Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DominusMegadeus wrote: Bandw2 wrote: if it's a melee only enhancement, then i'd probably say it doesn't work with ranged attacks just for that reason alone. \
"Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case their enhancement bonuses apply to both melee and ranged attacks." k then, spell storing isn't a enhancement bonus.
Well as a note. I'm pretty sure Agile on a dagger, thrown at range has shown up in various places as valid. Though I have no citations and such for it.
I personally don't really have much of a problem with the idea of it going off at range. Since quite often magic items seem to claim owners. Many items need to stick around for 24 hours then some sorta magic connection is formed.
Though knives and weapon enchantments don't have that wording of course, and most of those are things that power up the user. So no direct application
but I always kinda liked the idea that magic and the users bond at some level.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Zwordsman wrote: Well as a note. I'm pretty sure Agile on a dagger, thrown at range has shown up in various places as valid. Though I have no citations and such for it.
I personally don't really have much of a problem with the idea of it going off at range. Since quite often magic items seem to claim owners. Many items need to stick around for 24 hours then some sorta magic connection is formed.
Though knives and weapon enchantments don't have that wording of course, and most of those are things that power up the user. So no direct application
but I always kinda liked the idea that magic and the users bond at some level.
personal opinion: spell storing working on thrown weapons would give thrown weapons a nice buff. (or if they already work that way, a nice tactic i just got reminded of)
I would totally allow spell storing with thrown weapons.
The way I see it, the question is which of these quotes would apply:
"Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well."
"Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons."
Now that I've thought about it some more, however, since the online ability description says that "this special ability can only be placed on melee weapons," I'm inclined to think that once you place it you can attack with it however you want. That's just my instinct though.
bump.
I think the OP cold benefit for some more people hitting the FAQ button.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Seriously, why? It doesn't need a FAQ.
Quote: Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires. The armor casts the spell on the creature, it's right in the ability description. It says nothing about needing an additional touch attack, the spell hits the creature, that's how the ability works.
So, either we can believe 1) that the words mean what they say, or 2) we can try to invent all sorts of reasons why the devs are idiots and made an ability that doesn't work.
Why not choose one?
It does not say "the spell hits the creature" it says the armor "casts the spell on the creature".
And Touch spells require Touch attacks.
No they don't. They require that you touch the creature, which generally requires a touch attack. There are multiple abilities that remove this requirement, armor spell storing is one of them. Casting the spell on the creature, as the ability states should give you a clue that this changes how thing work since that is specifically different than how touch spells work. Specific overrides general, no FAQ is needed. It's obvious how the ability works, even with RAW.
The touch attack is already made, as the ability triggers on a successful "touch" (attack) by an enemy. No roll on the part of the armor or wearer is needed.
Unless you think a spell storing weapon also needs a second attack roll to hit with the spell after it triggers?
TGMaxMaxer wrote: The touch attack is already made, as the ability triggers on a successful "touch" (attack) by an enemy. No roll on the part of the armor or wearer is needed.
Unless you think a spell storing weapon also needs a second attack roll to hit with the spell after it triggers?
Rynjin actually said earlier in the thread that he does think that. Points for consistency.
Source?
I'm going by the rules here. The armor gives no specific exception to the general rule of requiring a touch attack to connect with a touch spell.
Touch spells do NOT trigger by mere contact. You don't automatically succeed on touch spells when Grappling, for instance.
Why do so many people think this ability works differently when it gives no indication that it should?
People think it works that way because that is the only way it works without other problems.
For instance, if you think it takes an attack roll, then my rogue is going to expect his sneak attack to apply to touch spells cast from his spell storing armor, as sneak attack applies to touch spells (assuming sneak conditions met).
I will also expect my characters with poison to get to double poison with spell storing weapons, once for the weapon hit and once for the spell storing attack (assuming sticky poison).
The grappling rules are a mess in and of themselves (being errata'd multiple times to make them even this good) and are no good place to base expectations on.
