|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This used to be unclear in 3.5 already and has remained so even in the newest issue of Pathfinder Core.
Produce Flame is not exactly a touch spell as e.g. Vampiric Touch is; touching a foe with the flame is only one of its applications. Does the standard action required to cast it include a free attack, as it does with other touch spells?
Also, does the spell allow iterative attacks? I would think so, the description makes the regeneration of the flame sound instantaneous... but I could see how a picky DM would decide otherwise.
I would welcome a clarification of these rules in a future issue.
|
This is what it says ". . . Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand."
I don't see anything that implies it can not be used more than once per round. Even 2 Weapon Fighting should be allowed with Produce Flame, but that can be argued. Produce Flame is a touch attack though. The only difference is that it doesn't discharge, like Vampireic Touch, which opens all kinds of questions with 3.5 Cleave.
|
|
I don't see anything that implies it can not be used more than once per round. Even 2 Weapon Fighting should be allowed with Produce Flame, but that can be argued. Produce Flame is a touch attack though. The only difference is that it doesn't discharge, like Vampireic Touch, which opens all kinds of questions with 3.5 Cleave.
It shouldn't work with 2WF, since the spell description speaks only of one hand... though I guess you could cast one spell on either hand. It definitely works for Flurry of Blows, since there is no restriction on which of your appendages you use for each blow. That makes it awesome for a Druid/Monk/Sacred Fist.
Still, the question remains whether one can make an attack with the flame in the same round that one casts it.
It shouldn't work with 2WF, since the spell description speaks only of one hand... though I guess you could cast one spell on either hand. It definitely works for Flurry of Blows, since there is no restriction on which of your appendages you use for each blow. That makes it awesome for a Druid/Monk/Sacred Fist.
You can't 2WF or even cast a 2nd touch spell let alone the same spell again. Well you can cast produce flame again, but the first one goes away and the new one takes over. Its no different than holding a charge and you can only be holding the charge of one spell.
Still, the question remains whether one can make an attack with the flame in the same round that one casts it.
A spell that allows attacks, range or touch, gets to do that action as part of casting the spell. You don't have to wait a round to use another action after casting the spell, but you can for some spells and produce flame is one of them.
PRD on Magic: Attacks
"Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action."
As for the original question I have to say that it looks like you can get multiple shots off of Produce Flame and that it costs you a full-round action to do so. Note as this is under the "Range" section of magic I pretty sure its referring to the fact of both Range Touch Attacks and Touch Attack.
You can't 2WF or even cast a 2nd touch spell let alone the same spell again. Well you can cast produce flame again, but the first one goes away and the new one takes over. Its no different than holding a charge and you can only be holding the charge of one spell.
No. Holding a charge refers to spells that are range touch, not 0 ft. Besides, following those rules would make produce flame too weak to be of any use.
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
A spell that allows attacks, range or touch, gets to do that action as part of casting the spell. You don't have to wait a round to use another action after casting the spell, but you can for some spells and produce flame is one of them.
Quote the rules on produce flame being one of those spells, please? Remember, just because a spell functions if you touch with it doesn't mean it's a range: touch spell.
Let me put it in another way. Beast shape grants you natural weapons, and those can be used to attack. Can you attack with natural weapons on the same round you cast beast shape?
So Lehmuska you make some valid points. After looking at this again really hard this whole spell appears to be an exception to how most of the General Magic section is written.
A Google search brings up hundreds of similar questions on different forums. So I am not sure at this point how to give a "Core" answer to the question.
Later
My take on produce flame.
Going strictly by RAW, produce flame isn't a touch spell (range 0 ft. was covered in my previous post). Therefore you can't make an attack with it on the round you cast it.
It is counted as a thrown weapon, though (see bolding). Therefore you can make as many ranged attacks as your BAB allows.
Produce Flame
Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.
This spell does not function underwater.
