Incredibly unclear on frostbite touch attacks


Rules Questions

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Skorn wrote:

All this makes for interesting reading. And if this could be definitively decided then we might better understand how long someone could reasonable (or by RAW) hold charges from a frostbite spell. Since the duration is instant but the charges are defined as 1/level I have never been sure how long a person, or an animal companion might maintain the spell.

If you are careful not to accentually discharge it, is there a limit to how long the charges will reside with you?

This was answered long ago (as in the first couple responses). Charges are held indefinitely until discharged, or until you cast something else. Since frostbite still has charges remaining, the rest is obvious.

CRB wrote:

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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell
dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action
or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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.

The spell still has charges therefore it remains indefinitely. Yes, you may have "discharged" it once, but it still has charges so hasn't been fully discharged like any other spell.

Dark Archive

I do not know if you intend it, but now you are sounding like the jerk. I disagree that this was answered. And even if it was, yesterday afternoon, when this tread begin, was not long ago. And saying the rest is obvious is insulting, as it certainly not obvious to me.

If you can accidentally set off charges then there certainly a limit to how long you can hold them. And how easily they can be set off would help determine that. And I would say man and certainly a caster could avoid setting them off better than an animal companion.

If there is no way to accidentally use a charge then yes, I agree that the charges could last years.


Skylancer4 wrote:

So we're going to nit pick the wording I used discussing the FAQ? Misquoting an FAQ would be changing the wording and posting it as official quoted material. That is something I didn't do. at worst my reference to the FAQ was badly written. But that is fine as I'm sure you will ignore the fact that if the hand wasn't holding a charge, it wouldn't need to be mentioned and if the whole body was holding the charge they wouldn't have needed to single out that it was being picked up with a hand. They could have made it less detailed and restrictive.

And again 3.5 isn't as completely irrelevant as you keep saying. There are things that have been copied/pasted and work the same as they did. PFRPG isn't in a vacuum. Until Paizo decides to chime in and say one way or another we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject.

I'm sure you will ignore that if the charge isn't specifically located but they still only wanted the magus to be able pick up his weapon with his hand then the wording perfectly fulfills that role.

As for the use of 3.5. Pathfinder can indeed be played in a vacuum. You don't need to know or have ever played 3.5 to play PF and do so correctly. The rules are self-sufficient. Also for the fact that some material might have been lifted straight out of 3.5 the problem is that you don't know which that is. Why is the language about holding a charge in a specific limb not included? Oh maybe because the rules for touch spell sin combat wasn't a direct copied and paste out of 3.5. Since they changed the language the 3.5 doesn't apply. Nothing in the rules implies a charge held in a specific limb, not even for Magus. We do have explicit rules that 1) A normal caster who touches anyone or anything while holding a charge, even unintentionally, discharges the spell and 2) A Magus is an exception in that he can touch a weapon with his hand without discharging the spell.

You are also ignoring the fact that if the Magus touches anything other than a weapon with that same hand the spell discharges per the FAQ. So obviously picking up the weapon has no relation to where the charge is held.

claudekennilol wrote:


Seriously? Your argument is that I worded my trigger incorrectly? Can't you answer the question intended and not be a jerk? I mean, we're both in agreement that Skylancer4 is making stuff up, but can't you answer the separate question I posed? How about trigger to touch when he has a charge held--are you saying I can steal spells by doing this?

I'm not sure how I was being a jerk by honestly answering your question. You said to be careful about claiming the rules work like they say they work because you can steal a spell. I was simply trying to point out you cannot steal a cure spell that way. Yes if someone casts a touch spell, which presumably you have identified to know it is one you want them to be touching you with, you can touch them to force a discharge of the spell. That is exactly what the rules say. How else are you to read the statement "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."

Grand Lodge

Skorn wrote:

I do not know if you intend it, but now you are sounding like the jerk. I disagree that this was answered. And even if it was, yesterday afternoon, when this tread begin, was not long ago. And saying the rest is obvious is insulting, as it certainly not obvious to me.

If you can accidentally set off charges then there certainly a limit to how long you can hold them. And how easily they can be set off would help determine that. And I would say man and certainly a caster could avoid setting them off better than an animal companion.

If there is no way to accidentally use a charge then yes, I agree that the charges could last years.

If the first part saying it was already answered was rude that was not my intention, how the rest of the post following that could in anyway be read as rude is beyond me.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
I'm not sure how I was being a jerk by honestly answering your question. You said to be careful about claiming the rules work like they say they work because you can steal a spell. I was simply trying to point out you cannot steal a cure spell that way. Yes if someone casts a touch spell, which presumably you have identified to know it is one you want them to be touching you with, you can touch them to force a discharge of the spell. That is exactly what the rules say. How else are you to read the statement "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."

Personally I would read it as flavorful fluff that doesn't work with the rest of the book as written and that you can't accidentally discharge a spell. But as long as you stand by it and all of its implications (like stealing a spell with a readied touch) then that totally works for your tables.

Liberty's Edge

Skylancer4 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

@Skylancer4

Can you clarify to what post you are replying?

Skylancer4 wrote:


If you aren't holding the charge on a limb, well every time you step it is getting discharged... I guess that makes more sense.

A leg is a limb. The Magus FAQ actually say hand.

My cat familiar has no hand and all its limbs touch the ground when he move.
It is unable to deliver any spell?
This ability do nothing unless your familiar is a monkey or something with hands?

PRD wrote:
Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.

Touching the ground while moving has always been disregarded as a way to discharge touch spells. Like having something in one of your hands while casting the spell.