On the plus side, if it does need an attack roll it has a chance to score a critical hit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rynjin wrote: Source?
I'm going by the rules here. The armor gives no specific exception to the general rule of requiring a touch attack to connect with a touch spell.
Touch spells do NOT trigger by mere contact. You don't automatically succeed on touch spells when Grappling, for instance.
Why do so many people think this ability works differently when it gives no indication that it should?
Yes, it does give a specific exception, you even quoted it:
Quote: the armor can cast the spell on that creature Touch spells are not 'cast on a creature', they are cast and then the creature is touched. Therefore, since the armor changes how touch spells are delivered it specifically overrides the general rule regarding touch spells requiring a touch attack.
People think it works differently because of two reasons. First, it says it works differently. Second, the wording is clear enough that the devs would have to be complete and utter morons to write such an ability in a way that it didn't actually work.
Most people here don't think the devs are complete and utter morons.
Per that logic, touch spells don't work at all.
Which seems more likely: The armor casts the spell (requiring an attack roll) or the armor casts the spell on a creature, which does nothing in the case of a touch spell?
No, I don't believe the devs are morons (well, most of them, usually). Which is why I take what they wrote at face value: It casts the spell, with everything that implies.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What are you talking about? Normal touch spells work in this manner:
You cast the spell. You get a free melee touch attack. If you hit your spell discharges.
You don't 'cast your spell on the creature' with normal touch spells, that is specific to the armor spell storing ability.
It doesn't just 'cast the spell' as you yourself quoted, it casts the spell 'on that creature'. That's different than a normal touch spell.
You don't cast shocking grasp 'on a creature', you cast the spell and then try and touch a creature. If you miss, you can even try to touch a different creature the following round.
That's why the armor with spell storing works differently, you don't have to make a touch attack, but then you also can't choose to hold the charge and touch someone else.
I'm really not sure how more clear the ability can be, but if I've been taught anything on these boards, it's that it doesn't really matter how clear an ability is described, someone can always read it differently.
Exactly, you don't cast touch spells on creatures.
And yet YOU'RE the one telling ME I must think the devs are idiots for assuming they meant "The armor casts the spell as normal" rather than "The armor casts the spell in a fashion it is impossible for it to be cast"?
Because Spell Storing does NOT give any indication it circumvents the normal touch spell rules. At all.
Either it works as I say it does, or it doesn't work at all by RAW. Because as you yourself admit, you don't cast touch spells on creatures, ever. And Spell Storing does not grant an ability to cast spells not normally cast on creatures, on creatures.
The ability is very clear the way I read it. It casts the spell, the spell works as normal.
The way you read it requires you to throw out the text entirely, assume it works how you want it to work, and then torturing the text until it complies.
? What are you talking about.
In general you don't cast touch spells on creatures.
The armor of spell storing casts touch spells on creatures.
This should clue you in that the armor is doing something specifically different than the general way touch spells are handled.
The description itself tells you that it is circumventing the normal touch rules, where else would you expect this indication to exist?
Quote: Because as you yourself admit, you don't cast touch spells on creatures, ever. And Spell Storing does not grant an ability to cast spells not normally cast on creatures, on creatures. I don't think you really understand how Pathfinder rules work. There is no such thing as an ability that can't be overridden or changed by another specific ability. Pathfinder is built on special exceptions to general rules.
Just what do you think the phrase 'specific overrides general' even means?
Specific overriding general: An ability giving a specific exception, explicitly.
This: Your wishful thinking coming up with exceptions which are not explicitly listed.
Whatever, dude. I'm not sure how much more explicit you can get than the ability telling you exactly what happens.
But go ahead, assume the devs are morons in this case. Run your armor of spell storing such that the spell is cast as normal, and then the wearer gets to decide who he wants to touch for shocking grasp on their next turn. I'm sure your players won't be snickering behind their character sheets.