If this is read strictly, the flames only appear in a hand, not both if caster would want to use two-weapon fighting. However, what if a caster does not have any hands? Where does the flame appear if a caster is wild shaped into a snake? (another example like this is burning hands. The spell specifies that "a cone of searing flame shoots from your fingertips." Yet only a sadistic DM would require a caster to posses fingers in order to cast that spell.)
My take on these rules glitches is that they're only flavor text. Produce flame creates a weapon-like spell effect that can be used to attack creatures with a touch or ranged touch attack. I'd allow characters to use TWF with produce flame because it's cool and it doesn't break the game. (Not to mention the fact that doing so allows for a character built completely around produce flame and its metamagiced versions to not suck at high levels.)
PRD on Magic: Attacks
"Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action."
Not quite correct:
It states: "...Use a touch spell on up to six friends "
In fact on page 186 under the heading holding the charge spells it says the following:
"You can touch one friend as a standard action, or up to six friends as a full-round action."
Produce flame is not a touch spell. If it were a touch spell, it would read in its description:
Range touch
However, it has a range of 0 ft and an effect entry.
Range 0 ft.
A similar spell is flame blade, which also has a range of 0 ft and an effect entry. Chill touch, shocking grasp, and bestow curse (all touch spells) have none of these.
When you cast produce flame, you basically create a weapon to fight with. This weapon doesn't use your strength modifier for damage, but it *does* use strength for hit. If you have multiple attacks in a full attack action -- or if you're hasted (as per the spell) -- then you'd gain extra "pokes" of produce flame. This works the same with flame blade. You'd also be able to use the ranged touch option in a similar way.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we agree that the rules need clarification.
Could a Paizo official address this question, or better yet, change the wording in the next issue of the core rules PDF?
The spell is a spell, not a weapon. It's intent is to give the spellcaster a fire attack that he can touch foes with or throw. Since it's not a weapon, and the fire isn't wielded like a weapon, it doesn't really follow the rules for weapons. (Note how flame blade DOES actually say the spell functions like a weapon—"you wiled this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar;" Flame blade's also higher level than produce flame.)
No iterative attacks with produce flame as a result, since it only grants the one attack per round as a touch attack.
That said... I don't really think that allowing iterative attacks with a produce flame unbalance things TOO much, especially since each time you attack reduces the duration of the spell. You won't get more attacks out of produce flame if you allow iterative attacks, but you WILL power through the spell's duration faster.
|
No iterative attacks with produce flame as a result, since it only grants the one attack per round as a touch attack.
That said... I don't really think that allowing iterative attacks with a produce flame unbalance things TOO much, especially since each time you attack reduces the duration of the spell. You won't get more attacks out of produce flame if you allow iterative attacks, but you WILL power through the spell's duration faster.
I think that's fair. Given the wording of the spell, it's a nice compromise for DMs that want to allow for extra touches(through Two-Weapon Fighting/unarmed strike/Produce Flame combinations) to simply burn through additional rounds of the spell. It's an innovative way to work within the rules.
There are probably some other spells that could be used this way, but I doubt many of them are high level since the higher levels spells usually involve clear restrictions.
|
|
Since it's not a weapon, and the fire isn't wielded like a weapon, it doesn't really follow the rules for weapons.
What other rules would it follow instead?
No iterative attacks with produce flame as a result, since it only grants the one attack per round as a touch attack.
It doesn't say that. In fact, it says that the flame regenerates instantly, suggesting that you can use it as rapidly as you can touch your enemy with the flame. This is just like performing unarmed strikes.
|
Creative Director
|
What other rules would it follow instead?
It would follow the rules for touch attacks granted by spells, which appear on page 213 of the PRPG under "Range."
It doesn't say that. In fact, it says that the flame regenerates instantly, suggesting that you can use it as rapidly as you can touch your enemy with the flame. This is just like performing unarmed strikes.
It's not just like performing unarmed strikes, since a) it doesn't provoke an AoO and b) doesn't require use of Improved Unarmed Strike. It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch. Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way. Therefore, one touch per round with a produce flame, or one hurled flame per round.