Wand of CLW, use wand, you are touching the wand, the spell is discharged on the wand .......
Doesn't compute.

Not strictly RAW but it has always been read as "if you touch something that you weren't touching before".

The one where you say that holding a charge doesn't require you to decide which limb you are holding it in. Even though the official FAQ for the magus implies that it does. Not all natural attacks are bites and as of the rules being published no PC had a natural bite attack that it would have made a difference or required it to be spelled out.

We're basically at the point where you argue that the rules don't explicitly state you can't do it, so you say you can, despite the rules pointing in the direction of it not working that way.

1) The druid is in the CRB, Natural Spell to, so PC had bite attacks and the ability to cast spells with the same character from the start.

Familiars capable to deliver spells too where in the CRB from day one.

2) The FAQ say hand. If you want to support your position, try not to play with therms that are not equivalent.

3) Point me to the rule that say that the held charge is stored in a specific limb as you say that it exist.
The FAQ implies it, but it don't say it and don't give any description of how it work.
It is always the same hand? You can switch between the right and left hand as some kind of action or non action?
What happen if you have no hands?
The FAQ reply was about a Magus holding a weapon in one hand and what happen if he change his weapon, not a FAQ about holding charges in general.
The question is determinant to comprehend the answer.

Liberty's Edge

Some Other Guy wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Diego is stating touch attacks are interchangeable with melee attacks, if that were the case, the word "alternatively" would not be needed. He is using the fact that the rules don't say you are limited from doing so, so it can be done. The issue with that is, the rules default to attacks being standard actions. Multiple attacks in a full attack action is an exception to the norm. When an attack action is capable of being interchanged into those exceptions, they state they can be (sunder, trip, disarm, etc).
From my understanding, a touch attack is a specific type of standard action (that you get for free when you cast a touch spell). But, you can use an unarmed strike or natural weapon to make a normal attack against AC that would also discharge the spell.
PRD wrote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) [bas a free action. [/b]

The touch attack you get when you cast a spell is a free action, not a standard action.

PRD wrote:

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.

As we play grammatical analysis, I see a plural here. Not you can make 1 touch attack each round but You can make touch attacks.

PRD wrote:

Standard Action Attack of Opportunity1

Attack (melee) No
Attack (ranged) Yes
Attack (unarmed) Yes
Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil No
Aid another Maybe2
Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time) Yes
Channel energy No
Concentrate to maintain an active spell No
Dismiss a spell No
Draw a hidden weapon (see Sleight of Hand skill) No
Drink a potion or apply an oil Yes
Escape a grapple No
Feint No
Light a torch with a tindertwig Yes
Lower spell resistance No
Read a scroll Yes
Ready (triggers a standard action) No
Stabilize a dying friend (see Heal skill) Yes
Total defense No
Use extraordinary ability No
Use skill that takes 1 action Usually
Use spell-like ability Yes
Use supernatural ability No

Nothing about making a touch attack being a standard action.

Casting a spell is a standard action.

PRD wrote:

Range

...
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.

Nothing about a standard action here. Actually ti say that you can deliver up to 6 touches in one round as a full round action. The combat section then limit that to 6 friends.

PRD wrote:

Shocking Grasp

....
Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6).

So touch spells give a meele touch attack, right?

And

PRD wrote:
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.

I see nothing here saying that you don't get iterative attacks with meele or ranged touch attacks.

Liberty's Edge

claudekennilol wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
The rules for touch spells in combat say that if you touch anyone or anything you discharge the spell. If you grab a door knob you touched another object and the spell discharges. If you stub your toe on a chair leg you touched another object and the spell discharges. If a pigeon lands on your head you have touched another creature and the spell discharges.
Be careful what you claim. Are you saying that I can ready an action to touch a cleric when he casts a spell to steal his cure spell?

The caster need to touch someone, that is not the same of the caster being touched, so the pidgeon part is wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Skylancer4 wrote:


Rules were based on 3.5 where the core assumption was biped humanoid so you had a left and right limb used on combat. You held the charge on the limb of your choice. Pfrpg is written with those same assumptions in core, even so far as "unwritten" rules indicating you are unable to use both 2 handed weapons and an off hand attack due to that being a way to "game" the system and get more benefit than was intended. If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.

Is there another FAQ that I'm missing? Or a rule in the prd that I've missed indicating your notion of "distributed" charge?

My 3.x books are in the basement, so I will use the The Hypertext d20 SRD

The Hypertext d20 SRD wrote:


Holding the Charge

If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. 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 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. [/quote+

I don't see anything about using a specific limb. Can you cite the specific page of the 3.5 books where it say that you have to hold a charge in a specific limb?

Skylancer4 wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:

Rereading this thread and the Magus FAQ, I see that Skylancer is indeed making s+~@ up. Also, the non-Magus rules for holding charges strongly suggest that your entire body is holding the charge.

If I'm making things up, please point me to where I am incorrect. This is the rules forum, I'm here to gain a better grasp of the rules. If am am incorrect due to missing something I would truly appreciate being pointed to it.

Does it explicitly say the charge is held in a hand? No, but all the rules surrounding the subject point to that being the case including the official FAQ for the magus. The system is built on he 3.5 framework, it worked this way previously. And the recent FAQ implies it still does. Just because any number of rules have been changed doesn't mean any and all rules are different now. If that were the case there would be NO backwards compatibility at all with 3.5. And to be completely honest "3.5 has no bearing on PFRPG" is typically the "reason" people give when they have nothing to back them up rules wise in many such arguments that have occurred in the past years.

