Trying to hit my friend with Rays

[welby]

Using a ray attack, as I understand it, I need to hit the touch AC of my friend to connect with the spell.

However, what if he wants to be hit? Does the AC drop to 10?

What if he actively is trying to get hit by it?

What if he's right next to me?

What if there's a couch between me and him?

What if there's an enemy?

What if it's an enemy who spellcrafted the spell and is trying to intercept the spell?

Each of these scenarios seems like it would either be harder or easier to hit than just hitting the touch AC of the target. So, can anyone help with me out with rulings, official or house?

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Honestly, your decision is probably as good as anyone else's for this kind of thing.


But if you want an opinion anyway, I'd use the rule of thumb that says that if no hostiles are next to him and the spell's target wants to get hit, he gets hit. Why even bother rolling? Do you have spellcasters make melee touch attacks when casting touch spells on their friends? Likewise, having cover or distance affect this just seems pointless; it neither makes the game more interesting nor more fun.

If there are enemies around and none of them can possibly threaten the guy or get in the way of the spell, then again, no roll, for the same reasons.

If the guy's in melee, I think I'd take the meaner approach and say that you have to aim for him (with the firing-into-melee penalty), and while the target can voluntarily reduce his touch AC by standing still, the enemy he's fighting will also have an easier time hitting him. But I might waive that roll entirely if the spellcaster is willing to get within touch range of his target.


And if a hostile spellcaster tries to intercept the ray, nine times out of ten I'd just say he failed. And assuming I can't get away with saying that on the tenth time as well, I'd probably just have them both make attack rolls, and say the interceptor fails unless he got a really heinously large result while the ray-caster didn't.

There's no rule I know of to cover this situation, it's not a situation I would want to spend more time trying to adjudicate, and it's not a situation I would want to repeat at any future point in the game. A half-assed, completely vague ruling based only on how I feel and how the dice came up suits me just fine, because it helps discourage PCs from attempting to do the same action unless they're terribly, terribly desperate.

--
i wasn't aware there were any beneficial ray effects in the first place
ryan

 

[Mahali]

What if he actively is trying to get hit by it?
I'd assume dex of 0 for AC.

What if he's right next to me?
Same as touch, no attack roll

What if there's a couch between me and him?
Partial cover

What if there's an enemy?
Between you? Partial cover and spell pay hit the enemy (if you miss by less than cover bonus to AC)

What if it's an enemy who spellcrafted the spell and is trying to intercept the spell?
They'd have to have movement left, be in the line of effect, and I'd use reflex save 20+spell level (similar to deflect arrows)

 

[welby]

These questions came up because I created a custom spell where I need to make a ray attack on an enemy, and then a friendly. Well, the dice just weren't behaving (they were out partying the night before) and I couldn't for the life of me get the spell to work. I'd hit the enemy, and I kept missing my friend.

It made me feel really lame. To think, a wizard of unquestionable power (ok, so maybe it's a bit in question) couldn't hit a target that wanted to be hit when I have a clear shot at his back.

Thanks for the opinions Herpes. Nice to confirm there aren't rules for this already.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you have spellcasters make melee touch attacks when casting touch spells on their friends?

No, of course not.

From the text of the "Cast a Spell" action:

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

There is no such rule for ranged touch spells.

-Hyp.

 

[Gizzard]

What if he actively is trying to get hit by it?

Perhaps allow him to subtract his DEX from his AC? So a nimble Rogue might be 10-4 = AC 6; a Fighter in Full Plate might be 10-1 = AC 9. I don't believe an auto-hit is appropriate for a ranged touch attack, so represents the target using his DEX to try to get hit.

As for the rest, I agree with Mahali's answers.

Do you have spellcasters make melee touch attacks when casting touch spells on their friends?

No, but in the Action section it says that touching up to 6 friends is a Full Round action I believe. So it's not free.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

No, of course not.

Good work, I don't think that rhetorical question will ever menace the free world again.

There is no such rule for ranged touch spells.

...which, of course, says nothing about whether there should be such a rule or whether such a rule would improve play.

I guess I just don't see the point in having anyone make an attack roll against a willing target who is not engaged in melee. Apart from the joy of seeing a PC fail at a seemingly routine task, that is, which is something I'm apparently less enthusiastic about than others.