But again... in your game, feel free to apply the rules as you want. What I explain above is both how I would run things in MY game, and how we assume the spell works for the baseline of the rules themselves as well.
So are you guys planning to Errata it to use Range: Touch like every other Touch Spell?
That's the confusing part.
It seems clearer to give it Range:Touch like every other Touch Spell, and specifically limit it to one attack/round if that's what you want, instead of setting up some wierd Touch Spell-but-not-Touch Spell rules category, which (apparently) is confusing to some players.
|
|
If Produce Flame would have a Range of Touch, you couldn't really hurl any balls of flame, could you?
Also the spell explicitly says you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. This would clearly indicate it follows the rules of a weapon at least when "hurled" (thrown). The conclusion would be that you can use iterative attacks with Produce Flame when you hurl balls of flame. To disallow the same possibility from melee touch attacks would be very inconsistant.
I looked up for external information and noticed that the spell references the touch attacks as melee attacks. Looking at the Attack section in the PFRPG (pg. 182), I'm reading: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)." Whilst a character is armed, it is as if he or she would wield a weapon, is it not?
|
|
Here is what I remember from 3.5, and checking both the d20srd and the prd, it does not appear this has changed.
Produce Flame is not a touch range spell. This means you cannot touch someone as a free action on the same round you cast it. You cast it, and then starting on your next turn may begin using it as a Touch or Ranged Touch attack.
When you aren't making attacks with it, you are effectively holding the charge. James is correct in that, normally, you can only make one Touch Attack as a standard action, there's nothing about iterative attacks with it. There is this bit though:
"Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."
Here is what I would say.
- Produce Flame is a standard action to cast. While it allows you to make Touch attacks on future rounds, it is not a Range: Touch spell and therefore you do not get a free attack on the same round you cast it.
- You may only make one Touch attack per round.
- If you make unarmed attacks while holding the charge, you may use your normal iterative attacks. If any hit, they will 'discharge' 1 minute's worth of duration and do the Produce Flame damage.
- The spell says to treat the Ranged Touch part as if it were a throwing weapon, and you can indeed make iterative attacks with a throwing weapon. Normally you need Quick Draw as, otherwise, it takes a move action to draw a new weapon. As the flame appears immediately in your hand, however, this seems unnecessary.
I know this disagrees with you a bit James, but I cannot find where it says you can't do this. The Quick Draw feat mentions that it's benefit is to allow you to throw weapons at your normal rate, but that assumes you need to draw them (two-weapon fighting even mentions you can use multiple attacks with throwing weapons). Produce Flame appears immediately in your hand, and it does say to treat it as a Thrown Weapon. Heck, I can't really find where it says Touch Attacks can't be used iteratively. :(
Any suggestions?
|
|
It would follow the rules for touch attacks granted by spells, which appear on page 213 of the PRPG under "Range."
These rules are for spells with a range of "Touch", which does not apply to Produce Flame. Even if they did, that does not resolve the issue.
The short paragraph on page 213 and the longer ones on page 185 provide rules for the touching of friends, which is apparently different from attacking an enemy. You can touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action even at 1st level, where you cannot make iterative attacks against enemies. This rule simply provides an additional option, it doesn't override the default mechanics of melee attacks against foes.
Similarly, the paragraph about unarmed attacks provides another option. Rather than just delivering the spell with a poke of the finger, as is the default, one can use a forceful attack in the hope of doing additional physical damage. This is certainly worthwhile for casters with good unarmed attacks, such as a druid/monk or a shapeshifted druid.
Nowhere does the text indicate that the default of touch spell delivery is anything but a regular melee attack, which can be part of a full attack as usual and doesn't provoke an AoO. If it is intended to work otherwise, the rules as written most definitely don't reflect it.
In particular, the description of the full attack on page 187 mentions no such restrictions. In the text about standard-action attacks (page 182), the delivery of spells and natural attacks are mentioned as a special case of attacking unarmed. Further up, unarmed attacks are described to be "much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following...". The fact that natural attacks do not allow iteration is explicitly mentioned as an exception under the section "Natural Attacks" on the same page. No such exception is made for the delivery of touch attacks.