What do you have to indicate to prove that I'm "indeed making s+~@ up" as you so intelligently, politely and "eloquently" put it? Bedsides your well informed opinion?

Edit: I haven't quoted the FAQ, I read what was shown as quoted in Diego's post that can be seen clearly further up thread. Well if it works they way I'm saying it does, they don't need to mention picking things up with a hand (aka limb) that isn't holding a charge as nothing happens. They only would need to mention it if the hand(aka limb) they are using to hold the charge is used to pick it up as then, it would NORMALLY discharge. If it works as "distributed" charge why would they go into detail about it being a single hand? They could have just as easily saved word count and detail by stating "a magus can pickup and use their weapon without discharging a held charge" period.

Until you cite the specific page of the 3.5 rules where it say that you hold a charge in a specific limb, you are making that up.

I don't recall any part of the 3.5 rules saying that.

Skylancer4 wrote:


So we're going to nit pick the wording I used discussing the FAQ?

yes, as your whole argument is based on the things that you choose to nitpick and those that you choose to disregard on interpret loosely.


claudekennilol wrote:


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
I'm not sure how I was being a jerk by honestly answering your question. You said to be careful about claiming the rules work like they say they work because you can steal a spell. I was simply trying to point out you cannot steal a cure spell that way. Yes if someone casts a touch spell, which presumably you have identified to know it is one you want them to be touching you with, you can touch them to force a discharge of the spell. That is exactly what the rules say. How else are you to read the statement "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
Personally I would read it as flavorful fluff that doesn't work with the rest of the book as written and that you can't accidentally discharge a spell. But as long as you stand by it and all of its implications (like stealing a spell with a readied touch) then that totally works for your tables.

Please explain how the line "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." does not work with the rest of the book. Yes there are consequences, possibly ones you really don't like, but just because the result is something you don't like doesn't mean it isn't RAW.

PRD wrote:
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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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.

Why can't I pull out the text that says "If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely." and say that is just fluff and you can't really hold a charge?

Why can't I pull out the part that says "If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates." and just declare that is fluff and you can hold the charge while casting as many spells as you want?

I could do that but those would just be house rules. Likewise, you can pull out the part about accidentally discharging the spell and call it fluff if you want but that is just a house rule and, no disrespect intended, isn't really relevant to a rules discussion.

Grand Lodge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

Why can't I pull out the text that says "If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely." and say that is just fluff and you can't really hold a charge?

Why can't I pull out the part that says "If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates." and just declare that is fluff and you can hold the charge while casting as many spells as you want?

I could do that but those would just be house rules. Likewise, you can pull out the part about accidentally discharging the spell and call it fluff if you want but that is just a house rule and, no disrespect intended, isn't really relevant to a rules discussion.

For the same reason you can't allow someone to throw a bag of alchemist fires at someone and have them all go off. Or for the same reason you can't let someone "accidentally on purpose" activate a command word object (or even more importantly multiple objects simultaneously). Some of what's in the book is written obviously doesn't work. This is one of them.

Liberty's Edge

Skorn wrote:

All this makes for interesting reading. And if this could be definitively decided then we might better understand how long someone could reasonable (or by RAW) hold charges from a frostbite spell. Since the duration is instant but the charges are defined as 1/level I have never been sure how long a person, or an animal companion might maintain the spell.

If you are careful not to accentually discharge it, is there a limit to how long the charges will reside with you?

No. The rules give no limit.


Skylancer4 wrote:
Claxon wrote:
As Diego said the round you cast you will only get 1 attack because the casting only comes with one free touch attack. On subsequent rounds you can make attacks based on your BAB and the number of available attacks you have. If you have BAB 6 you can make two attacks, both as touch atatcks. Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.

All of this should be qualified with the "limb holding the charge" as well. If you have 7 natural attacks because you have 7 limbs, only one of them (that you choose) is holding the charge. They might all be tentacles but only one tentacle has the charge on it, so only the attack that has the charge can deliver/use the charge.

That also brings up another issue when using natural attacks to hold charges. Charges are held on a limb, when that limb is used for "things" it will discharge the spell. That means don't use limbs that will be needed for locomotion if you want to be mobile though the fight. When you use the limb to move, you'll be forced to touch the ground and discharge the spell.

Also, are you 100% sure you can make 2 touch attacks as part of a full attack? I was under the impression last this came up that making the touch attack was a standard action. If you decided to make multiple attacks using your BAB you'd be choosing to go against the full AC on normal attack resolution. I have been absent from the boards for awhile so if this is a new-ish ruling I've not run into it yet.

This is untrue. I will try to find the thread I posted explicitly about this, but it was in regards to being able to deliver touch spells with unarmed strikes. A held charge is not "held in a specific hand" as you say, its simply charged to the characters whole body. Any part of the body used to deliver a touch attack (I.e. using a foot, knee, elbow, or forehead to make an unarmed strike) also would deliver a held charge. This would also apply to using either hand, or limb if you have many, to make a touch attack.

Again, I'll post the thread later, I must return to work now...

Liberty's Edge

claudekennilol wrote:


For the same reason you can't allow someone to throw a bag of alchemist fires at someone and have them all go off.

And what stop that from working? I recall several traps in modules based on that idea.

It is unwieldy to throw a bag, it is not a item made to be throw so it count as an improvised throwing weapon, but if you break several flasks of alchemist fire at the same time they all deliver their damage. There is no magical effect that stop the other from working if one break.


claudekennilol wrote:


For the same reason you can't allow someone to throw a bag of alchemist fires at someone and have them all go off. Or for the same reason you can't let someone "accidentally on purpose" activate a command word object (or even more importantly multiple objects simultaneously). Some of what's in the book is written obviously doesn't work. This is one of them.