Though since this question is apparently really about a combat spell which requires a ranged touch attack against both an enemy and a friendly, I suppose one could make an argument for always requiring an attack roll. Having two chances to screw it up might be the reason why it's not a higher-level spell, for example.

--
and you could still automatically hit a friend with the ray by actually touching them

 

[welby]

I guess I just don't see a difference between a touch attack, and a ray attack from point blank. Obviously, hitting a willing target surrouded by enemies from 90' is going to be a LOT more dificult from hitting another target from 5'. Yet the rules make no provisions for this.

Hyp, thanks for the rule reference.

"I guess I just don't see the point in having anyone make an attack roll against a willing target who is not engaged in melee. Apart from the joy of seeing a PC fail at a seemingly routine task, that is, which is something I'm apparently less enthusiastic about than others."

I couldn't agree more. In fact, that is what prompted this discussion. Continually failing at things a player thinks his character should be able to do easily is very little fun.

Here is the spell, for reference. It was created for my necromancer because our cleric is not a healing cleric, yet she was being forced into that role. I thought this spell might allow her to take her character in the direction she really wanted to go, rather than feel obligated to stock up on healing spells (evil party, no spontanious cures).

Qualen's Leeching Ray
Level 2
Necromancy [evil]
Range Short
Duration 1 round + 1/2 levels concentration (max 5 rounds at 9th level)
Casting time 1 round
[flavor text omitted, since I"m doing this from work w/o the original document]
You must succeed at a range touch against 2 targets. Upon success, a visibily ray of energy links you to the two targets. The ray allows you to transfer the lifeforce from one source to the other, leeching 1d8+1 points of lifeforce each round from one target and transfering it to the other. Note, transferring life from an undead will damage non undead, and vice versa. You must remain stationary to maintain the spell (not flat footed, but cannot move). The spell immediately ends if either of the two targets leaves the range of the spell, or if line of effect is broken.

 

[DarkMaster]

I guess I just don't see a difference between a touch attack, and a ray attack from point blank. Obviously, hitting a willing target surrouded by enemies from 90' is going to be a LOT more dificult from hitting another target from 5'. Yet the rules make no provisions for this.

Hyp, thanks for the rule reference.


I couldn't agree more. In fact, that is what prompted this discussion. Continually failing at things a player thinks his character should be able to do easily is very little fun.

Here is the spell, for reference. It was created for my necromancer because our cleric is not a healing cleric, yet she was being forced into that role. I thought this spell might allow her to take her character in the direction she really wanted to go, rather than feel obligated to stock up on healing spells (evil party, no spontanious cures).

Qualen's Leeching Ray
Level 2
Necromancy [evil]
Range Short
Duration 1 round + 1/2 levels concentration (max 5 rounds at 9th level)
Casting time 1 round
[flavor text omitted, since I"m doing this from work w/o the original document]
You must succeed at a range touch against 2 targets. Upon success, a visibily ray of energy links you to the two targets. The ray allows you to transfer the lifeforce from one source to the other, leeching 1d8+1 points of lifeforce each round from one target and transfering it to the other. Note, transferring life from an undead will damage non undead, and vice versa. You must remain stationary to maintain the spell (not flat footed, but cannot move). The spell immediately ends if either of the two targets leaves the range of the spell, or if line of effect is broken.

Cool spell I really like it. But I think that you should not allow an automatic hit. If I throw a rock to an immobile person at 30 feet, there are some probability that I miss, If I am in a combat the chances are even higher as for the rule not covering it is wrong you have -4 to hit someone in melee and potentally another -4 if someone covers the target. -8 to me is a significant differences.

 

[welby]

Cool spell I really like it.

Thank you

But I think that you should not allow an automatic hit. If I throw a rock to an immobile person at 30 feet, there are some probability that I miss, If I am in a combat the chances are even higher as for the rule not covering it is wrong you have -4 to hit someone in melee and potentally another -4 if someone covers the target. -8 to me is a significant differences.

But this is just my point. If I'm trying to throw a rock at someone 5 feet away, I'm just not going to miss. 10 feet away, there's a very small chance. Beyond that, obviously it gets higher.

I have a very cool DM. I'll ask for a "roll when it makes sense" rule for the 2nd attack in that spell. I don't think the spell is particualarly strong even if the 2nd attack were always automatic.