It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch.
Chill touch explicitly mentions that only one attack per round is possible. This rule is part of the spell description and therefore not universal. In fact, the description of Produce Flame strongly suggests otherwise (instantaneous regeneration, "works as a thrown weapon").
Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons
Reference?
But again... in your game, feel free to apply the rules as you want. What I explain above is both how I would run things in MY game, and how we assume the spell works for the baseline of the rules themselves as well.
If those are the rules as intended (by the design team as a whole), please change the wording of the rules to reflect that. They are currently very misleading. An explicit sentence in one or two of the aforementioned paragraphs would solve the issue.
As others have pointed out, Produce Flame is NOT a touch spell despite it can be used as a touch attack. The spell specifically creates a ball of flame that illuminates as a torch (which is why it is range 0).
In ADDITION to providing light, the flame can then be used as a thrown weapon or it can be used to make a melee touch attack. This makes it seem that the attack option is not the primary function of the spell (despite how players may use it).
My take is that the spell cannot be used as an attack on the same round it is cast, but that multiple attack can be made. That said, allowing the spell to be used on the same round it is cast is reasonable.
(Note how flame blade DOES actually say the spell functions like a weapon—"you wiled this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar;" Flame blade's also higher level than produce flame.)
Thanks for the clarification James. I was basing the produce flame effect on the ice axe spell in the 3.5 Spell Compendium, but I suppose the key difference between flame blade/ice axe and produce flame is that both the previous spells produce weapon-like effects. Produce flame isn't quite weapon-like, so it can't quite be used like a weapon can. Ice axe is quite clear compared to flame blade about how iterative attacks can be made by it.
By this same definition, since the ranged part of the spell does mention "as a thrown weapon", produce flame does suggest that the ranged usage would have iterative attacks. I guess it would be reasonable for it to function as a thrown weapon but not a melee weapon (:
I cannot find where it says you can't do this.
I'd suggest that if you're looking for clear and consistent rules language, Pathfinder is the wrong game for you. Their stated purpose was to preserve and build on the 3.5 framework, not to iron out sloppy wording and clear up inconsistencies and confusion. In fact, their language is a good bit sloppier in some places -- I suspect intentionally, so that each group can houserule things in a manner that works best for them, without feeling like the "official" rules contradict them.
|
|
I cannot find where it says you can't do this.I'd suggest that if you're looking for clear and consistent rules language, Pathfinder is the wrong game for you.
Come now. If I wanted clear and consistent rules language, I would have quit 3.5 long ago. :) It is my goal to help give Pathfinder better language, but the first step in doing that is pointing out where some things are missing.
James is the boss, and as the boss is going to be right. If his ruling isn't defined in the book, then at the very least it should be noted for addition in the next errata. ;)
Also the spell explicitly says you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. This would clearly indicate it follows the rules of a weapon at least when "hurled" (thrown). The conclusion would be that you can use iterative attacks with Produce Flame when you hurl balls of flame.
I agree -- if you can have iterative attacks with a thrown weapon, you can have iterative attacks with Produce Flame. But likewise you don't get an attack on the round you cast it (because it's not an attack spell, it's a weapon-creating spell).
The only hesitation I'd have in allowing iterative attacks with it is in the case of an arcane trickster pulling sneak attack damage with multiple touch attacks every round. Hurled-only iteratives would cut down on that, by eliminating flanking as a sneak attack condition.
|
Creative Director
|
Thanks for the clarification James. I was basing the produce flame effect on the ice axe spell in the 3.5 Spell Compendium, but I suppose the key difference between flame blade/ice axe and produce flame is that both the previous spells produce weapon-like effects. Produce flame isn't quite weapon-like, so it can't quite be used like a weapon can. Ice axe is quite clear compared to flame blade about how iterative attacks can be made by it.
