Touch Attack and Grapple

[Fastmover]

When holding a touch attack charge, would it automatically hit if I succeed at a grapple?

First Round: Cast Frigid Touch

Second Round: Attempt Grapple. (Beats opponent's CMD) Grapple succeeds. Frigid Touch goes off? Target is staggered.

[cartmanbeck]

Fastmover wrote:

When holding a touch attack charge, would it automatically hit if I succeed at a grapple?

First Round: Cast Frigid Touch

Second Round: Attempt Grapple. (Beats opponent's CMD) Grapple succeeds. Frigid Touch goes off? Target is staggered.

As written, I'd say yes. Here's the relevant part:

"Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."

To do the grapple, you would have to be touching them (unless you used some weird grappling weapon or something), and so I'd say yes, the spell is discharged into them with no touch spell required. It would also be discharged into them if THEY successfully grappled YOU.

In the game I'm currently playing in, the DM doesn't think that makes sense, and has house-ruled that I have to be the one that touches someone else intentionally for my spell to go off, but that's not how RAW states it.

[Fastmover]

Well that's awesome then. Sorry to hear about that with your DM though.

[Shifty]

Ask your GM this;

If I stick a metal desert spoon into a power outlet, does the spoon need to touch me or do I need to touch it to get electrocuted? Or can we apply common sense and say its a fry-up either way?

[oneplus999]

Ok but if anything touching you can discharge a spell, and touching things discharges (eg armor), why is it that every touch spell doesn't immediately discharge into the ground through your shoes?

[oneplus999]

It also gives casters, like, say, a witch, way too much power. Now I can cast a touch spell, run around all fight casting hexes, and if a monster tries to attack me, I get a free spell off on him? It's like a free spite, which is supposed to be a level 4 spell with 250g component cost.

[StreamOfTheSky]

That is not how it works, that is not how it was intended to work, that is never how it worked. The text is written to discourage casters from holding onto a touch spell for hours so they can get it off on the first round of combat w/o needing to cast and the like.

Unfortunately, the only definitive reference I have is from the 3.5 Rules Compendium (page 126, right side).

Quote:

You continue holding the charge if something touches you.

But the text for holding the charge in the core rules has not changed from 3E to PF, so this should still be a valid reference.

[oneplus999]

That said a grapple is pretty clearly you touching someone, so it would discharge in the OPs case IMO.

Next question would be, someone grappling you? Someone grappling you and you break the grapple? Reverse the grapple? Ihnfc. I agree saying that "someone touching you doesn't count" is an awkward ruling, but I still feel like it makes more sense than the alternative, when you consider the implications.

[oneplus999]

Shifty wrote:

If I stick a metal desert spoon into a power outlet, does the spoon need to touch me or do I need to touch it to get electrocuted? Or can we apply common sense and say its a fry-up either way?

I'm always hesitant to apply real-world logic to magic. For example, why can't anyone deliver a touch spell through a sword? And yet only magi can do it.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It doesn't matter if they're touching you. In order to deliver the touch spell, you have to touch THEM. That's why there's a touch attack roll. Think of it like your hand is glowing with black energy. You have to touch that to someone to affect them.

And ruling otherwise doesn't just screw over grapplers. Any natural weapon users or unarmed strikers would also trigger the spell by the (incorrect) other viewpoint. Rules aside, how does anyone seriously not find that ludicrous?

[Shifty]

Well I dunno, that's a great question, because it was ok to drop a shocking grasp through a sword in 2nd ed.

Personally I blame the people out there who insist on codifying with feats or PRC's stuff that should just be common sense or handled with existing mechanics. They design a particular rule to codify it, then all of a sudden no one else is allowed to do it because they didn't have the 'Feat' that was invented 5 minutes ago.

I would point to Weapon Finesse as a case in point.

[Shifty]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Rules aside, how does anyone seriously not find that ludicrous?

What bit is ludicrous? Sorry you lost me in how the question was put forward.

[Archaeik]

I thought the question was about if the caster initiates the grapple?

Obviously you[the caster] has to make some type of attack roll to deliver the touch spell.

If that happens to be as part of a grapple attempt, I don't see the problem.
A) it's against CMD (usually harder than touch AC)
B) it's still an attack roll
C) you chose to hold your charge instead of delivering it the round you cast(although I guess Gr Grapple can do it same round)

So if you initiate grapple, yes
If you are the grappled, no (although you can still use your next action to attack with it)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Shifty: It's ludicrous that you can walk around with a previously cast touch spell and use it as basically a free action attack against ~75% of the monster manual (things that attack with natural weapons)?

[Surbrus]

It is not without its drawbacks though. You must pre cast it, and that would add to the "pre fight buffs" that you may have to cast. If you simply cast a spell and attacked with it at the same time, you would be able to neutralize enemies faster.

Also, as it goes off unintentionally, it could accidentally go off on a party member. Enemy bull rushes one of your party members into you? You just got off that "free action attack" and you probably have one really pissed off party mate. In need of healing? Your ally won't want to give you a Cure spell or a Lay of Hands if they will need to eat your prepared spell. What if you get knocked unconscious in combat and your party decides that they need to run away from the combat... the party member who goes to pick you up/drag you has to suffer that touch spell... meaning that if things are really dire, you will most likely be left behind for the enemies to coup de grace or imprison.

Pre casting a touch spell and holding on to it has benefits as well as drawbacks. I would hardly consider it to be ludicrous.

[Shifty]

I'd post my disagreement but Surbrus has pretty much summed it up.

You can prime yourself with a charge, but it has some drawbacks as oposted above - no healing for you, accidental contact is problematic (friendlies passing through your square for instance), no opening doors or handling objects, blah blah blah.

Similarly there may be a bunch of things occur that might also cause you to blow off the charge and you are now down a spell.

It isn't a free ride, and isn't foolproof (far far from it), and is not the same as having a free Spite at all. So not that ludicrous.