Can I use a ray to make a called shot?

[Folly]

An Eldritch Blast is specifically "a ray".

Complete Arcane pg 7:

“An eldritch blast is a ray with a range of 60 ft. It is a ranged touch attack that affects a single target, allowing no saving throw.. . . .An eldritch blast deals half damage to objects.”

A warlock can take Weapon Focus (ray) for his EB.

It is considered a weapon-like spell (CA pg 71)

A warlock can take Weapon Focus (Ranged Spells) (as can any spell caster and applying it to rays. (CA pg 73).

Precise Shot and Point Blank shot are also feats that can be applied to rays (and eldritch Blast).

Just because an eldritch blast can do damage against objects does not mean that it can be used to target attended objects. Since there are special rules for it, you have to fall within those rules. Rays are consider ranged weapons and by the rules for targeting attended items ranged weapons cannot target a foes items. If you take the feat Ranged Sunder then you can target items that your foe is holding with ranged weapons. Since a ray is a ranged weapon, it would be included in this feat.

 

[irdeggman]

I see.

This shows that the FAQ on the EB is one of the many bad written FAQ, cause it doesn't mesh well with the other rules regarding rays, not to mention the FAQ itself that says that any spell aimed at your equipment is aimed at you.

At the end of the day it's up to you to allow this FAQ to change the way every ray affect your opponent's equipment, or to allow only the EB to do so.

IMHO aiming rays to your opponent's equipment opens a nasty can of worms, and creates a discrepancy with ranged weapon rules in general, and with the rules concerning sunder and so on.

Or you use the text from EB which doesn't say the target has to be a creature, it can be an object and use the FAQ to say that if it can be either than it can always be either.

Which is what disintegrate has.

By the way I disagree with your take on disentigrate also.

Specifics can (and often do) disagree with the general. That is why they are specifics - they can (and most times do) have more detail and apply to specific cases. E.g, disintegrate spell and warlock's EB.

 

[Folly]

The catch here is not whether or not EB or disintegrate can affect objects, its that they can target attended objects. By RAW rays function as ranged weapons for the purpose of choosing targets. Ranged weapons do not have a means of targeting attended items except by Ranged Sunder feat.

 

[mvincent]

Aaron: you've been fairly argumentative and contrary throughout the thread, even though:
1) You started the thread by asking a question that you seemed to desire an answer to and
2) You have very few posts to your name here (most of them in this thread).

I'm not saying any of this is bad, it just seemed incongruous. So it makes me curious: what is your goal?

 

[Folly]

Aaron: you've been fairly argumentative and contrary throughout the thread, even though:
1) You started the thread by asking a question that you seemed to desire an answer to and
2) You have very few posts to your name here (most of them in this thread).

I'm not saying any of this is bad, it just seemed incongruous. So it makes me curious: what is your goal?

I would guess that you of his or his party members item got nuke via disintegrate, since he seems to have a vested interest in the rules siding with attended items cannot be targeted by rays.

 

[mvincent]

I would guess that you of his or his party members item got nuke via disintegrate, since he seems to have a vested interest in the rules siding with attended items cannot be targeted by rays.

He seems to be disagreeing with the majority, but ultimately I think we can all concede that the matter is open to some interpretation. As such, the DM gets final say. If he is the DM, our opinion doesn't matter much. And if he's a player that disagrees with his DM... we'll, he's screwed. Either way, being contrary here won't gain him anything.

 

[Folly]

He seems to be disagreeing with the majority, but ultimately I think we can all concede that the matter is open to some interpretation. As such, the DM gets final say. If he is the DM, our opinion doesn't matter much. And if he's a player that disagrees with his DM... we'll, he's screwed. Either way, being contrary here won't gain him anything.

I completely agree.

 

[Aaron]

Or you use the text from EB which doesn't say the target has to be a creature, it can be an object and use the FAQ to say that if it can be either than it can always be either.

Which is what disintegrate has.

By the way I disagree with your take on disentigrate also.

Specifics can (and often do) disagree with the general. That is why they are specifics - they can (and most times do) have more detail and apply to specific cases. E.g, disintegrate spell and warlock's EB.

But the specifics you are talking about regard the save entry and the way the spell affects objects, not the possibility to aim the spell toward them.

You might also want to answer to my other observations regarding the FAQ that says that a spell aiming at your equipment aims at you, and the "freezing" ray.

Aaron: you've been fairly argumentative and contrary throughout the thread, even though:
1) You started the thread by asking a question that you seemed to desire an answer to and
2) You have very few posts to your name here (most of them in this thread).

I'm not saying any of this is bad, it just seemed incongruous. So it makes me curious: what is your goal?

1) I started a thread, and since I have personal thoughts on the topic I thought that a forum would be an ideal place to share and debate them: this is my goal.

2) Do you hate noobs?

The fact that I have few posts here doesn't mean that I'm new to the game or to boards in general.

By the way, this seems incongrous...with what?

He seems to be disagreeing with the majority, but ultimately I think we can all concede that the matter is open to some interpretation.

The "majority" you are talking about is...not the majority at all.

By looking back you can easily verify that:

Krensus, Jack Simth, Infiniti2000, ardentmoth, and Folly stand on my ground.

Iredeggman, billd91, and you are on the other side.

 

[Elethiomel]

Iredeggman, billd91, and you are on the other side.

And me! But I don't feel the need to put my $0.2 in, partly because my national currency isn't dollars, and partly because I feel the people mentioned here are arguing excellently for my point of view.

 

[Jhaelen]

The fact that I have few posts here doesn't mean that I'm new to the game or to boards in general.

Maybe not, but it increases the likelihood that you're just trolling.

The "majority" you are talking about is...not the majority at all.

Well, actually the "majority" decided to stay silent on the issue.

I cannot talk for others but my decision to stay silent was based on my firm believe that it's pointless to try to sway you from your opinion which seemed pretty much set from the beginning. Of course I may be wrong but to me it looked as if you were just arguing for the argument's sake.