Spell/weapon clarification

[Space Coyote]

I need some clarification here. My nephew and I keep butting heads over rule disputes. When I DM, I like to use only the core books, Spell compendium and a few rules that I garnered from other books, which I specify in my house rules. When playing a friends campaign however, he allows pretty well any book, especially any "Complete" book.

My nephew keeps popping up rules that he says comes from other WOTC books. I cannot find information in the core books or eratta, so I cannot truly confirm what he is claiming. When I ask him about him, he merely says, "It says this in the complete books."

Here is the jist of the discussion:
1) I have always known 3.x rules to make a clear distinction between what are considred "weapon" attacks are what effects come from "spells". Weapons are man made objects that you weild to attack with (such as swords and bows), and can include "natural" weapons like unarmed strikes and creatures using natural weaponry. Basically, anything "physical" to cause damage.
2) Spells use "magic" to cause damage. Some form of magical energy is summoned or called upon and the target takes damage.
3) Therefore whenever a feat or spell or ability specifies "Weapon damage", then it only applies to physical weapons. For example, the +1 luck bonus from Prayer specifies "weapon damage", therefore you would not gain the bonus with, lets say, a Magic Missile or Scorching Ray. Things like Damage reduction applies only to "weapons". Certain rules will specify exceptions, such as weapon focus stating that you can use it with ray spells.

However, my nephew is stating that the Complete books clarified that spells are now considered "weapons" for the purposes of gaining benefits from other sources. The final straw, however, was recently, when he advised that ranged touch spells are considered ranged "attacks" and follow the same rules for such.

Here are some of the debates that came up recently:
1) Does a Ranger's favoured enemy bonus (which specifies weapon damage) apply to spells?
2) What about spells like Prayer? Do spells like Scorching Ray or Magic Missle get the bonus on damage?
3) Since a range touch attack spell, such as Ray of Enfeeblement, is a "ranged attack", it provokes an AOO twice, once for casting the spell and once for being a ranged attack (it still does not provoke a third AOO from being "unarmed", since touch attack spells specifically state that they are considered "armed").

I would be happy with considering physical weapons and spells were two separate things. I dont have an issue with spell "attacks" (spells that require an attack roll) from gaining certain bonuses (such as Point blank shot or +1 to hit from Bless), but outright stating that spells are considered weapons whenever it is beneficial to do so just seems to give spells a bigger boost than they already get. And stating that ranged attack spells provoke an AOO, seems a little TOO penalizing.

 

[IcyCool]

Borrow a copy of Complete Arcane and memorize the section on "Weapon-like Spells".

A quick summary:

1. Spells that require an attack roll (or touch attack roll) are considered "weapon-like spells". (So Magic Missile, which doesn't require an attack roll, is not a weapon-like spell).

2. Weapon-like spells can benefit from abilities that boost attack rolls. (And you can take feats like Weapon Focus[Rays] to boost your attack rolls further (in this case, with ray spells)).

3. If the weapon-like spell deals damage, then you can also sneak attack with it, provided the conditions for sneak attack are met. The extra damage from sneak attack is of the same type as the spell. So the sneak attack dice with an acid splash spell would deal acid damage.

That said, I'm not entirely sure how a weapon-like spell interacts with the specific wording of "weapon damage".

Edit - Your debate #3 "Two AoOs provoked for casting a ranged touch spell" is incorrect. Only one AoO for the casting of the spell is incurred.

 

[javcs]

The beginning of the Weaponlike Spells section from CArc specifically says favored enemy bonus work with weaponlike spells, but not effects such as a prayer spell or a bard's inspire courage.
A weaponlike spell is a spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage, whether hit point, non-lethal, ability damage, or energy drain.
Weaponlike spells threaten on a 20, and have a crit multiplier of x2.

If a weaponlike spell crits, it deals double the normal effects, if a weaponlike spell sneak attacks, it deals sneak attack damage of the same type as the damage dealt by the spell, with the exception of energy drain/ability damage, which deal negative energy.
Weaponlike spells that use multiple attacks only deal extra damage on the first attack, whether or not it hits.

Ray of Enfeeblement is specifically called out as not being a weaponlike spell.
Magic Missile is not a weaponlike spell (no attack roll) and thus gets nothing.

Ranged touch spells provoke only one AoO.

Spells are not 'ranged attacks', however, in certain specific instances they function similarly to conventional ranged attacks.

If this is too specific, please, trim it down.

In any event, if you don't like a rule, hey, you're the DM, you don't have to use it.

 

[Artoomis]

I suggest that, in the future, you and your nephew and this other DM all agree that while rules from all "Complete" books are allowed, they can only be used if the user of the rule actually can point it out in the book.