Please explain to me why the accidental discharge rules (that phrase would make a good addition to the Grappling Succubus thread) obviously doesn't work. I'm not seeing it. It has never been a problem at any PF table I have sat at.

For your first example, the rule simply don't cover what happens if you throw a bag full of alchemist fire at someone. That is left to a GM call.

For command word items

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation

Yes you can accidentally activate an item by speaking the word. My guess is that you will arbitrarily declare that as fluff as well.

Grand Lodge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

For command word items

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation
Yes you can accidentally activate an item by speaking the word. My guess is that you will arbitrarily declare that as fluff as well.

I do. There are no rules for how to handle the situation in which someone does. There are no rules to keep people in check for "accidentally on purpose" activating command word items just to break the action economy. There aren't rules to handle it therefor it doesn't work. This is too big of an issue to leave up to GMs. If Paizo wants it to work this way, then they need to list out how to handle the situation rather than just saying "oh by the way it can also be accidentally activated kthxbai."

Liberty's Edge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:


For command word items

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation
Yes you can accidentally activate an item by speaking the word. My guess is that you will arbitrarily declare that as fluff as well.

That is superseded by the rule that activating a command item is a specific kind of action.

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

If I can give my magic items a command word and "accidentally" uttering it will activate them I would be able to activate several item every round as a free action that I can do even out of my turn.

The rules instead require a uttered command word and a standard action.


claudekennilol wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:

For command word items

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation
Yes you can accidentally activate an item by speaking the word. My guess is that you will arbitrarily declare that as fluff as well.
I do. There are no rules for how to handle the situation in which someone does. There are no rules to keep people in check for "accidentally on purpose" activating command word items just to break the action economy. There aren't rules to handle it therefor it doesn't work. This is too big of an issue to leave up to GMs. If Paizo wants it to work this way, then they need to list out how to handle the situation rather than just saying "oh by the way it can also be accidentally activated kthxbai."

That is your opinion. Some of us are just fine with keeping it a GM call. That is actually a question of plays styles and/or game design and not of rules. Coming from an old school red box basic D&D tradition I'm fine with most stuff being left up to the GM. You prefer for as much as possible to be spelled out and to have rules for every minute possibility. That is perfectly fine but unfortunately PF doesn't hold to that standard, although they do go a lot further than I am really happy with.

None of that, however, is relevant to determining what the rules actually say. Your initial criticism was that I should watch what I claim about the rules. However, your objection is not based on the rules but in your opinion on play styles and/or game design.

Grand Lodge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:

For command word items

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation
Yes you can accidentally activate an item by speaking the word. My guess is that you will arbitrarily declare that as fluff as well.
I do. There are no rules for how to handle the situation in which someone does. There are no rules to keep people in check for "accidentally on purpose" activating command word items just to break the action economy. There aren't rules to handle it therefor it doesn't work. This is too big of an issue to leave up to GMs. If Paizo wants it to work this way, then they need to list out how to handle the situation rather than just saying "oh by the way it can also be accidentally activated kthxbai."

That is your opinion. Some of us are just fine with keeping it a GM call. That is actually a question of plays styles and/or game design and not of rules. Coming from an old school red box basic D&D tradition I'm fine with most stuff being left up to the GM. You prefer for as much as possible to be spelled out and to have rules for every minute possibility. That is perfectly fine but unfortunately PF doesn't hold to that standard, although they do go a lot further than I am really happy with.

None of that, however, is relevant to determining what the rules actually say. Your initial criticism was that I should watch what I claim about the rules. However, your objection is not based on the rules but in your opinion on play styles and/or game design.

The rules do say, though. Show me where the rules say you can turn a standard action into a free action. If this is your only example, then we're at an impasse because as it is it's just broken and doesn't work. If your argument is simply that it does because it's written that way then there's no more point in conversing about it.


claudekennilol wrote:
The rules do say, though. Show me where the rules say you can turn a standard action into a free action. If this is your only example, then we're at an impasse because as it is it's just broken and doesn't work. If your argument is simply that it does because it's written that way then there's no more point in conversing about it.

Who said anything about changing it into a free action that is a strawman. No one made or implied that argument.

Accidentally speaking the command word activates a command word activated device. The rules specifically say activating a command word item is a standard action. Accidentally activating a command word item still consumes a standard action.

Also that wasn't my example. I was answering your argument from a previous post that you couldn't accidentally activate a command word item. The rules explicitly say you can.

You are right that we are at an impasse because you call me a jerk for answering your question, attribute arguments to me I didn't make and take my answers to your arguments out of their context as a response to a specific question or claim. All very dishonest behavior.

Liberty's Edge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
The rules do say, though. Show me where the rules say you can turn a standard action into a free action. If this is your only example, then we're at an impasse because as it is it's just broken and doesn't work. If your argument is simply that it does because it's written that way then there's no more point in conversing about it.

Who said anything about changing it into a free action that is a strawman. No one made or implied that argument.

Accidentally speaking the command word activates a command word activated device. The rules specifically say activating a command word item is a standard action. Accidentally activating a command word item still consumes a standard action.

Also that wasn't my example. I was answering your argument from a previous post that you couldn't accidentally activate a command word item. The rules explicitly say you can.

