Ray spells - where are they?

[Len]

That is wrong. You need to make an attack roll for a ray to be a ray.

You're missing the point. I'm talking about roleplaying.

It depends what Oghma means by "a ray-using sorceror" and why he's doing it. Is it a roleplaying idea? That is, his character prefers to use ray spells. If there aren't enough spells in the PHB that say "ray" then just change the description of the spells so that he can pretend they're rays. Then, in game, they're rays!

Or, is Oghma's character limited to a subset of the PHB spellbook for some metagame reason, and the DM only allows him to know spells that are actual ray spells? In that case, my suggestion is no good.

 

[d-pirate]

How old is Dragon Annual 5? When was it published and where can I get a back issue?

 

[Storyteller01]

I thought all ranged touch attack spells were ray spells???


If you can get a copy of more ray spells, I'd love them. The Gun Mage (from Iron Kingdoms) can use ray spells at pistol range (not including bullet damage )

 

[the Jester]

I thought all ranged touch attack spells were ray spells???

No- some are 'energy missiles,' like Melf's acid arrow. These are technically different.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, get four levels in Fighter and take Weapon Specialization (Ray).

T&B had Spell Specialization (Ray) which IIRC did exactly the same, but IMHO it's not worth a whole feat to have a +2 damage bonus on a spell which does on the average much more damage than a weapon.

 

[Li Shenron]

No- some are 'energy missiles,' like Melf's acid arrow. These are technically different.

That's true, the rules make this distinction (ray spells have "effect: ray" written in the spell description), however I think there is no practical difference between a "ray" and an "energy missile" spell. They both require a ranged touch attack for example.

Can someone point out any practical difference at all, besides the fact that you need separate feats to get the same benefits (which is of course a consequence of making them 2 different things in the first place)?

I have always thought they should have been all rays for the purpose of feats, and that designers just though they were too many (maybe compared to melee touch spells) and wanted to split the group in half.

 

[the Jester]

Can someone point out any practical difference at all, besides the fact that you need separate feats to get the same benefits (which is of course a consequence of making them 2 different things in the first place)?

Well, though a ray might have a lasting effect, it itself is gone once the spell is cast- Zap! and that's it. Some energy missiles (usually acid based ones) stick around- Melf's famous arrows, for instance.

I agree that they're very nearly the same though. That's about the only difference I could think of.

 

[Oghma]

Well, though a ray might have a lasting effect, it itself is gone once the spell is cast- Zap! and that's it. Some energy missiles (usually acid based ones) stick around- Melf's famous arrows, for instance.

I agree that they're very nearly the same though. That's about the only difference I could think of.

It's a very good point. As they increase in power, usually rays multiply damage (Ex d6/level), whereas usually energy missiles increase in number (Ex. 1 missile/2 levels). Orb spells let you create orbs of varying size, however. (I have never liked orb spells, though.)

I've run around with the RP idea, but if you take ray feats, they won't apply to RP "feel". It's not a bad option, but it's makeshift. I'd rather explore the rays within the rules structure.

With the ray specialist I have in mind, I'm heading toward trying to crit with a ray or split ray. I'm working on wanting to do Evocation spells, mainly. With a sorceror, taking the full round action to meta-magic a spell is the biggest drawback, but manageable in the right party.

Ray spells vs energy missiles is probably a good topic for another article, though!