| TacoBelmont |
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Based on older forum posts and this CRB FAQ, I am lead to believe that spells which make an attack roll and deal hit point damage, yet are not specifically rays, still benifit from effects which modify weapon damage rolls. The question I have is then:
Do spells which make an attack roll and deal hit point damage, but are not rays (such as Acid Splash, Battering Blast, or Clashing Rocks) recieve bonuses to weapon damage rolls from effects such as Inspire Courage?
My assumption is yes, because of them calling out fireball and mentioning casting in the FAQ, but because spells aren't addressed directly I would really appreciate it being clarified.
| Azothath |
What you are generally looking for is an attack(d20) roll. Ranged attack, ranged touch attack, etc.
Acid Splash:C0=rngd tch atk, Battering Blast:K3=rngd tch atk, Clashing Rocks:C9=rngd tch atk. Spectral Hand:N2=rngd tch atk for tch spells.
Fireball is mentioned as it has no "to hit" roll (meaning it usually does not benefit from attack and damage bonuses associated with an attack roll) but sometimes a GM may call for one when special circumstances warrant. One can easily imagine a GM requesting a player to make an attack roll to shoot a fireball through an arrow slit at 50 paces. That doesn't mean the fireball suddenly qualifies to do a bit more damage and this is what the FAQ is saying.
As PF1 development stopped years ago - don't expect any official response. Just do the best you can.
| TacoBelmont |
Right, the problem is that this FAQ features the phrasing of 'weapon-like spells' and appears rather vague on what that means. For situations like Flame Blade that's obvious (it say's it acts as a scimitar), but for situations like Mage's Sword (which doesn't have a weapon it says it's analogous to beyond 'Sword'), Acid Arrow (that makes an arrow), or Acid Splash (that makes a glob of acid) it isn't. The other two links seem to clarify that the intent is for this to mean spells which are subject to normal ranged combat rules, which is to say have a regular attack roll and deal hit point damage, but whether or not any of those count as weapon damage, because they aren't explicitly rays, I'm not sure. Shard of Chaos and Flame Shuriken create dart-like or shrunken-like objects, although the properties of them are non-analoguous to their weapon counterparts. This is the kinda thing that's tripping me up.
| Azothath |
Right, the problem is that this FAQ features the phrasing of 'weapon-like spells' and appears rather vague on what that means. ...
Again, "weapon damage rolls," as pointed out in the 1st FAQ link above, "Weapon Attacks and Special Abilities: Many places in the rules use the term “ranged weapon attacks” and similar terms, but how does this apply to spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and extraordinary abilities (heretoafter called special abilities) that require ranged attacks but might not necessarily seem like weapons?" FAQ 2016, ties "weapon damage rolls", "damage rolls", "attack rolls", "deal damage on a successful attack roll", "a dozen different ranged attacks simultaneously" to a (d20) attack roll that does HP damage. Not ability damage, not conditions like confusion, not perception modifiers... but damage that affects HPs (which would be [bleed]). It is a bit later and forging the link between an attack roll, doing HP damage, and benefiting/suffering various bonuses that affect melee, ranged, thrown attacks. You also see that such bonuses apply once to spells that produce multiple attack rolls simultaneously (like magic missile{hits automatically}, scorching ray), but all the attack rolls suffer the penalties.
This is why wizards need Point-blank shot and Precise shot feats even though they may target Touch AC. Shocking Grasp with Range metamagic and later Intensify metamagic are serious threats. -4 and -8 to hit are serious common ranged penalties in mass combat especially when your BAB is progressing at half rate.The 2nd FAQ link above, "Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?" FAQ 2011, posits that rays are weapons. It links to "Weapon Specialization: Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?" FAQ 2010.
It was that way in D&D 3.5 but many PF1 players didn't have previous experience and assumed knowledge and it would be embarrassing to reference a game you did a retake on AND provide legal/business paths to money loss. Basically it wasn't broad enough so you got the later (2016) FAQ.
