|
Lets say i wanted to hit a friendly with a beneficial ranged touch attack in combat. Would i still roll to attack as per normal, against their touch AC?
If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.
Yes, and technically, any cleric walking up behind a guy whirling a 2H sword in furious battle is almost certain to need a Cure X Wounds of his own.
There are certain considerations we always make for ease of game play, and not hitting our allies is one of them, allowing them to hit us when we want their beneficial spell is another.
If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.
Cite? I've always been under the impression that you still need to roll to hit someone at range, just as you need to roll to hit a helpless target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.
Neither of those are true.
Touch Spells in Combat: "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 equivalent listed for ranged touch spells.
Many people will allow the target to voluntarily deny themselves their Dex bonus to (touch) AC, but again, the rules do not directly support this.
| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, Grick is correct, so if you're playing in a PFS game expect it to work this way.
From a table rule standpoint, I generally rule that a target who declares itself "willing" (or who is considered willing for some other reason, like being unconscious) can receive a ranged touch spell without an attack roll.
That said, if there isn't already an FAQ question I'd like to pose one:
When casting a ranged touch spell on a willing target, is a ranged touch attack still necessary or is it treated like a standard touch spell (and therefore automatically succeeds)? If an attack roll is necessary, are there any modifiers applied to the AC if the target declares itself willing?
|
|
If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.Neither of those are true.
Touch Spells in Combat: "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 equivalent listed for ranged touch spells.
Many people will allow the target to voluntarily deny themselves their Dex bonus to (touch) AC, but again, the rules do not directly support this.
Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.
From a table rule standpoint, I generally rule that a target who declares itself "willing" (or who is considered willing for some other reason, like being unconscious) can receive a ranged touch spell without an attack roll.
I think this makes "unconscious" suck even more than it already does as a status condition. In particular, I can now blast an unconscious opponent more effectively than I could blast an object of equivalent size (for which I would still have to make an attack roll, which would still get its Size, cover, and concealment modifiers, and against which my terrible Dexterity would still provide a penalty).
I submit that if I can't hit a character-sized statue on the other side of the room, I probably can't hit you if you're standing next to that statue.
@Orfamay Quest: Actually, it's the fact that unconscious automatically gives you the helpless condition that is so penalizing.
Let's say that I had the caster roll for it. They're already rolling against touch AC, so their armor is bypassed. Because of the helpless condition, they have an effective DEX of 0 - a -5 mod. So now they're at Touch AC minus 5. For most creatures, unless they've got a spell or item granting a deflection bonus, that puts their effective Touch AC at a 5.
As it stands, since we're talking about touch spells, we could remove the ranged touch attack completely and just have the caster move into melee range, so they can get a +4 to the attack roll and is still rolling at the heavily-penalized AC (in which case the would fail on a 1 only regardless of other bonuses)....
That does raise an interesting question: Can you deal a coup de grace with a touch spell?
RAW, Grick is correct, so if you're playing in a PFS game expect it to work this way.
From a table rule standpoint, I generally rule that a target who declares itself "willing" (or who is considered willing for some other reason, like being unconscious) can receive a ranged touch spell without an attack roll.
That said, if there isn't already an FAQ question I'd like to pose one:
When casting a ranged touch spell on a willing target, is a ranged touch attack still necessary or is it treated like a standard touch spell (and therefore automatically succeeds)? If an attack roll is necessary, are there any modifiers applied to the AC if the target declares itself willing?
The PRD does talk about unconscious people/creatures counting as willing:
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
However, I think that text just means that being unconscious makes a creature an eligible target for some spells that otherwise couldn't affect it. I don't believe that means that they count as friends/allies, who may be automatically hit by touch-range spells in combat. Nor do I think there is any text in the rules that ranged touch spells automatically hit friends/allies in combat, although in my game I do have a houserule allowing PCs to drop their Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any) against a ranged touch attack so long as the attack does not pass through an enemy's square.
That does raise an interesting question: Can you deal a coup de grace with a touch spell?