This will neatly resolve any disputes in the future.

 

[Space Coyote]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. It seems like there is such a thing as "weapon-like" spells, but they may not be able to take advantage of ALL the things that benefit weapons. Looks like I will check that book myself to understand the ruling, and have something to point to.

Your debate #3 "Two AoOs provoked for casting a ranged touch spell" is incorrect. Only one AoO for the casting of the spell is incurred.

Spells are not 'ranged attacks', however, in certain specific instances they function similarly to conventional ranged attacks.

Well, his reasoning is: Ranged touch spells are "ranged" and they require an attack roll, therefore they are an "attack", therefore they are a "ranged attack", which according to the PH provokes an AOO. I need some actual rule quote that states otherwise

 

[IcyCool]

Well, his reasoning is: Ranged touch spells are "ranged" and they require an attack roll, therefore they are an "attack", therefore they are a "ranged attack", which according to the PH provokes an AOO. I need some actual rule quote that states otherwise

Hyp had an answer to this in the Exceptional Deflection thread. About the only thing I can mention off the top of my head is, check the glossary definition of "attack".

 

[javcs]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. It seems like there is such a thing as "weapon-like" spells, but they may not be able to take advantage of ALL the things that benefit weapons. Looks like I will check that book myself to understand the ruling, and have something to point to.




Well, his reasoning is: Ranged touch spells are "ranged" and they require an attack roll, therefore they are an "attack", therefore they are a "ranged attack", which according to the PH provokes an AOO. I need some actual rule quote that states otherwise

Invoke Rule 0.

The attack roll is made as part of casting the spell, is it not? And therefore, as the same action, only provokes one AoO. On that I'm refering to the AoO section of combat from the SRD, you only provoke one AoO for each action that provokes an AoO.

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

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. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.
If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
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.

Nothing at all about provoking more AoOs.

Besides, if you provoked 2 AoOs, one for the spell and one for the ranged attack, that would mean my defensively casting mage gets hit anyways.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, his reasoning is: Ranged touch spells are "ranged" and they require an attack roll, therefore they are an "attack", therefore they are a "ranged attack", which according to the PH provokes an AOO. I need some actual rule quote that states otherwise

Actually, ranged attacks don't provoke AoOs.

The Attack (Ranged) standard action provokes an AoO (PHB p141), but you're not making your ranged attack as part of the Attack (Ranged) standard action; you're making it as part of the Cast A Spell standard action. Attacking with a ranged weapon also provokes an AoO (PHB p137)... which is why shooting a bow provokes an AoO even as part of a Full Attack action. Since the Full Attack action does not provoke an AoO and the bowshot is not part of an Attack (Ranged) standard action, if it were not for the note on p137, the bowshot would not provoke.

So if the ray is considered an attack with a ranged weapon, it provokes an AoO for that reason. If it is not, it does not.

Consider someone making a disarm attempt against an adjacent target with a whip. He provokes only one AoO, but for two reasons - he is disarming, and he is attacking with a whip. If he has the Improved Disarm feat, he does not provoke an AoO for disarming, but the AoO is still provoked, because he's still attacking with a whip... and the Improved Disarm feat doesn't help him there.

Similarly, casting defensively prevents the AoO for casting a spell. But if the action also involves an attack with a ranged weapon, an AoO is still provoked.

Now, I don't consider an attack with even a weaponlike spell to be 'an attack with a ranged weapon' in this context... but it's a point to consider.

(In addition, if a DM does consider it to be an attack with a ranged weapon, it's conceivable two separate AoOs might be provoked... because the casting AoO is provoked when the caster begins casting the spell, and until that AoO is resolved, it is not possible for the casting to be completed... and the attack does not occur until the casting is completed, so that provocation necessarily occurs subsequent to the first one...)

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

You don't need to go outside of the Core Rules to prove that a ray is a weapon like spell (although that term was used in Complete Arcane along with a real good explanation of how they work).



Core Rules Only

PHB pg 102

WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You are especially good at using this weapon. (If you have chosen ray, you are especially good with rays, such as the one produced by the ray of frost spell.) Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38). He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon.

PHB pg 175

Ray: Some effects are rays (for example, ray of enfeeblement). You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.
If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
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.

Rays are allowed for Weapon Focus and deal critical damage.

 

[Thurbane]

Two quick questions:

Could a fighter/wizard chose "ray" for the Weapon Specialization feat (assuming he was a 4th level Fighter and already had Weapon Focus in ray)?

Can the Improved Critical feat be applied to rays?

I assume both of these would be yes...