Honestly, Paizo being creative writers had difficulty with some of the pedantic reading and logical nitpicking that went on. People tried to parse and read into RAW and the FAQs. Secondly, Paizo's technical writing skills were minimal. They were loathe to produce FAQs and it took years to get what we got. Organized Play (PFS) drove a lot of the FAQ output as it was a Paizo sponsored campaign. 15+ years on in post production you don't get to experience that frustration.
While in your studies of PF1, download and read PFS Additional Resources and Campaign Clarifications. It adds to your understanding for a lot of corner cases and how Paizo staff thought things should work within the generic PFS setting.
Just remember that PF1 is a Game, a "work of art", and not a technical manual or science textbook.
| TacoBelmont |
So things like Battering Blast and Flame Shuriken get the damage bonus on every attack, but Scorching Ray gets it only on one (simultaneous) and Magic Missile doesn't get it at all (no attack roll). Acid Splash does because it's one attack, but you couldn't take weapon focus with it, am I understanding that correctly?
| TacoBelmont |
re-read my post as I've been editing it. this post will self destruct in 10, ... 9, ...
I'm not sure I follow why Magic Missile would count, it doesn't make an attack so it shouldn't be subject to FAQ 2016.
So things like Battering Blast and Flame Shuriken get the damage bonus on every attack, but Scorching Ray gets it only on one (simultaneous) and Magic Missile doesn't get it at all (no attack roll). Acid Splash does because it's one attack, but you couldn't take weapon focus with it, am I understanding that correctly?
I believe my understanding here to be true given what I've seen from this, I just wanna make sure I'm interperetting things the best I can.
| Azothath |
as in my second chatty post (my interpretation of RAW), multiple simultaneous attacks get the to hit bonuses on every attack BUT only get the bonus damage on ONE of the attacks (in a round). They suffer all the appropriate (range, cover) penalties on every attack.
Some feats or class abilities add to each die. So it varies by the description but generally an "attack" only adds to one possibility for damage (as the caster is forced to choose before the attack roll is made). Some GMs choose the First attack for simplicity as attacks usually descend by 5 in succession so it's understandable, but that doesn't technically apply to simultaneous spell attacks.
Battering Blast:K3 - lets say high enough CL to get two like 11th. So two attacks at +N with bonuses to hit, only one gets generic damage bonus. The spell combines both for a flat bonus +10 to CMB Bull Rush check.
Flame Arrow:T3 adds damage to ranged projectiles, so no bonuses. When someone shoots them then they are looking for bonuses that apply to projectiles.
Fiery Shuriken:C2 {one of those mixed iterative attacks} it depends (LoL). It is a round by round thing, so over 4 rounds with 4 attacks then each per round gets bonus damage BUT if 4 are launched in one round all get bonuses to hit but only one gets generic attack damage bonus.
Some GMs do it per casting, others in a prorated round by round attack. I prefer the latter as you are trading attack rate for a bit of extra damage. The caster could die before completing a slowed attack sequence so it's a hard choice AND they are not casting other spells. Overall slowing your rate of attack is sub-optimal but it's better than standing there throwing rocks as improvised weapons.
Coin Shot:T1 is also in this category BUT when you throw them is when you go looking for bonuses.
Magic Missile:K1 is an exception as it automatically hits but it is an attack that does HP damage, just no d20 roll. This is where you'll see damage to die abilities/feats stand out but generic attack damage bonuses will only apply to one magic missile.
I want to close with spells are tricky things with many exceptions and it all runs on the descriptions in the spell and the ability or feat. So read closely and carefully. As a GM you want to be fair and consistent.
| Pizza Lord |
You can take feats like Weapon Focus and select rays, touch spells, or ranged touched spells.
Those attacks would get the attack bonus, the same for Weapon Specialization (if you meet the requirements). With the understanding it's for spells and not, for instance, a laser gun that fired a ray or a net, which makes a ranged touch attack. For a weapon you would choose the weapon for the focus.