You are right that we are at an impasse because you call me a jerk for answering your question, attribute arguments to me I didn't make and take my answers to your arguments out of their context as a response to a specific question or claim. All very dishonest behavior.

so your position is that you can accidentally say a activating word while it is the turn of another character and have your item go off, but you must then use a standard action?

What standard action? The one you get the next turn?

Scarab Sages

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

Who said anything about changing it into a free action that is a strawman. No one made or implied that argument.

Accidentally speaking the command word activates a command word activated device. The rules specifically say activating a command word item is a standard action. Accidentally activating a command word item still consumes a standard action.

Speaking is a free action that can be taken out-of-turn.

If simply saying the command word activates an item, you permit that item to be activated at any time, outside the normal initiative sequence. The standard action requirement suggests somewhat more effort is required to activate a magic item than simply speaking.


Diego Rossi wrote:

so your position is that you can accidentally say a activating word while it is the turn of another character and have your item go off, but you must then use a standard action?

What standard action? The one you get the next turn?

There are no rules that cover what happens if an item is accidentally activated on someone else's turn. That, once again, is left to the GM but that doesn't change the rule that speaking the command word accidentally can activate the item. What the rules don't tell you never changes what the rules explicitly say.

Scarab Sages

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

so your position is that you can accidentally say a activating word while it is the turn of another character and have your item go off, but you must then use a standard action?

What standard action? The one you get the next turn?

There are no rules that cover what happens if an item is accidentally activated on someone else's turn. That, once again, is left to the GM but that doesn't change the rule that speaking the command word accidentally can activate the item. What the rules don't tell you never changes what the rules explicitly say.

So, in your games I can "accidentally" activate items during an opponents turn to disrupt their actions, without declaring a readied action in advance.


Artanthos wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:

Who said anything about changing it into a free action that is a strawman. No one made or implied that argument.

Accidentally speaking the command word activates a command word activated device. The rules specifically say activating a command word item is a standard action. Accidentally activating a command word item still consumes a standard action.

Speaking is a free action that can be taken out-of-turn.

If simply saying the command word activates an item, you permit that item to be activated at any time, outside the normal initiative sequence.

Specific trumps general. Generally speaking is indeed a free action that can be taken outside of your turn but speaking a command word has its own specific rules.

PRD wrote:

Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Speaking a command word is standard action even though speaking is normally a free action. Also speaking a command word can be done accidentally. My ruling would be that speaking a command word, even accidentally, is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity and, therefore, can't happen outside of your turn.

Scarab Sages

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Speaking a command word is standard action even though speaking is normally a free action. Also speaking a command word can be done accidentally. My ruling would be that speaking a command word, even accidentally, is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity and, therefore, can't happen outside of your turn.

So accidentally speaking the command word only activates the magic item if it is to the characters disadvantage. The item will ignore command words accidentally spoken at other times.

You need to be consistent: either activating a magic item requires deliberate effort (a standard action), or it does not (and can be triggered at any time, even unintentionally, by simply uttering a command phrase.) Normal conversation is a free action that can take place outside the speaking characters turn.

Speak wrote:


In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.


Artanthos wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Speaking a command word is standard action even though speaking is normally a free action. Also speaking a command word can be done accidentally. My ruling would be that speaking a command word, even accidentally, is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity and, therefore, can't happen outside of your turn.

So accidentally speaking the command word only activates the magic item if it is to the characters disadvantage. The item will ignore command words accidentally spoken at other times.

You need to be consistent: either activating a magic item requires deliberate effort (a standard action), or it does not (and can be triggered at any time, even unintentionally, by simply uttering a command phrase.)

As this is a rules forum let me ask you a couple of questions and please provide a rules, FAQ or errata quote to support your answers.

1) Do the rules as written state the manner in which command word item is activated?

2) Do the rules as written say what action activating a command word item in this way is?

3) Do the rules as written say whether you can activate a command word item accidentally or not?


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Speaking a command word is standard action even though speaking is normally a free action. Also speaking a command word can be done accidentally. My ruling would be that speaking a command word, even accidentally, is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity and, therefore, can't happen outside of your turn.

So accidentally speaking the command word only activates the magic item if it is to the characters disadvantage. The item will ignore command words accidentally spoken at other times.

You need to be consistent: either activating a magic item requires deliberate effort (a standard action), or it does not (and can be triggered at any time, even unintentionally, by simply uttering a command phrase.)

As this is a rules forum let me ask you a couple of questions and please provide a rules, FAQ or errata quote to support your answers.

1) Do the rules as written state the manner in which command word item is activated?

2) Do the rules as written say what action activating a command word item in this way is?

3) Do the rules as written say whether you can activate a command word item accidentally or not?

Yes to all the above. It doesn't say though how those things interact.

Can you create 2 Wands of Fireballs that have the same command word and use your Standard action to activate 1 of them, but "accidentally" activate the other one to launch 2 in one round? I don't think so.

You are 1) spending a Standard action, 2) activating an item with a command word 3) accidentally activating another item. So RAW this should work (unless you specify that #1 and #2 should have some additional text like "Only one item can be activated per round" which it does not). It is "assumed" that this is self explained in that you only get 1 Standard action per round but unless #3 is fluff, #3 breaks that rule.

Though I think we are going off track on the holding charges issue.


cheechako wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
burkoJames wrote:
A touch attack is an attack action. Its in the name.
So, no source. That's a shame.

Pathfinder PRD - Combat

From the table of Actions in Combat:
Standard action = Attack (melee) and Attack (ranged)
Full round action = Full Attack

If you continue down to the actual entries for that table, you'll see that those attacks are exclusively referring to attacks with weapons, which touch attacks are not.