Btw, why the heck does the armor of spell storing require a touch spell anyways, if it works like you say it does? Why couldn't you store a fireball on it, and be able to cast it however you want when struck?
When it comes to things needing FAQs, this is so far down on the list, considering how few people actually are confused about it, that you'll probably we waiting a few more decades to get an answer, if ever.
Why would it be their next turn?
For anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS how touch spells work, you get a Free action to deliver it when it is cast.
Rynjin wrote: Why would it be their next turn?
For anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS how touch spells work, you get a Free action to deliver it when it is cast.
You can't take free actions outside of your turn. It's an immediate action to cast the spell, but that doesn't mean you get a free action to use it.
I guess I should have prefaced that explanation with: For someone who UNDERSTANDS how actions in combat work...
_Ozy_ wrote: Rynjin wrote: Why would it be their next turn?
For anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS how touch spells work, you get a Free action to deliver it when it is cast.
You can't take free actions outside of your turn. It's an immediate action to cast the spell, but that doesn't mean you get a free action to use it.
I guess I should have prefaced that explanation with: For someone who UNDERSTANDS how actions in combat work... "Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
Try again.
Two things wrong with that:
You can't take actions unless it is your turn unless otherwise specified.
Immediate actions are an exception, they explicitly say you can take an action when it isn't your turn. Free actions do not have this exception, except for speaking, which, again, specifically says that you can speak as a free action when it isn't your turn.
Secondly, the ability says that the armor casts the spell as an immediate action. You're not doing anything, so even if you were right about free actions (which you aren't) you're not the one taking the immediate action anyways.
So try again.
We already know that many Free actions can be taken off your turn (Grab, for example), and do not have an exception which allows that.
Because they don't need it. The general rule is listed right there.
Secondly, by your logic you're assuming the devs are morons again, since objects don't get actions in the first place.
Rynjin wrote: We already know that many Free actions can be taken off your turn (Grab, for example), and do not have an exception which allows that.
Because they don't need it. The general rule is listed right there.
Secondly, by your logic you're assuming the devs are morons again, since objects don't get actions in the first place.
If they don't have exceptions, you can't do it.
You didn't list the general rules, this is the general rule:
Quote:
Actions In Combat
During one turn, there are a wide variety of actions that your character can perform, from swinging a sword to casting a spell.
and further down:
Quote: Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
Quote: Speak
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.
Actions are defined as occurring during ones turn. Any actions outside of your turn needs to be specifically granted through exception, like the immediate action and speaking.
As far as items not getting actions, why can't you understand that specific rules override general rules? How do you even play the game?
Are you really claiming that the person is casting the spell? What if he's not a spell caster? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity? Can he cast the spell if he's holding a sword and shield? What if he's silenced?
Or, none of those things matter because the armor casts the spell as an immediate action, just like the ability says it does.
What I'm trying to pound into your thick skull is that the armor DOESN'T provide an exception.
It's a terribly written item.
Though this right here is the crowning piece of you not understanding rules:
Quote: Are you really claiming that the person is casting the spell? What if he's not a spell caster? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity? Can he cast the spell if he's holding a sword and shield? What if he's silenced? Are you saying that only spellcasters can use magic items? Because that's what you're implying.
No, it doesn't provoke an AoO, because Swift action spells don't provoke.
Yes, he can do both of those, because activating the armor, like most other magic items, requires no somatic or verbal components.
I also like how you conveniently ignore the rule that lets you take Free actions when you take another action.
An Immediate action is another action.
Per your logic, Grab wouldn't work on an AoO...which we know is flat-out false since they FAQ'd that. And FAQs are not rules changes (or, this one clearly isn't).
You have no legs to stand on for your interpretation.
Mine utilizes every relevant rule in the book, because the armor does not break those rules, however desperately you would like it to.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rynjin wrote: What I'm trying to pound into your thick skull is that the armor DOESN'T provide an exception. Except, of course, that it does. It's written right into the description itself.