Do spells which make an attack roll and deal hit point damage, but are not rays (such as Acid Splash, Battering Blast, or Clashing Rocks) recieve bonuses to weapon damage rolls from effects such as Inspire Courage?
Inspire Courage (Su): A 1st level bard can use his performance to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities. To be affected, an ally must be able to perceive the bard’s performance. An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 competence bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls.
Inspire courage will provide the attack bonus. It will not provide the damage bonus, because the spells are not weapons and it specifies weapon damage. Even though you can choose various spell attacks (ray, ranged touch, tough) for certain weapon feats like Weapon Focus, that does not make them weapons.
Similarly, spells that emulate weapons will not get the bonus to damage because they are not actually weapons nor is the caster actually attacking with them, even if the spell uses their base attack bonus and ability mods. This means things like spiritual weapon or mage's sword, even if the caster is proficient in whatever the spiritual weapon looks like or swords. Similarly, the attacks don't get non-proficiency penalties if they aren't proficient in the spell's weapon form. The bonuses would apply for spells that actually create the weapons that get used by the caster, like flame blade or a spell that creates a sword or bow that the caster wields.
For spells that have multiple rays or simultaneous attacks, the normal operation is that bonus damage (such as a critical hit or sneak attack damage) only applies to the first ray or attack. Though this may not apply against multiple targets, for instance, if the second ray targeted a creature that would be flatfooted or subject to sneak attack and the first wasn't... then sneak attack is probably okay on multiple targets that are subject.
Diego Rossi
|
Fiery Shuriken:C2 {one of those mixed iterative attacks} it depends (LoL).
Fiery Shuriken isn't an iterative attack (one of those terms that isn't officially defined in the Core Rulebook, but that has been introduced in official replies, FAQs, and successive rulebooks). It is a specific number of attacks that can be spread over multiple rounds. There are several spells with that kind of mechanic.
Using mixed iterative attack to define how it works can be misleading.An iterative attack happens when your BAB is high enough to allow subsequent attacks at -5/-10/-15 to hit in the same round.
When a spell allows you to make iterative attacks (as an example Spiritual Weapon), the applicable damage bonus is applied to each attack, not only to one of them.
N.B.: as Pizza Lord pointed out, Spiritual Weapon attack as a spell, not as a weapon, so it will benefit from effects that affect spells, not weapons.
| TacoBelmont |
I don’t think that follows from what’s mentioned in the other FAQ 2016 and the linked forum post. It is clear that abilities get the damage bonuses when they make attack rolls and deal hit point damage. SLA’s are abilities, therefore we could must conclude that a creature with Acid Splash as an SLA receives the damage bonuses. The FAQ also mentions casting several times in the same block, so there are indeed cases where they do receive ‘weapon damage rolls’ increases. Likewise this FAQ states explicitly:
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.
rays are treated as weapons for all things considered to them, including explicitly Inspire Courage, which gives its bonus to weapon damage rolls. Spiritual Weapon is also explicitly receptive to this bonus, as is Mage’s Sword. Therefore I can only conclude that FAQ 2016 linked above is intended to mean that weapon damage bonuses to apply to spells with attack rolls and damage rolls.
| Pizza Lord |
I don’t think that follows from what’s mentioned in the other FAQ 2016 and the linked forum post. It is clear that abilities get the damage bonuses when they make attack rolls and deal hit point damage. SLA’s are abilities, therefore we could must conclude that a creature with Acid Splash as an SLA receives the damage bonuses. The FAQ also mentions casting several times in the same block, so there are indeed cases where they do receive ‘weapon damage rolls’ increases. Likewise this FAQ states explicitly: ...
The FAQ is a fine thing to be able to point to. I think you need to also understand that 'they' get things wrong or make assumptions and FAQ rulings that don't follow the actual rules or wording (maybe it's what they intended, but we can't always know, and it's rare that the actual writer responds or writes a FAQ answer). Obviously they should be considered more experienced than some random guy or girl on the internet, but it is very easy to point out glaring inconsistencies in their 'advice'.