By this same definition, since the ranged part of the spell does mention "as a thrown weapon", produce flame does suggest that the ranged usage would have iterative attacks. I guess it would be reasonable for it to function as a thrown weapon but not a melee weapon (:
I should, of course, note that any spells you see in the Spell Compendium are not good examples to use in this case. The spells there did not undergo the same level of scrutiny for balance and rules work as the spells in the SRD, and there's a LOT of confusing stuff in those spells that, if you get deep into the way the rules work there, cause more harm than good. The Spell Compendium is a great resource for expanding spellcaster options, but not a great source for lessons in balanced spell design.
|
|
The only hesitation I'd have in allowing iterative attacks with it is in the case of an arcane trickster pulling sneak attack damage with multiple touch attacks every round. Hurled-only iteratives would cut down on that, by eliminating flanking as a sneak attack condition.
I imagine Produce Flame wouldn't be easy for the Arcane Trickster to use, considering it's a 'druid 1' spell. :) If used with a scroll/wand then it'd only be 1 minute long, which would just be one attack.
I imagine Produce Flame wouldn't be easy for the Arcane Trickster to use, considering it's a 'druid 1' spell. :) If used with a scroll/wand then it'd only be 1 minute long, which would just be one attack.
(Substitute whatever splatbook druid-rogue PrC people are using this week.)
Still, it's probably a good thing the major magic talent is arcane-only!|
|
The only hesitation I'd have in allowing iterative attacks with it is in the case of an arcane trickster pulling sneak attack damage with multiple touch attacks every round. Hurled-only iteratives would cut down on that, by eliminating flanking as a sneak attack condition.I imagine Produce Flame wouldn't be easy for the Arcane Trickster to use, considering it's a 'druid 1' spell. :) If used with a scroll/wand then it'd only be 1 minute long, which would just be one attack.
If the druid how crafted the spell made it caster level 1, instead of at a higher caster level(thus making the ranged attacks a bit more useful.)
The only hesitation I'd have in allowing iterative attacks with it is in the case of an arcane trickster pulling sneak attack damage with multiple touch attacks every round.
Well, you can do that anyways with Flame Blade.
Well, you can do that anyways with Flame Blade.
If you're proficient with scimitar... which you would almost have to be, if you had 3 levels of druid under your belt. So the question is, why arent't there a lot more druid 1/rogue X characters running around with wands of flame blade?
Well, you can do that anyways with Flame Blade.If you're proficient with scimitar... which you would almost have to be, if you had 3 levels of druid under your belt. So the question is, why arent't there a lot more druid 1/rogue X characters running around with wands of flame blade?
They'd need a wand, since flame blade is a 2nd level spell. In that case, you could just take a feat (Martial Weapon Proficiency: Scimitar) and use UMD to activate a wand of flame blade.
Well, you can do that anyways with Flame Blade.If you're proficient with scimitar... which you would almost have to be, if you had 3 levels of druid under your belt. So the question is, why arent't there a lot more druid 1/rogue X characters running around with wands of flame blade?
(a) Fire is a pretty common thing to be resistant to.
(b) If I want to kick some monster ass using spells, I'll play a full caster instead of a rogue. :-)
They'd need a wand, since flame blade is a 2nd level spell. In that case, you could just take a feat (Martial Weapon Proficiency: Scimitar) and use UMD to activate a wand of flame blade.
UMD is still subject to failed checks. A 1-level dip into druid gives you auto-success with the wand AND the scimitar proficiency AND a number of other benefits (like three at-will orisons).
If I want to kick some monster ass using spells, I'll play a full caster instead of a rogue. :-)
I've been told repeatedly that I'm not allowed to talk about full casters outclassing non-casters anymore. There's a big movement to pretend like that's a myth or something, so that people don't have to face the reality of it.
I've seen recently in an AP a Goblin druid using both flameblade and produce flame at the same time. While the npc didn't have two-weapon fighting... it would not be two far off to pick up that feat.
Dual-wielding a flameblade in one hand and produce flame in the other sounds like a fun druid to me.