Nope. The bolding is mine.
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent.
|
I've seen it played both ways at a variety of tables. The general impression I've gotten is something to the effect of: "Not only does the target want you to hit... they'll actively help you ensure it happens. This can include 'dodging into' the shot if need be. There's no reason to roll anything, with that in mind."
Not exactly RAW, but even some PFS players I've spoken with handle it that way and it seems quite intuitive.
@Orfamay Quest: Actually, it's the fact that unconscious automatically gives you the helpless condition that is so penalizing.
No, it isn't. It's the fact that you're going beyond what unconscious/helpless demands.
Let's say that I had the caster roll for it. They're already rolling against touch AC, so their armor is bypassed. Because of the helpless condition, they have an effective DEX of 0 - a -5 mod. So now they're at Touch AC minus 5. For most creatures, unless they've got a spell or item granting a deflection bonus, that puts their effective Touch AC at a 5.
... or something cover, concealment, or a size bonus. Or luck bonuses, sacred bonuses, et cetera. Or the miss chance from incorporeality. And there's always the 1-automatically-fails rule for attack rolls. There are also debuffs that might be applied to the attacker that could further reduce the attack chance, and simple range modifiers. Shall I continue?
Even at a straight touch AC of 5, that's a 20% miss chance for a first level caster with no other bonuses, and possibly higher once penalties are taken into account.
As it stands, since we're talking about touch spells, we could remove the ranged touch attack completely and just have the caster move into melee range,
... unless, of course, there's a barrier in the way.
I stand by my statement; if, for whatever conditional modifiers apply, you couldn't hit a creature-sized statue standing in a particular location, you're not going to be able to automatically hit a creature standing next to it. Or lying unconscious next to it.
Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.With friends like you, who needs friends?
Oracles with Resist Life, Undead, Dhampirs, or anyone else with Negative Energy Affinity.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or the miss chance from incorporeality.
Nitpick: this doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
I stand by my statement; if, for whatever conditional modifiers apply, you couldn't hit a creature-sized statue standing in a particular location, you're not going to be able to automatically hit a creature standing next to it. Or lying unconscious next to it.
Unless we're talking about a melee touch spell (i.e., a spell with a range of "touch"), in which case the rules explicitly allow you to automatically touch a friend who has cover, concealment, blur, a +5 deflection bonus to AC, and so forth.
I stand by my statement; if, for whatever conditional modifiers apply, you couldn't hit a creature-sized statue standing in a particular location, you're not going to be able to automatically hit a creature standing next to it. Or lying unconscious next to it.
Then don't use it at your table? I labeled it a table rule; I didn't even imply that it was RAI, so as is your prerogative (and as is obvious from your reply), I applaud you on not using it.
To respond to the majority of your other comments: The example that came to mind when I was writing the comment was the simple scenario of an unconscious creature laying on the open stone floor of a dungeon, where the caster could alternatively just walk up to the unconscious creature and touch it.
In that particular circumstance, I see no reason to waste time on a roll. Other circumstances might alter that - again, at my table, not anyone else's.
I've seen it played both ways at a variety of tables. The general impression I've gotten is something to the effect of: "Not only does the target want you to hit... they'll actively help you ensure it happens. This can include 'dodging into' the shot if need be. There's no reason to roll anything, with that in mind."
Not exactly RAW, but even some PFS players I've spoken with handle it that way and it seems quite intuitive.
The only problem with this is that I've watched far too much sports on television to believe that.
To use a US metaphor, the quarterback wants to throw the ball to the receiver, and the receiver wants to catch the ball thrown to him, and yet even the best quarterbacks generally can't get a completion percentage above 70%. If you don't watch gridiron football, watch how often a pass gets missed in basketball, in soccer/football, or in hockey.
Or the miss chance from incorporeality.Nitpick: this doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
He who lives by the nit dies by the nit: "Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature."
I've seen it played both ways at a variety of tables. The general impression I've gotten is something to the effect of: "Not only does the target want you to hit... they'll actively help you ensure it happens. This can include 'dodging into' the shot if need be. There's no reason to roll anything, with that in mind."