For instance, the wording for monk's unarmed strikes counting as magical attacks for purposes of overcoming DR. Damage resistance is not incorporeality, and the ability specifically states 'for the purposes of overcoming DR', yet a FAQ answer says to now count it as being 'for every purpose that a magical weapon would be', when we know that's not the case. This is Rules though, so it comes down to whether the rule (or FAQ) follows the actual rules, or can at least explain why it doesn't/shouldn't, sometimes the FAQ answers are not... what's the diplomatic answer here; 'necessarily correct', especially when they very clearly contrast and even contradict what is actually written.
It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, ...
You don't suddenly point at that same FAQ and say, "Rays, touch attack, and ranged touch attack spells count as weapons for all purposes. And that includes now needing weapon proficiency." You can't really call them natural attacks, with maybe the exception of a touch attack (which creatures are considered proficient in). Even if you say that ray attacks or such attacks are Simple weapons, there are classes that don't get all simple weapons. Are you going to start applying non-proficiency penalties? We know Weapon Focus and similar can be taken for such attacks (because a FAQ says so), but it doesn't say you can ignore requirements. So does a sorcerer need to take Simple Weapon Proficiency (ranged touch) before they can take Weapon Focus (ranged touch)?
You can certainly rule that, and even point to the same FAQ you're using as evidence, but expect a lot of pushback. It's the same with even explicitly calling out spiritual weapon. That ignores the specifics of that spell, that says it strikes as a spell and explicitly not as a weapon. Mage's sword may have different wording, but I think it is otherwise identical to spiritual weapon that the same rules apply.
The problem when they make FAQs in this manner that do not cleave to the actual rules and wordings, what they needed to do, was make errata, but they did not want to take the time, effort (and expense, being the likely actual reason) to do reprints and fix things, so they make FAQs and then couch them as rule changes.
TL/DR
It is almost a certainty (obviously can't say something with absolute certainty), that some intern probably was stuck doing FAQ duty, did a search to clear the FAQ queue, saw that somewhere they had made a prior choice to state that rays, touch, etc. were valid targets for certain weapon feats... and did what they [often] do; slippery slope, cognitive [dis]association and just went with, 'They're weapons now, I guess.'
Spiritual weapon and inspire courage effects existed long before Weapon Focus (or even feats themselves in many cases), and the wording and intention (for inspire courage) was that it applied to weapon rolls and damage, and spiritual weapon has always been clearly and explicity stated that it does not count as a weapon, despite having that form, and even sometimes the crit threat and multiplier of what it emulates. If you are swayed by the FAQ, that's fine, I don't think your game or campaign is going to get ruined by it, but I (for what that's worth) do not apply weapon damage bonuses to something that tells me specifically that it isn't a weapon.
| Azothath |
Commentary -
my understanding from Paizo chat is that FAQs come out of a staff meeting/passed about for review at Paizo as they are Core product.
All of the Core, Campaign, PFS product underwent some editing through multiple hands, Player Companion had less review.
With Monk there was a late effort to bolster the class vs DR/something as they were hurt the most by having intentionally expensive magical bolstering compared to the golfbag of magical weapons.
| TacoBelmont |
While I understand that my authority as a dungeon master supercedes the text of the game documents, and also that the game documents are the primary source from which the rules are drawn. I do, at least from a pedagogical standpoint, view the FAQ's as official and, therefore, would certainly belive that it's uncontestable that rays benifit from inspire courage. If we can agree that it follows, from this reasoning, that other spells benifit from them, then I'm sold. The main problem is that I wasn't sure whether or not I could think of the FAQ 2016 as also relating to spells. If I am to make the call on my own I would have, and will continue, to rule that Acid Splash and Acid Arrow benifit from them. I understand that I am learning and running the game far removed from its terminus, but I was told that this forum was the primary source by which I could ask for rulings. If it boils down to 'it's my call' that is an answer, albiet an unsatisfactory one which may spark conflict. FWIW, I would also say a line of reasoning which considers the monk's attack magical to bypass DR but not magical to punch ghosts to be obtuse and, honestly, hostile.
| Azothath |
ADVICE
just realize it's a Game with a bunch of published material. An advanced form of "Let's Pretend" with a scad of rulebooks. "Official" means Paizo published, so there are various product lines (including the FAQs and AoN websites information) and a campaign. Then there's 3rd party publications.