PRD wrote:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
PRD wrote:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.

So, by these rules, weapon-like spells such as Produce Flame and Flame Blade can be used to make Standard and Full-Attacks, but these rules don't apply to touch attacks since they are not weapons.

Granted, there's nothing that says touch attacks can't be used to make a full-attack, but, since the Full-Attack rules aren't applicable, there's nothing that says they can, either.

Scarab Sages

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Speaking a command word is standard action even though speaking is normally a free action. Also speaking a command word can be done accidentally. My ruling would be that speaking a command word, even accidentally, is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity and, therefore, can't happen outside of your turn.

So accidentally speaking the command word only activates the magic item if it is to the characters disadvantage. The item will ignore command words accidentally spoken at other times.

You need to be consistent: either activating a magic item requires deliberate effort (a standard action), or it does not (and can be triggered at any time, even unintentionally, by simply uttering a command phrase.)

As this is a rules forum let me ask you a couple of questions and please provide a rules, FAQ or errata quote to support your answers.

1) Do the rules as written state the manner in which command word item is activated?

2) Do the rules as written say what action activating a command word item in this way is?

3) Do the rules as written say whether you can activate a command word item accidentally or not?

Answer this with RAW: I use a wand of fireballs as my standard action, then accidentally speak the command word (normal conversation is a free action). If speaking the command word as part of normal conversation activates the item, by RAW the wand must go off a second time on my turn. And a third time when I say the command word during my opponents turn (as a free action.)


Canthin wrote:

Yes to all the above. It doesn't say though how those things interact.

Can you create 2 Wands of Fireballs that have the same command word and use your Standard action to activate 1 of them, but "accidentally" activate the other one to launch 2 in one round? I don't think so.
You are 1) spending a Standard action, 2) activating an item with a command word 3) accidentally activating another item. So RAW this should work (unless you specify that #1 and #2 should have some additional text like "Only one item can be activated per round" which it does not). It is "assumed" that this is self explained in that you only get 1 Standard action per round but unless #3 is fluff, #3 breaks that rule.
Though I think we are going off track on the holding charges issue.

Yes, I agree. The rules don't say how those things interact. It is a GM call how to work that out. I also agree it is problematic under certain circumstances. However, those are the rules until an offical FAQ or errata changes them. Some were arguing that because there are difficulties with the rules that it meant those weren't rules and the same applies to the accidental discharge of a held charge.

But you are correct it did become its own issue and a distraction from the original topic.

Liberty's Edge

Quantum Steve wrote:
cheechako wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
burkoJames wrote:
A touch attack is an attack action. Its in the name.
So, no source. That's a shame.

Pathfinder PRD - Combat

From the table of Actions in Combat:
Standard action = Attack (melee) and Attack (ranged)
Full round action = Full Attack

If you continue down to the actual entries for that table, you'll see that those attacks are exclusively referring to attacks with weapons, which touch attacks are not.

PRD wrote:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
PRD wrote:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.

So, by these rules, weapon-like spells such as Produce Flame and Flame Blade can be used to make Standard and Full-Attacks, but these rules don't apply to touch attacks since they are not weapons.

Granted, there's nothing that says touch attacks can't be used to make a full-attack, but, since the Full-Attack rules aren't applicable, there's nothing that says they can, either.

Further down:

PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

...
“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[b], and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
PRD wrote:

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. [b]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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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.

Still that plural, still not saying that you can make only 1 touch attack in a round.

The rules still say that if you have a high enough BAB you get multiple attacks.


Artanthos wrote:


Answer this with RAW: I use a wand of fireballs as my standard action, then accidentally speak the command word (normal conversation is a free action). If speaking the command word as part of normal conversation activates the item, by RAW the wand must go off a second time on my turn. And a third time when I say the command word during my opponents turn (as a free action.)

You didn't answer my questions. If you had you would understand that speaking a command word is NEVER a free action. Since you won't do it let me answer those questions.

1) Do the rules as written state the manner in which command word item is activated?

Yes, they say the item is activated by speaking the command word.
Citation:

PRD wrote:
Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

2) Do the rules as written say what action activating a command word item in this way is?

Yes, the rules say that speaking an items command word to activate it is a standard action and does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Citation:

PRD wrote:
Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

3) Do the rules as written say whether you can activate a command word item accidentally or not?

Yes, the rules say that accidentally speaking the command word activates the item.
Citation:

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation.

Speaking the word and activating the item is ALWAYS a standard action. Can you do two standard actions on your turn? No. Then you cannot both intentionally and accidentally activate a command word item on your turn. Can you perform a standard action on another person's turn? No. Then you can't accidentally activate a command word item on another person's turn.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just wanted to point out that wands are not Command Word activated items. They are Spell Trigger activated items. As such, the accidental activation rule does not apply to them at all.

Better to use a pair of +1 flaming swords, or a +1 flaming frost shock sword, rather than wands of fireball, in your example, Canthin.

I also created a FAQ thread for your question, Canthin.

Grand Lodge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Artanthos wrote:


Answer this with RAW: I use a wand of fireballs as my standard action, then accidentally speak the command word (normal conversation is a free action). If speaking the command word as part of normal conversation activates the item, by RAW the wand must go off a second time on my turn. And a third time when I say the command word during my opponents turn (as a free action.)
You didn't answer my questions. If you had you would understand that speaking a command word is NEVER a free action. Since you won't do it let me answer those questions.

He did answer your questions. He said "yes". You obviously knew the rules already (as did he) so I'm sure he (as did everyone reading it) felt it was pointless to actually quote the rules.

