Ghoul touch allows a saving throw right?


Rules Questions


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?


The Great Katallin wrote:

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.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Ghoul Touch

School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 2

Casting 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.

Shadow Lodge

nidho wrote:

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone's in agreement: you get a save. Treasure this moment, it doesn't happen often on the boards.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Everyone's in agreement: you get a save. Treasure this moment, it doesn't happen often on the boards.

Hey wait, I don't agree!!

What are we talking about again?


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.


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.


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.


Yeah he's a very librel dm. We have have been playing in biweekly games for about five months now and this was our first rules debate that lasted more than two minutes. I actually at the end kinda felt bad for debating because it could have been handled after the game and probably should have been.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

The Great Katallin wrote:
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?"


I have one question..
how long persist the efect from stench? it is realy unlimited until neutralise poison spell is aplikated?


wallndwill wrote:

I have one question..

how long persist the efect from stench? it is realy unlimited until neutralise poison spell is aplikated?

I believe it is as long as you are paralyzed (1d6 + 2 rounds)


yeah, I think a Hold Person that allowed no save as a level 2 spell would be WAY too overpowered.

So save or suck


The Great Katallin wrote:
...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.


Skylancer4 wrote:
...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.

Sovereign Court

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)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
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.


Well, anything with a strong FORT save ought to have a serious chance of avoiding the effects... I have the problem with an ucontrollable Frenzied Berserker in a 3.5 game and my necromancer can't paralyze him with his ghoultouch because his fort save is so monstrous (and the Save DC is only 16).

Sovereign Court

QuidEst wrote:
SLAs, Su abilities, and psychic magic work fine while paralyzed, so keep those in mind.

I'm drawing a blank here... I've never heard of this. Can you please provide examples?

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

Is there a source on SLAs being activated "by purely mental actions?" I was under the impression they required S and V components if the spell they mimic requires these...

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

Next question then: why do SLAs provoke AoOs??


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 wrote:
Next question then: why do SLAs provoke AoOs??

as to why its purely for balance reasons and something about needing a few seconds of concentration gibberish. however quickend spells and spell like abilities dont provoke


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?

Sovereign Court

You meant quickened spells and something else right?

Do SLAs provoke because of the principle of observable magic I heard floating around?

Sovereign Court

Abraham spalding wrote:
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?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

You meant quickened spells and something else right?

Do SLAs provoke because of the principle of observable magic I heard floating around?

you can quicken spell like abilities with the quicken spell like ability feat


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
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?

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.

Sovereign Court

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

Thank you everyone! This helped greatly!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ghoul touch allows a saving throw right? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.