The Great Katallin |
I'm posting from my iPhone so I apologize for not supplying the relevant text.
In my game tonight my character was subjected to two attacks by a ghoul touch wand. The first attack the dm said I was paralyzed no save after the npc hit my touch ac. The second time I knew it was a ghoul touch wand so I looked up the entry on my phone and saw that it says fortitude negates, so I said that I get a fortitude save.
So my main argument is that the saving throw entry says fort negates therefore I get a save against the spells main effect and that the text about stench is only secondary to the saving throw entry.
My dm's argument is that fort negates only refers to the stench portion of the spell.
Balance issues aside who is by RAW correct and can you quote the rule that proves it?
Skylancer4 |
I'm posting from my iPhone so I apologize for not supplying the relevant text.
In my game tonight my character was subjected to two attacks by a ghoul touch wand. The first attack the dm said I was paralyzed no save after the npc hit my touch ac. The second time I knew it was a ghoul touch wand so I looked up the entry on my phone and saw that it says fortitude negates, so I said that I get a fortitude save.
So my main argument is that the saving throw entry says fort negates therefore I get a save against the spells main effect and that the text about stench is only secondary to the saving throw entry.
My dm's argument is that fort negates only refers to the stench portion of the spell.
Balance issues aside who is by RAW correct and can you quote the rule that proves it?
You would be correct, the Fort Negates in the spell stat block is for the initial spell effect of the touch attack. The additional effect of the stench would not occur if the save was made the initial time as there would be no paralysis. As an additional effect the Fort save for those in the stench is mentioned in the description.
If the DM refuses to see this, reroll a sorcerer and take true strike, ghoul touch and take all the caster level bonuses you can get your hands on to bypass SR. Laugh as you single-handedly take out large difficult creatures on your own with a second level spell as they are paralyzed for at least 3 rounds and get ground up by the rest of the party.
HaraldKlak |
You are right.
The rules don't really prove it, as his misunderstanding comes from the fact that the spell specifically mentions a fortitude save for the stench in the description.
But as you correctly states the Fortitude negates, refers to the spell itself, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Other spells (such as touch of fatigue) does similarly not mention the save in the description, as it has been written in the stat block.
Don't have my books right here, so I can't find a more precise answer for you.
nidho |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghoul Touch
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 2Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (cloth from a ghoul or earth from a ghoul's lair)
Range touch
Target living humanoid touched
Duration 1d6+2 rounds
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Imbuing you with negative energy, this spell allows you to paralyze a single living humanoid for the duration of the spell with a successful melee touch attack.
A paralyzed subject exudes a carrion stench that causes all living creatures (except you) in a 10-foot-radius spread to become sickened (Fortitude negates). A neutralize poison spell removes the effect from a sickened creature, and creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the stench.
It's possible that the bolded part is what is confusing your friend. You are entitled a Fort save to negate all the effects, and provided you failed your save and are affected then people affected by the stench are also entitled another saving throw to negate the secondary effect as well.
MisterSlanky |
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
You are entitled a Fort save to negate all the effects, and provided you failed your save and are affected then people affected by the stench are also entitled another saving throw to negate the secondary effect as well.
The key is that the Saving Throw line of the spell states "Fortitude Negates" not "Fortitude (Partial)". Making your save means the entire spell fails to take effect. If it were only the sickened part of the spell, the saving throw line would reflect that, as well as the flavor text.
The Great Katallin |
All these arguments are ones that we brought forth to defend our point. What my dm is looking for is a rule linking the fortitude negates directly to the main effect. I thought somewhere there was a rules section about spells with multiple effects and how the saving throw section relates directly to the primary spell effect. But I couldn't find it.
In the end my dm left it up to a group decision and we choose to allow fort to save even though we stood to inherit this wand once this battle was over.
BigNorseWolf |
Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Paralyzing someone would, i believe, be an effect on them.
Ral' Yareth |
I agree with the other opinions above.
Fort(negates), as far as I know, means if you save it, you're free from the spell's main effect.
I believe that if the spell worked as your dm was claiming the description would read either
1) Save: Fort (partial)
or
2) Save: special (see below)
Hope it helps
Edit: Nice of his part to be able to compromise and listen to what his crowd wants. Kudos to him.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
says fortitude negates, so I said that I get a fortitude save.
You would avoid it all on a successful fort save.
It could be worse, I played a PFS (at an unnamed CON to protect the innocent, er new GM) that didn't understand that touch spells require succeeding at a touch AC attack.
So I was taking vampiric touches left and right with each one I said "did it touch me?" and being told Yes. I didn't bother confronting him to say "but I didn't see you roll an attack roll?" or "what touch AC did it hit as my touch AC is high 20s?"