It's not just like performing unarmed strikes, since a) it doesn't provoke an AoO and b) doesn't require use of Improved Unarmed Strike. It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch. Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way. Therefore, one touch per round with a produce flame, or one hurled flame per round.
Well, I can't argue with rules intent on this one if it's the metric you're balancing around, but would this same ruling apply to all touch spells with multiple charges, and are you quite positive on it? Everything I can find in the PRD, SRD, and even the old 3.5 Rules of the game articles seems to indicate the opposite, that attacks made while holding a charge on a touch attack spell are simply treated as "armed unarmed attacks" unless you wish to deal your unarmed damage on top of the spells effect, in which case you'll inspire AOO's as normal for an unarmed attack.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
This certainly seems to imply that a caster holding a charge uses that charge in the same manner as a monk or a character with the improved unarmed strike feat (or any other armed character). The ability to deliver attacks of opportunity seems also to support the idea that touch spells aren't limited to a single attack per round (and perhaps shouldn't be balanced around that assumption, as a caster with combat reflexes could potentially make many such touches in a round).
If the caster does not touch a recipient then (either because she doesn't try to or the melee touch attack fails), she must use an action (usually the attack or full attack action) to touch a recipient during a later round. This is called "holding the charge." A caster holding a charge is considered armed and can use an attack of opportunity to make a melee touch attack and deliver the spell.
I realize this may or may not apply, as it was written with 3.5 in mind, but in the Rules of the Game article on touch attack spells and holding the charge (quoted above), it specifically mentioned a caster holding a charge using the "attack or full attack action" to touch targets in later rounds.
(I should be clear, I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong, and god knows you almost certainly know the ins and outs of 3.5 better than I do, I just want to be certain if this is an official answer, whether it pertains to everything or just Produce Flame.)
So, you cast the spell, hold the touch spell to be discharged next round. Next round you can touch up to 6 opponents as a full round action.
So, since the spell can affect up to caster level opponents, a 20th level wizard can cast Chill Touch and use it 20 times over multiple rounds- as long as he doesn't cast another spell.
See, there is no need for errata. It is all already there in the rules.
Touching six opponents as a full-round action?? Uhh, I'm pretty sure that that was supposed to be taken in context. "If allies are willing, you can touch six of them as part of the casting. If the spell lasts multiple rounds , you can touch six of them as a full-round action.
'
It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch. Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way. Therefore, one touch per round with a produce flame, or one hurled flame per round.
But again... in your game, feel free to apply the rules as you want. What I explain above is both how I would run things in MY game, and how we assume the spell works for the baseline of the rules themselves as well.
Where does it say that you can't make iterative attacks with chill touch?
I've never once read or heard that iterative attacks were solely the province of manufactured weapons. The rules for multiple attacks don't say "attacks with weapons", they just say "attacks". Natural weapons have rules specifically saying that you don't get iteratives, but there's nothing like that in the rules for touch spells.
Is this supported by something in the rules that I've missed?
|
|
Sorry for the extreme thread necromancy, but I am not aware of any progress on this unclear rule issue.
Could we please get an official ruling, preferably in the form of an errata included in the next version of the PHB?
- Does Produce Flame allow an attack with the flame as a free action in the round in which it is cast?
- Is it possible to use the flame to make iterative attacks?
The only hesitation I'd have in allowing iterative attacks with it is in the case of an arcane trickster pulling sneak attack damage with multiple touch attacks every round. Hurled-only iteratives would cut down on that, by eliminating flanking as a sneak attack condition.I imagine Produce Flame wouldn't be easy for the Arcane Trickster to use, considering it's a 'druid 1' spell. :) If used with a scroll/wand then it'd only be 1 minute long, which would just be one attack.
a Gnome with the Pyromaniac racial trait would be able to cast Produce flame as a spell-like ability with a level equal to their character level iirc.
so a Gnome Arcane Trickster would be rockin' da sneak attack interatives if they were alowed.