Not exactly RAW, but even some PFS players I've spoken with handle it that way and it seems quite intuitive.
The only problem with this is that I've watched far too much sports on television to believe that.
To use a US metaphor, the quarterback wants to throw the ball to the receiver, and the receiver wants to catch the ball thrown to him, and yet even the best quarterbacks generally can't get a completion percentage above 70%. If you don't watch gridiron football, watch how often a pass gets missed in basketball, in soccer/football, or in hockey.
And how often do those situations occur when there is not any interference from outside sources, like other players chasing the receiver or trying to actively block the pass (which would be in line with the simplistic scenario I had in mind when I made my post)?
If they really are missing 70% of the time under those circumstances then they need to quit professional sports and go be an accountant or something.
[edit]
Regardless, I don't know that there's reason to discuss this further. As I said, your table, your rules, and I'll play by mine at my table. I'm sorry if you mistakenly believed I intended my example to be RAW\RAI or an attempt to say that it should apply universally.
Oracles with Resist Life, Undead, Dhampirs, or anyone else with Negative Energy Affinity.Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.With friends like you, who needs friends?
I'm not seeing the "interesting" bit. We've established I can cast Heal on my elf friends without an attack roll. The idea that I can cast Harm on my dhampir friend seems less than world-shaking.
|
|
The only problem with this is that I've watched far too much sports on television to believe that.
To use a US metaphor, the quarterback wants to throw the ball to the receiver, and the receiver wants to catch the ball thrown to him, and yet even the best quarterbacks generally can't get a completion percentage above 70%. If you don't watch gridiron football, watch how often a pass gets missed in basketball, in soccer/football, or in hockey.
I would think something that's moving a bit faster than a ball would be a better example, we're talking about a ray that's moving at extreme speeds here (since it's a "ray" can we assume speed of light?). There's a vast difference between directing something like that with a thought/gesture and throwing a ball.
And how often do those situations occur when there is not any interference from outside sources, like other players chasing the receiver or trying to actively block the pass (which would be in line with the simplistic scenario I had in mind when I made my post)?
How often are you casting ranged spells at helpless targets?
If you're casting a ranged spell at a helpless target, there's a reason for it, probably involving a bad guy doing something you don't like.... like chasing the spellcasting quarterback.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
He who lives by the nit dies by the nit: "Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature."Or the miss chance from incorporeality.Nitpick: this doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
You can't out-pick my nit! That's not a "miss chance" like you originally said.
;)
|
|
Oracles with Resist Life, Undead, Dhampirs, or anyone else with Negative Energy Affinity.Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.With friends like you, who needs friends?I'm not seeing the "interesting" bit. We've established I can cast Heal on my elf friends without an attack roll. The idea that I can cast Harm on my dhampir friend seems less than world-shaking.
It also means I can damage my "friends" with any damaging touch attack spell without needing an attack roll.
I think the wording needs to be tweaked.
Oracles with Resist Life, Undead, Dhampirs, or anyone else with Negative Energy Affinity.Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.With friends like you, who needs friends?I'm not seeing the "interesting" bit. We've established I can cast Heal on my elf friends without an attack roll. The idea that I can cast Harm on my dhampir friend seems less than world-shaking.
It also means I can damage my "friends" with any damaging touch attack spell without needing an attack roll.
I think the wording needs to be tweaked.
Being a friend is a two way street. You don't get to automatically hit because you think of them as a friend. You get to automatically hit if they think of you as a friend (and failed their spellcraft check). Nothing needs to be tweaked in the wording, a correct understanding of what allies/enemies really means at any given point in time is all that is required.
e.g., if the parties barbarian is dominated, and he swings his sword at you, is he still a 'friend' for purposes of you evading his attacks, letting him move through your square, etc? When the domination ends or gets dispelled what is he now? ally or enemy? Does it make any difference if the reason he attacked you was because you made a joke about his mom instead of being dominated?