Can I use a ray to make a called shot?

[Aaron]

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.

So we are 6 vs 4.

By the way your post shows that what we call "majority" may well be the minority, since many people could be with one side but doesn't feel the need to post for the reason you have mentioned.

 

[Elethiomel]

By the way your post shows that what we call "majority" may well be the minority, since many people could be with one side but doesn't feel the need to post for the reason you have mentioned.

Uh, yes. That was my point exactly.

 

[Umbran]

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

Jhaelen, if you cannot restrict your discussion to the content to the posts, perhaps you should step away. Trying to dismiss an argument just because someone is new is unconscionably rude.

I remind you that everyone here, including yourself, was new once.

 

[Artoomis]

A few rules quotes, to pull it all together:

You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding...

Step 1
Attack of Opportunity...

Step 2
Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons.

Step 3
Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield...

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.

]
Prerequisites
Str 13, Power Attack.

Benefit
When you strike at an object held or carried by an opponent (such as a weapon or shield), you do not provoke an attack of opportunity.

You also gain a +4 bonus on any attack roll made to attack an object held or carried by another character. ...

Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished by the sunder special attack. Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Paraphrased for copyright reasons:

You may Sunder:

1. Must be within 30'
2. Bludgeoning/slashing does full damage
3. Priecing does 1/2 damage

Saving Throw

...(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater.


Target or Targets
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself...

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.

Taken together, the way I read all this is:

1. Attacking held or worn (not including armor) objects is done with a melee weapon using "Sunder" rules.
2. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon.
3. You cannot use a ranged weapon to aim at held/worn objects (uless you view "attacking an object" under Sundering rules as not being "Sundering") without the Ranged Sunder feat from Complete Warrior, which requires point Blank Shot and Precise Shot.

All in all, I'd say that unless the spell specifically allows it, you cannot target held/worn object with spells (including rays), though I might allow it with proper feats taken to allow ranged sunder.

However, as a player, I'd be very, very cautious about getting a DM to allwo a Ray to Attack an Object (that's worn/held). If you succeed, it's likley to be a net loss to you as when you use it you are destroying potential treasure and wehn teh bad guys use it tehy are destroying your stuff.

 

[irdeggman]

Taken together, the way I read all this is:

1. Attacking held or worn (not including armor) objects is done with a melee weapon using "Sunder" rules.
2. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon.
3. You cannot use a ranged weapon to aim at held/worn objects (uless you view "attacking an object" under Sundering rules as not being "Sundering") without the Ranged Sunder feat from Complete Warrior, which requires point Blank Shot and Precise Shot.

All in all, I'd say that unless the spell specifically allows it, you cannot target held/worn object with spells (including rays), though I might allow it with proper feats taken to allow ranged sunder.

However, as a player, I'd be very, very cautious about getting a DM to allwo a Ray to Attack an Object (that's worn/held). If you succeed, it's likley to be a net loss to you as when you use it you are destroying potential treasure and wehn teh bad guys use it tehy are destroying your stuff.

I agree with the bolded statement. Note (to others) I never said that all rays could be used to target held objects, instead I said if the specifics of the spell (or equivalent) said it could then it could - or at least if it was strongly implied then it would likewise be allowed.

I use the FAQ as a source to support interpretations (not the only source - I try to look for preponderance of evidence on issues), not as an absolute - nor do I immediately dismiss it just becasue there may be "errors" contained within it (there are errors contained in the SRD and published books too so they likewise must be subjected to the same scrutiny and "interpretations".).

 

[Infiniti2000]

You lost me.

Are you saying that I cannot shoot an arrow against a door or what else?

Sorry, I did not intend to be confusing. My point is simply that the definition of object in terms of D&D rules is ambiguous. When a rule says "one object" I think you'll be hard-pressed to narrow that down precisely. The example most people I've seen come up with is the door hinge. Is that a separate object from the door? How about the door knob? If you say "of course", still keep in mind that many things specify something like "one object up to 40 pounds" or some such. Now do you consider the doorknob part of the door, because surely you can't simply just move the door without moving the doorknob.

This argument can be taken to silly levels, and I advise you not to go down that path. For example, does "house" include all the doors inside it? If so, does that mean "door" is not a valid object in itself?

Just consider what an object means to you when you really start looking at things that target objects, especially if you start allowing some sort of called shot rules.

 

[ardentmoth]

agreed inf.

It's really a whole philosophical debate, honestly; does your DM support the idea that a thing is made up of parts; or support the idea that a thing is entirely partless? The former, and he'll be hard-pressed to figure out when one object stops and another begins; the latter, and he will be hard pressed to explain why it should target more than a single infinitesimal particle.

EDIT: of course, he could also be a monist, claiming that all-is-one, and that one-is-all, refusing to differentiate between himself and the door you target; though I really doubt he's either Indian in descent or a disciple of Emerson.