Quote:
It's a terribly written item.
No matter how well written an item is, there will be always someone who doesn't get it. For this item, I guess that's you.
Quote:
Though this right here is the crowning piece of you not understanding rules:
Quote: Are you really claiming that the person is casting the spell? What if he's not a spell caster? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity? Can he cast the spell if he's holding a sword and shield? What if he's silenced? Are you saying that only spellcasters can use magic items? Because that's what you're implying.
What do you mean use? We're talking about casting spells like in the description. Are you once again changing what the words say to mean something else? Or are you saying that casting a spell from a spell-storing item is an exception to the general rule regarding spell casting?
Quote:
No, it doesn't provoke an AoO, because Swift action spells don't provoke.
Yes, I know that. But once again, that is an exception to the general rule that casting spells provokes AoO.
Quote:
Yes, he can do both of those, because activating the armor, like most other magic items, requires no somatic or verbal components.
The item says nothing about 'activating' it says 'casting'. Where do you see the word activating?
Quote:
I also like how you conveniently ignore the rule that lets you take Free actions when you take another action.
An Immediate action is another action.
Ah, so if my armor gets hit, I can cast the spell as an immediate action, and then mount my horse with a DC20 ride check? Good to know. I suppose I can also use a 'no-action' like a 5 foot step during an AoO.
Quote:
Per your logic, Grab wouldn't work on an AoO...which we know is flat-out false since they FAQ'd that. And FAQs are not rules changes (or, this one clearly isn't).
I can't seem to find the FAQ you're referring to, so a link would be appreciated.
Quote:
You have no legs to stand on for your interpretation.
Mine utilizes every relevant rule in the book, because the armor does not break those rules, however desperately you would like it to.
No you don't, you ignore the rule that, unless otherwise specified, free actions can only be performed on your turn.
You also ignore the rule of the item itself, which tells you how it works.
Of course the armor doesn't break the rules, it MAKES the rules, like every other RAW text in Pathfinder.
I also think you misunderstand my motivations here. The way you are running the item, getting a free, immediate action casting of a spell which then lets you choose the target normally instead of autocasting on the attacker is much more powerful than the way it is currently written. Especially if you also ignore the part about only allowing touch spells, since that must obviously be wrong too. Spell storing items have no such limitation, right?
Here.
Let me just break this down real quick, so you see where I'm coming from.
Logically, the way you say it works makes a lot of sense. However, the problem with that is that this item does not work logically. You have to discard the text to make it work logically.
Quote: This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. The armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of 3rd level in it. So far, so good.
Any time a creatures hits the wearer with a melee attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an Immediate action if the wearer desires.
Problem 1: Non-intelligent magic items cannot cast spells.
Problem 2: Whose Immediate action is used?
Problem 3: Touch spells are not cast on creatures.
So, per RAW, it doesn't work at all.
So here's where we come to the crux of the matter.
Here's how you are reading it:
Quote: This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Any time a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature and automatically succeed at touching the creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. Here's how I am reading it.
Quote: This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Any time a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can trigger the spell if the wearer desires, and the wearer can deliver it as usual. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. Your interpretation requires assuming a BUNCH of different exceptions to the rules. The armor can cast the spell. The armor has the ACTION to cast the spell. The spell can bypass the touch attack.
My interpretation simply assumes that whoever wrote it f~*!ed up and forgot how both magic items and touch spells work, which given all of the OTHER mistakes in Ultimate Equipment, and RPG Superstar submissions in general, is by far the more likely assumption.
You will note that none of the credited writers are primary Paizo developers.
Quote: Authors: Dennis Baker, Jesse Benner, Benjamin Bruck, Ross Byers, Brian J. Cortijo, Ryan Costello, Mike Ferguson, Matt Goetz, Jim Groves, Tracy Hurley, Matt James, Jonathan H. Keith, Michael Kenway, Hal MacLean, Jason Nelson, Tork Shaw, Owen KC Stephens, Russ Taylor, and numerous RPG Superstar contributors
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rynjin wrote: Here.