Ashenfall |
...Balance issues aside who is by RAW correct and can you quote the rule that proves it?
To nitpick, by RAW, the DM is correct, due to that damned stupid Rule 0.
Per RAI, you and everyone else here is correct, for the reasons already listed.
A 2nd level spell that insta-paralyzed any humanoid with no save, with only a mere touch attack being required to land, would be so ridiculously OP that everyone would do it.
Ashenfall |
...If the DM refuses to see this, reroll a sorcerer and take true strike, ghoul touch and take all the caster level bonuses you can get your hands on to bypass SR. Laugh as you single-handedly take out large difficult creatures on your own with a second level spell as they are paralyzed for at least 3 rounds and get ground up by the rest of the party.
How many large difficult humanoids do you know of? :)
Still, I agree w/ your point. I'm just nitpicking everything today.
Purple Dragon Knight |
Anyone aware of a FAQ or Errata on Ghoul Touch? we're playing Hell's Vengeance now and one of the players is Necromancer with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus Necromancy (DC 20 to saves vs. Ghoul Touch), so he's making a cake walk of anything they encounter (paladins, hound archons, etc. nothing is seemingly immune to this spell)
QuidEst |
Anyone aware of a FAQ or Errata on Ghoul Touch? we're playing Hell's Vengeance now and one of the players is Necromancer with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus Necromancy (DC 20 to saves vs. Ghoul Touch), so he's making a cake walk of anything they encounter (paladins, hound archons, etc. nothing is seemingly immune to this spell)
Nope, no errata. He's gotta cast and deliver the touch spell, so readied actions to interrupt casting or to beat his face in if he gets close. Keep allies nearby to help prevent CDGs, and if he gets a reputation, people may start worrying about him first. SLAs, Su abilities, and psychic magic work fine while paralyzed, so keep those in mind.
Ascalaphus |
Being paralyzed means you can't move - you can still take actions for which you don't need to move.
SLAs and Su abilities don't have spell components, and psychic magic doesn't use Somatic or Verbal components, so all those can be used while paralyzed.
Also, Fortitude is one of the saves that scales up quite nicely on enemies because badass monsters tend to be big (bonus Con) and have lots of HD.
In addition, Ghoul Touch does allow Spell Resistance to negate it.
Finally, it's a Touch spell - kill the necromancer if he comes near, use AoOs if you've got the reach for it etcetera.
He might start using Spectral Hand. Keep in mind though that the Spectral Hand can provoke AoOs for movement (it returns to the caster after every touch, which would provoke), and it can be destroyed if you have magic weapons.
Purple Dragon Knight |
Wow. Prd says:
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Lady-J |
spell like abilities (sp) Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is gained.
source core rule book, and paizo website
Purple Dragon Knight |
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:Next question then: why do SLAs provoke AoOs??You like that question try this one:
Why does using the above casting methods while paralyzed provoke attacks of opportunity when you have no guard to let slip while casting?
please reword that I'm not sure I understand- did you refer to SLAs while paralyzed?
Plausible Pseudonym |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abraham spalding wrote:please reword that I'm not sure I understand- did you refer to SLAs while paralyzed?Purple Dragon Knight wrote:Next question then: why do SLAs provoke AoOs??You like that question try this one:
Why does using the above casting methods while paralyzed provoke attacks of opportunity when you have no guard to let slip while casting?
The reason casting provokes, and combat casting does not, is that casting provoking is because you concentrate so hard on the spell casting that you stop doing the normal dodging around that is presumed to be background in combat. So they can take an extra, easy swing at you. If you combat cast they can't, but you don't fully concentrate on the spell, so you roll a check or lose the spell.
But if you're paralyzed you aren't doing all that extra dodging. But there's nothing in the rules to automatically provoke just by standing still. Yet if you're paralyzed and cast a componentless spell/SLA, you RAW provoke.
Ascalaphus |
The simple reason is this: SLAs are like spells except for the differences that were explicitly put into the rules. Spells provoke and SLAs have no exception, so they also provoke.
As to the "but why is that so?" - there's the old story about lowering your guard.
Why would that matter if you're paralyzed and presumably you haven't really got much guard left to lower? Well, casting a normal spell while paralyzed (still, silent, or psychic) would also provoke. Does that make sense? Well, if you want to drive these realism questions to their hilt, you could ask why being paralyzed doesn't provoke in the first place, because it's pretty much the essence of letting your guard down.
Saethori |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do SLAs provoke because of the principle of observable magic I heard floating around?
Not just "floating around", it was implied since the core rulebook until a FAQ put it in hard writing.
There are spell manifestations. And people still need to focus on spells that take longer than a swift action to perform, which is what opens up the attack of opportunity.