point blank shot on ranged spells

[mrtauntaun]

On PH 3.5 page 175, there's a description of spells with a ray effect. In that, it says you aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon. I would say that's enough to indicate any ranged weapon-based combat feats would be appropriate for ray spells.

Interesting. Well, while it appears possible, I don't think a non-metamagic feat should modify the damage of a spell. If this was debated into another thread I won't go into it more here.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interesting. Well, while it appears possible, I don't think a non-metamagic feat should modify the damage of a spell.

Why not? There are tons of examples, even if you don't like the PBS-etc. suite.

For instance, there's a line of environmental effect feats that grant you bonus damage, bonus caster levels, increased save DC, or other bonus sources of damage when you are in a particular location. (Specifically, there are spells in Frostburn and Sandstorm (?) that grant bonuses when in very cold locations and very warm locations, respectively.) They aren't metamagic feats, but they do affect spells.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Interesting. Well, while it appears possible, I don't think a non-metamagic feat should modify the damage of a spell. If this was debated into another thread I won't go into it more here.

I don't think it is arbitrary or uncertain as you suggest.

The spell is targeted and can do damage. Therefore it is a weapon.

PBS helps with the targeting of a ranged weapon--that little bit of precision which increases the damage.

 

[evilbob]

I honestly don't want to turn this into another "are spells 'weapons'" debate, as I recall there was a huge thread just recently about Inflict Wounds being used for coup-de-graces and I think it got a little ugly, but maybe that's just inevitable...

To me, it seems pretty reasonable that PBS would alter the "to hit" chance of a spell, since it aids in close-quarters ranged attacks - but it doesn't seem right to add damage, since the damage of the spell is caused from magical energies and not necessarily how "hard" you shot it (which is how I think of PBS). Then again, spells with attack rolls can crit, so maybe the extra damage is just representing a more precise hit with the spell...? I guess I'm really just wondering if it is more arbitrary to accept only half the feat or all of it.

(For reference, the question came up from a Melf's Acid Arrow being shot from point blank range. It seems even easier to accept this feat for a spell with the WORD arrow in it than a scorching ray or something similar, but I realize that the mechanics should probably be applied universally.)

EDIT:

PBS helps with the targeting of a ranged weapon--that little bit of precision which increases the damage.

I missed this before, but this is a good, sucinct way of describing it. I guess if you're willing to accept that the feat helps aim the spell, you should agree that it helps add damage as well.

 

[TheEvil]

With a nod to those without any access to Complete Arcane, I really don't understand why there is any debate on this issue. CA spells out exactly which feats apply, PBS and Precise Shot do, Shot on the Run doesn't, for example. Do so few people really have access to CA? PBS adds +1 to hit AND damage within 30' for spells which require a ranged attack roll. What is to debate?

 

[TheGogmagog]

My rule of thumb is that if there is an attack roll and a confirmed critical can double the spells damage then I let the damage be affected by the feat. I'd even allow extra damage from the Prayer Spell. If there is no attack roll, then there is no crit or extra damage.