I'm curious as to why you would quote a FAQ that specifically undermined your argument:
Quote:
While you can’t take most free actions off your turn, Grab, Trip, Pull, Push, and Rock Catching’s free actions can all be used off-turn. This will be reflected in future errata.
First off, note the last word...errata. That means changing how the rules work. So, right now, they acknowledge that the rules say the listed free action can't be used when it's not your turn. The are just declaring that you can use these specified actions, as an exception to the general rules.
Now, note what is not listed as an exception. Melee touch spell attacks.
So no, you would not get a free melee touch attack when the armor was struck, according to this FAQ.
As to the rest of your stuff, the only difference between our views is that when I see RAW making rules, I treat those as making rules, not breaking rules. RAW, by definition, does not break rules.
There may be two pieces of RAW that contradict each other, even taking into consideration that specific overrides general, but that isn't the case here.
I think you misunderstand what errata means.
"an error in printing or writing.
a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal."
Meaning they will be correcting the error. Not changing the rule.
Rynjin wrote: I think you misunderstand what errata means.
"an error in printing or writing.
a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal."
Meaning they will be correcting the error. Not changing the rule.
Um, yeah, that's what I said. They will be correcting the 'error' in the rules, meaning that the rules, as they stand now, say that you can't take any of those free actions when it's not your turn.
Unlike a FAQ, which merely explains the rules more clearly to avoid misunderstandings.
But once again, you ignored the most important part of my post.
That errata does not list melee touch attacks in the list of exceptions.
Therefore you can't do it when it's not your turn.
That is not a comprehensive list of exceptions.
In point of fact, they're not exceptions at all. That's covered in the general rules. You can take a Free action as part of another action.
Those were FAQ'd because a lot of people were asking about them. It is actually a true FAQ, unlike these bastard child "FAQ's" Paizo often makes that are genuine changes to the rules which muddy the waters and make it hard to tell which is which.
I don't think you're suggesting that, for example, Wizards were allowed to cast spells higher than their level would allow before that FAQ.
It will be "reflected in future errata" because they're going to add that directly to the text for clarity. Not because it's a rules change.
Man, you have such a unique and self-contradictory take on the rules I'm not really sure how to even discuss this with you.
Just above, you clearly stated that the errata highlighted an 'error' in the rules, and now you go ahead and say that the general rules didn't have the error that needed the errata to correct.
Which is it? Why would they call it out as errata if it wasn't errata?
Then you go on to ignore the first part of the errata, which I bolded above and will repeat for your convenience:
Quote: While you can’t take most free actions off your turn and claim that the list is not comprehensive.
What makes you believe this to be true? What does it mean when 'most free actions' can't be taking out of turn? Nothing? Are they lying? Where do you see any rules that would add melee touch attacks to that list?
When you have a statement that 'most things' act a certain way, and then list some exceptions, it seems prudent to consider that list comprehensive unless provided further evidence to the contrary.
_Ozy_ wrote: Man, you have such a unique and self-contradictory take on the rules I'm not really sure how to even discuss this with you.
Just above, you clearly stated that the errata highlighted an 'error' in the rules, and now you go ahead and say that the general rules didn't have the error that needed the errata to correct.
Which is it? Why would they call it out as errata if it wasn't errata?
Then you go on to ignore the first part of the errata, which I bolded above and will repeat for your convenience:
Quote: While you can’t take most free actions off your turn and claim that the list is not comprehensive.
What makes you believe this to be true? What does it mean when 'most free actions' can't be taking out of turn? Nothing? Are they lying? Where do you see any rules that would add melee touch attacks to that list?