As a 'Work of Art' logic and technical consistency are only going to go so far.
Your Home Game is an implementation of RAW with creative + sensible GM centric decisions. Just using pedantic RAW will only go so far as unresolved/unforseen inconsistencies will crop up.
Here (in the Rules Forum) posts vary from somewhat literal to opinion. Mostly it is people relaying their Home Game decisions/interpretations. It gets you thinking about what the printed text means and what it implies.
Generally, RAW quotes in a post means they are trying to stick close to RAW and drawing support from those quotes. An argument is only as good as the quality, applicability, and context of those quotes. Note that RAW often comes in a hierarchical paragraph form, so less than a paragraph can be too specific. Otherwise for most posts it's opinion. 'Comment' means it's off topic. 'Chatty' means casual chat. 'Advice' is advice.
| Java Man |
My ruling on this comes down to whether or not the caster is in active control of the attack. So acid splash, any ray, acid arrow and the like benefit. Spiritual weapon and mage's sword no.
| Azothath |
→ Spiritual Weapon:K2 It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the reduction in damage associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.
Which clears up many cases with its rather specific allowances. It is odd in that the spell itself is attempting to strike. First two lines and sixth line imply bonuses you get don't apply but ones that would directly bolster a spell would (Yes: Sure Casting:D1, Consecrate(+2) MetaMagic, Crypt Spell(+1) MetaMagic. No: True Strike:D1). Bard's Inspire Courage (Su) affects allies, not spells directly.
In practical terms Spiritual Weapon:K2 is not a highly effective spell.
| TacoBelmont |
My rationale is that
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.Does depend on those weapons making attack rolls and dealing damage as a part of the caster's control rather than an independant or Simi-indpenedant entitiy as a Summon spell would. Spiritual Weapon's comparative value to other spells of it's level isn't a particular concern of mine, I'm aware many spells are better or worse or simply situational compared to one another. Coupled to the
When it comes to modifiers that affect weapon damage rolls, or simply “damage rolls” (such as the bonus on damage rolls from Point-Blank Shot, inspire courage, and smite evil), special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll, apply them on hit point damage only, and only once per casting or use, rather than once per attack. For instance, if a spell or special ability launched a dozen different ranged attacks simultaneously, only one (of the user’s choice) would receive bonus damage. This doesn’t apply on area effects with the rare potential for extraneous attack rolls, like fireball. However, there is a category of abilities that deserve a special note: Abilities like Arcane Strike that specifically enhance a character’s weapon or weapons themselves never apply to special abilities (with the exception of special abilities like the warlock’s mystic bolts that specifically call out that Arcane Strike applies).
telling me that this FAQ is meant to also apply to spells, I'm lead to believe this is the RAW interpretation currently, if indeed you believe the FAQ are 'rules', which as far as I can tell they are supposed to be. One could then argue that just because 'they' intend the FAQ to be rules doesn't mean they are, but then we could say the same thing about literally any book but* the CRB and we've devolved into calvinball, which is what I'm tryna avoid. Regardless my original question was about spells that don't have a particularly controversial 'It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon' clause, which I am forced to reconcile as simpy saying the wording on the spell is such that it means your spectral dagger isn't a dagger, not that iti isn't a weapon-like spell, which it explicitly is. I am primary concerned with 'simpler' matters, like Acid Splash and Acid Arrow.