4 and Wands.
Good one.
MrCharisma wrote: I mean, if we're assuming rays work with Vital Strike then:
Disintegrate + Vital Strike = 48d6 (~168) damage at level 12.
That seems like a good place to start.
If my GM would not let me make Ray work with Vital Strike, I take the Ancestral Arms Alternate Racial Trait and get Exotic Weapon Proficiency with the Orc Hornbow. I'd take a level in Ranger and use a Wand of Gravity Bow, and dip a level in Living Monolith or something with a Domain and take the Plant, Growth Domain and get Enlarge Person as a Swift Action. Then my arrows would do 4d6, and then I'd take my Vital Strike Feats.
I'd also consider being a Grenadier instead of a Vivisectionist alchemist because exploding arrows are cool!
LordKailas wrote: MrCharisma wrote: I mean, if we're assuming rays work with Vital Strike then: Disintegrate + Vital Strike = 48d6 (~168) damage at level 12. That seems like a good place to start. since disintegrate gets the advantage of being 2d6 per caster level and we are limited to single target non-multi ray spells there's very little that can compete with that at a base level. Let's see if we can bust five hundred....
~ ~ ~
Race: Half-Elf (Mordant Envoy racial trait)
Traits: Magical Lineage, Wayang Spellhunter
Build: 11 levels Cleric or Shaman, 1 level (anything granting Orc bloodline)
Feats: Dreamed Secrets, Empower Spell, Spell Focus, Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, Vital Strike
Spell: Disintegrate
Gear: Altar of Nethys, Candle of Invocation, Rod of Maximize, Prayer Beads (Bead of Karma), Orange Prism Ioun stone
Caster level (for Disintegrate): 20
- 11 (character levels in a casting class)
- 5 (Altar of Nethys, Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, Wayang Spellhunter)
- 4 Bead of Karma w/Dreamed Secrets casting Disintegrate divinely
Disintegrate caps out at 40d6 (sans Intensified Spell, anyway).
Pre-combat: Praying under a lit Candle of Invocation before our Altar of Nethys, memorize Empowered Disintegrate into a normally-precluded 7th-level slot via Magical Lineage, freeing up our rod for a different metamagic feat.
Damage:
- 40d6 becomes 80d6 with Vital Strike
- Maximized to 480
- Empowered ([80d6+80{Orc Bloodline}]/2) to 660
- Orc Bloodline to 740. (Damage is 92.5 if target makes its save.)
|