When you have a statement that 'most things' act a certain way, and then list some exceptions, it seems prudent to consider that list comprehensive unless provided further evidence to the contrary.
While the FAQ only addresses those on the list, all the listed exceptions are "triggered free actions," basically free actions granted by another action, and they are allowed if you manage to perform their granting action out of turn. Its logically consistent that therefore all triggered free actions are allowed out of turn if their triggers occur, which includes the free action touch attack from casting a touch spell. (Basically you cannot initiate free actions out of turn, but may respond with any valid free actions to any event that occurs.) RAW is unclear (The FAQ says most, and the list is not exhaustive as it doesn't include talking), but I would say it is the RAI.
Now, specifically with spell-storing armor, I believe that the RAI is for the spell to automatically succeed in hitting the target like spell-storing weapons, but it is so poorly written that the RAW is broken on it.
It may be logically consistent, but it is not supported by the rules, nor the exceptions given in the errata. Also, the errata gives no indication that the list is not a comprehensive one, that is, it does not use words like: for example, ...
Talking is already provided with an exception, therefore it had no need to be added to the errata.
Given all of these free actions that you guys claim can be done out of turn, how many can you list that can't? Enough to turn into the 'most' declared by the errata?
_Ozy_ wrote: It may be logically consistent, but it is not supported by the rules, nor the exceptions given in the errata. Also, the errata gives no indication that the list is not a comprehensive one, that is, it does not use words like: for example, ...
Talking is already provided with an exception, therefore it had no need to be added to the errata.
Given all of these free actions that you guys claim can be done out of turn, how many can you list that can't? Enough to turn into the 'most' declared by the errata?
Considering that immediate action touch spells exist, and would not work by your interpretation, we know the list isn't exhaustive.
Here are some examples.
Yup, those certainly would seem to qualify, thanks.
Bump.
As a cheap armor enchantment I suppose the spell storing is not that unusual, it would be nice to have a clarification.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Nicos wrote: Spell Storing
Aura strong evocation; CL 12th; Weight —; Price +1 Bonus
DESCRIPTION
This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift immediate action if the wearer desires. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. The armor magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it.
==============================================
This came up in pbp campaing. I'm on hte opinion no touch attack roll is needed to deliver the spell, my players disagree.
have been there any definitely ruling on this?
I appreciate this is an old thread but was looking for the answer to this and hit this rather long and strongly opinionated thread which didn't really give me any concrete answers. I then found that James Jacobs, Creative Director has answered the mechanics for Spell Storing Weapons on another thread here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=559?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#27907
where he says:
James Jacobs wrote:
The spell storing weapon "casts" the spell when you hit.
For vampiric touch, that means you hit the target, do weapon damage, the spell goes off, then IT does the damage as well. No additional attack roll is needed. The advantage there is that it removes an attack roll from combat, which makes the combat go that much faster and more smoothly.
The analogue would be that rather than delivering vampiric touch as a touch attack, you're delivering it as a regular attack, and as such you are now rolling against the full AC, not the touch AC. The benefit being you get extra weapon damage on a hit.
So it seems fairly clear to me that the 'spirit' of Spell Storing is that the attack roll has already been made (by the player if on a weapon, by the attacker if on armour) and the spell can be cast directly with no need for a separate attack roll. At the end of the day a player with Spell Storing armour does need to take a hit before a spell effect can be used and also, a spell caster needs to expend a use of the spell to charge it in the first place so it doesn't seem particularly OP to me. You are also adding Spell Storing at the expense of, say, a better AC to add further balance.
blahpers wrote: Bandw2 wrote: RumpinRufus wrote: Keep in mind, the wearer isn't casting the spell, the armor is casting the spell. What is the armor's BAB? What is the armor's strength score?
I think it's clear that no touch attack is needed. After all, the enemy is already touching the armor.
so... the armor's swift action is used up then? That's my favorite part of this terribly-written item. hehe good ole blahpers
|
|