Quote:
Speaking the word and activating the item is ALWAYS a standard action. Can you do two standard actions on your turn? No. Then you cannot both intentionally and accidentally activate a command word item on your turn. Can you perform a standard action on another person's turn? No. Then you can't accidentally activate a command word item on another person's turn.

And this falls out of what I said earlier which you then refuted.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Still that plural, still not saying that you can make only 1 touch attack in a round.

I think the plural is the "general" plural and not the "specific" plural.

General = "Three different characters made a Touch Attack, there were three different Touch Attacks this round." - More than one = Plural.

Specific = "I get three Touch Attacks with Chill Touch in a round." - More than one = Plural.

Both Plural, but one is speaking of more than one thing; the other is a thing more than once.

Because English is flawed in that way, so too are the rules.

"Six of one, half a dozen of the other" as the saying goes. [But what about a "Baker's dozen"?]

(I think this is one of those things that is up to the GM. I'm in the James Jacobs camp of "I don't see why not", but would be fine with another GM saying only one touch attack per round.)


claudekennilol wrote:

He did answer your questions. He said "yes". You obviously knew the rules already (as did he) so I'm sure he (as did everyone reading it) felt it was pointless to actually quote the rules.

Quote:
Speaking the word and activating the item is ALWAYS a standard action. Can you do two standard actions on your turn? No. Then you cannot both intentionally and accidentally activate a command word item on your turn. Can you perform a standard action on another person's turn? No. Then you can't accidentally activate a command word item on another person's turn.

Canthin answered my question and said yes. Aranthos just asked another question.

claudekennilol wrote:


And this falls out of what I said earlier which you then refuted.

We had several back and forth posts and I am not sure to which one you are referring.

Ravingdork wrote:
I just wanted to point out that wands are not Command Word activated items. They are Spell Trigger activated items. As such, the accidental activation rule does not apply to them at all.

Doh! I was so focused on the action to activate a command word that I entirely missed the fact that the argument I was answering wasn't even the correct type of item! Nice catch.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Further down:

PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

...
“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[b], and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

In the context of the rule (which you conveniently omitted) touch attacks count as armed for the purposes of provoking AoOs. In any case an armed attack isn't the same as a weapon. You can't take Weapon Focus (Touch Attack), you can't use Vital Strike or Cleave with touch attacks. They're not weapons.

Quote:
PRD wrote:

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. [b]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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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....

Still that plural, still not saying that you can make only 1 touch attack in a round.

The rules still say that if you have a high enough BAB you get multiple attacks.

"Touch Attacks" is plural, but so is Rounds.

Even if you could make only one touch per round, you could make several "Touch Attacks" over several Rounds. The plural tells us absolutely nothing.

The rules clearly explain how multiple attacks with a high BAB function. They must be weapons; touch attacks are not weapons. Those rules do not apply to touch attacks because touch attacks are not weapons.

Scarab Sages

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Artanthos wrote:


Answer this with RAW: I use a wand of fireballs as my standard action, then accidentally speak the command word (normal conversation is a free action). If speaking the command word as part of normal conversation activates the item, by RAW the wand must go off a second time on my turn. And a third time when I say the command word during my opponents turn (as a free action.)

You didn't answer my questions. If you had you would understand that speaking a command word is NEVER a free action. Since you won't do it let me answer those questions.

1) Do the rules as written state the manner in which command word item is activated?

Yes, they say the item is activated by speaking the command word.
Citation:

PRD wrote:
Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

2) Do the rules as written say what action activating a command word item in this way is?

Yes, the rules say that speaking an items command word to activate it is a standard action and does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Citation:

PRD wrote:
Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

3) Do the rules as written say whether you can activate a command word item accidentally or not?

Yes, the rules say that accidentally speaking the command word activates the item.
Citation:

PRD wrote:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation.
Speaking the word and activating the item is ALWAYS a standard action. Can you do two standard actions on your turn? No. Then you cannot both intentionally and accidentally activate a command word item on your turn. Can you perform a standard action on another person's turn? No. Then you can't accidentally activate a command word item on another person's turn.

4) Do the rules state what kind of action speaking is?

Yes, the rules state speaking is a free action.

Speak wrote:
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

Pointing at RAW will not resolve the conflict. RAW states two entirely different action requirements within the same paragraph. Normal conversation is a free action, not a standard action. If you allow activation of magic items during normal conversation, you are altering the action requirements. My scenario was illustrating this point. You cannot abide by the paragraph you keep quoting under my sample scenario. You either disallow item activation when the command word is said as a part of normal conversation or allow multiple activations per turn.

Liberty's Edge

Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Further down:

PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

...
“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, [b]a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell[b], and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

In the context of the rule (which you conveniently omitted) touch attacks count as armed for the purposes of provoking AoOs. In any case an armed attack isn't the same as a weapon. You can't take Weapon Focus (Touch Attack), you can't use Vital Strike or Cleave with touch attacks. They're not weapons.

They are under the heading of unarmed attacks and unarmed attacks get iterative.

Further down you find:

PRD wrote:

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.[/quote3

so there was a clear heading that don't permit iterative attack and that could be used for touch attacks.

From the headings under which they appear if seem that the Developed, at the time, felt that the spell touch attacks were a form of unarmed attack that get iterative, not a form of natural attack that don't get iterative.


Diego Rossi wrote:


They are under the heading of unarmed attacks and unarmed attacks get iterative.

From the headings under which they appear if seem that the Developed, at the time, felt that the spell touch attacks were a form of unarmed attack that get iterative, not a form of natural attack that don't get iterative.

PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“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).

First, unarmed attacks get iterative attacks because they are weapons and melee attacks with weapons use the Attack action and Full-Attack action.

Second, touch attacks are neither unarmed attacks nor natural attacks. They're an entirely different kind of attack (which is why they get their own heading in another part of the Combat section).

The only place touch attacks are even mentioned in the unarmed attack heading is the entry concerning "Armed" Unarmed Attacks which is nothing more than a clarification regarding the Attacks of Opportunity entry.

Liberty's Edge

Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


They are under the heading of unarmed attacks and unarmed attacks get iterative.

From the headings under which they appear if seem that the Developed, at the time, felt that the spell touch attacks were a form of unarmed attack that get iterative, not a form of natural attack that don't get iterative.

PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“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).

First, unarmed attacks get iterative attacks because they are weapons and melee attacks with weapons use the Attack action and Full-Attack action.

Second, touch attacks are neither unarmed attacks nor natural attacks. They're an entirely different kind of attack (which is why they get their own heading in another part of the Combat section).

The only place touch attacks are even mentioned in the unarmed attack heading is the entry concerning "Armed" Unarmed Attacks which is nothing more than a clarification regarding the Attacks of Opportunity entry.

Let's see all the mentions of Touch attack:

PRD wrote:


Armor Class

Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.

Nothing about what kind of action it is.

PRD wrote:


Full-Round Action
Use a touch spell on up to six friends

Nothing about enemies.

PRD wrote:


Standard Actions
Attack
Unarmed Attacks
“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).

The header is “Armed” Unarmed Attacks a sub header of Unarmed Attacks, not of Attacks of Opportunity as you claim.

The bolded header is the header of the section, the two italicized sub headers are at the same level and both refer to Unarmed attacks, not to each other.

The last row "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)." make that even more clear.

PRD wrote:


Standard Actions
Cast a Spell
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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.

Casting a spell is a standard action.

"You can continue to make touch attacks round after round." don't say anything about the kind of action you use.
"You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action." Friends, not foes, not relevant.
"Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge." normal unarmed attack, so here we can be fairly sure that iterative apply.

So here we have a lack of information: we can make touch attacks, but there is nothing explaining what kind of action that require. The only sensible interpretation is to default to normal attacks. The third citation say that they fall under Unarmed attacks. to me it see that at they are meant to benefit from iterative attacks.

Unless you can find a rule citation that say that a touch attack with a hold spell is limited to 1 attack each round my interpretation follow the rules more than yours.

If we follow your interpretation that they are standard action the part about it threatening and being usable for AoO as an armed attack don't work, as we can't use standard actions off turn.

Liberty's Edge

Just for completion, Mark Seifter opinion.

First, the usual disclaimer:

Mark Seifter wrote:


Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!
Mark Seifter wrote:
So you get one touch as a free action in the round you cast. But other than that, you can touch one person as a standard action, touch six buddies as a full-round action, or start swinging against regular AC with unarmed attacks or natural weapons that are holding the charge, which follows the normal actions for that.

So, Mark reading is that:

- you can make 1 touch attack;
- as many armed (with the spell) attacks as you can depending on your BAB.

I disagree for the above mentioned reasons, but this is a developer opinion.

Personally, if that is how it is meant to work, I would want more clear rules, especially for the AoOs, as mark interpretation would limit you to make AoO only with the Armed attack vs. normal AC, not with the touch attack.


Diego wrote:
If we follow your interpretation that they are standard action the part about it threatening and being usable for AoO as an armed attack don't work, as we can't use standard actions off turn.

Using the held charge as a touch attack is the standard action. Using it as a rider effect on an unarmed strike would still allow you to make the AoO with it.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Just for completion, Mark Seifter opinion.

First, the usual disclaimer:

Mark Seifter wrote:


Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!
Mark Seifter wrote:
So you get one touch as a free action in the round you cast. But other than that, you can touch one person as a standard action, touch six buddies as a full-round action, or start swinging against regular AC with unarmed attacks or natural weapons that are holding the charge, which follows the normal actions for that.

So, Mark reading is that:

- you can make 1 touch attack;
- as many armed (with the spell) attacks as you can depending on your BAB.

I disagree for the above mentioned reasons, but this is a developer opinion.

Personally, if that is how it is meant to work, I would want more clear rules, especially for the AoOs, as mark interpretation would limit you to make AoO only with the Armed attack vs. normal AC, not with the touch attack.

Then you should probably write up a post asking the specific questions to be FAQ'd. None of the posts to now have been yet.


Artanthos wrote:
Pointing at RAW will not resolve the conflict. RAW states two entirely different action requirements within the same paragraph. Normal conversation is a free action, not a standard action. If you allow activation of magic items during normal conversation, you are altering the action requirements. My scenario was illustrating this point. You cannot abide by the paragraph you keep quoting under my sample scenario. You either disallow item activation when the command word is said as a part of normal conversation or allow multiple activations per turn.

First lets just assume that your interpretation that "normal conversation" is referring to speaking in combat instead of referring to normal every day conversation is correct, though I don't believe that to be the case. Look at the rules again:

PRD wrote:

Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

It doesn't say speaking the command word is a standard action and accidentally using it in normal conversation uses the normal speaking rules. The rules say "activating the item", which just happens to involve speaking the command word, is a standard action which means anytime the item is activated it takes a standard action. There is NEVER a time when activating the item, which just happens to be by speaking the command word, is a free action.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Incredibly unclear on frostbite touch attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.