Byakko |
The rules are explicit.
You're allowed to use rules items unless something else prohibits you or forces you to use another option.
Words like "may" and "can" give you options. You don't have to use these option.
If you don't, there are generally rules which cover what happen in the base case.
The rules are FULL of examples that demonstrate this.
--------------------
Rapid Shot: "When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round."
Do you have to fire an additional time? No.
Disarming: "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped."
Do you have to pick up an item dropped with disarm? No.
Movement During a Charge: "You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent."
Do you have to move double your speed? No. Note that you must move before your attack and must move at least 10 feet.
Investigator Talent: Edetic Recollection (Su): An investigator can always choose to take 10 on any of his Knowledge checks, even if he's in immediate danger or distracted. An investigator may expend one use of inspiration to take 20 on a Knowledge skill check even if he's in immediate danger or distracted. An investigator must be at least 11th level to select this talent.
Does the investigator have to expend an inspiration? No, and if he doesn't, he can still take 10 on Knowledge checks in immediate danger.
Touch Spells in Combat: "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."
Do you have to touch in the round you cast? No. (but if you do, it's a free action)
Do you have to move before, after, or between casting and touching? Nope! (and if you don't, continue your turn as normal... aka, you can use the standard rules for free actions)
-----------------
Why are people arguing about touching enemies? This rules block clearly states:
1) You're allowed to perform a touch as a free action the round its cast.
2) You must succeed on an attack roll to touch an enemy.
...
So shouldn't it immediately follow that you can touch an enemy as a free action with an attack roll on the turn it's cast?
The Holding the Charge rules are only applicable "If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell", so they don't even come into play initially.
Gauss |
EDIT: I think you're getting through to me, though I'm not sure if I agree, still.
Do you mean that "You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target" means that you can't move before AND after you deliver the spell (even if it's the same move action as it would be if you deliver the spell in the middle of the move action as a free action)?
Correct, you cannot move before and after you deliver the spell because of the specific wording of the quoted sentence.
Darksol the Painbringer |
You are referencing attacking. We are talking about delivering a touch spell to an ally. Touching an ally with a spell is not an attack, it is a free action. What I'm trying to find out is why you are trying to apply attack rules to a free action that is not an attack of any sort.
I'll say it again: If I'm a Barbarian with the Superstition rage power, as long as I'm not raging, I'm an ally and a willing target to any spell my party member casts on me.
But when I rage, I'm no longer a willing target. So if you're going to throw a Heal Spell on me, you have to make an attack roll against me, and I get a Saving Throw on the beneficial spell you tacked on me (assuming you hit). These same circumstances also apply to any enemy you try to affect with a touch spell.
Both scenarios include a single creature affected by a touch spell from a party member. The second scenario involves an unwilling ally (or enemy) who tries to resist the spell being thrown at him as best he can, such as trying to avoid the touch attack, making the saving throw (if it hit), etc. and this is one an enemy also provides. The first scenario involves a willing ally who chooses to let the attack automatically hit him, and accepts all of the consequences the spell provides.
Simple subtraction between the two equations tells you the only difference between touching a/n (willing) ally and an (unwilling) enemy is that one requires an attack roll [and saving throw, if the attack hits], the other does not.
If you're going to say that the lack of an attack roll is the reason why touching an ally is not considered an attack, then by that logic I can play shenanigans like "Fireballs don't break Invisibility spells" (because no attack roll is involved).
Byakko |
Human Diversion/Darsol:
I guess one question is:
Can a superstitious barbarian be the willing target of a touch, but not of the accompanying spell?
A related question:
If the barbarian doesn't know the effect you have charged is a spell, will he resist the touch or the effect(spell)?
------------------
But this is getting kinda off topic, in any case.
Berti Blackfoot |
If the list is exclusive, then what are the other implications?
Between casting and delivering the spell in the same round:
Can you not perform other move actions that are not moving towards the target?
Can you not make swift actions?
Can you not take some other free action before touching?
If you are flying, must you be hovering?
If you have Spring Attack, can you still not touch while moving?
If you cast a harmful spell, and high five your friend as you run by towards your target, would that NOT discharge the spell?
Those (at the very least the last 3) would all have to be true to accept the premise that the list is exclusive and are the only actions you can perform.
The answer lies in if you think the list is exclusive vs it is their attempt to provide helpful examples. If you think you must be still to deliver a touch vs you think the touch is instant. If you must actually want to touch and deliver the spell vs can you accidentally discharge the spell by touching someone
Darksol the Painbringer |
Human Diversion/Darsol:
I guess one question is:
Can a superstitious barbarian be the willing target of a touch, but not of the accompanying spell?
A related question:
If the barbarian doesn't know the effect you have charged is a spell, will he resist the touch or the effect(spell)?
------------------
But this is getting kinda off topic, in any case.
As long as it doesn't have a spell, you can touch the Barbarian just fine if you're an ally. So if you have a Supernatural touch ability, the Barbarian wouldn't negate that.
While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
RAW, it doesn't matter if the Barbarian is aware of it being a spell or not. Since it includes all spells (and explicitly points out spells being cast by allies), the Barbarian has this effect whether he is aware or not.
RAI, I'm pretty sure the Barbarian can see hands glowing with warm light or crackling electricity, meaning he can see a spell (but not know what it is), and therefore be able to get all antsy about it.
It is a case (a lot more likely than you think) where an ally becomes an unwilling target and, like an enemy, you must make an attack roll to affect him with a touch spell.
Darksol the Painbringer |
If fighters can't swing their sword at someone while moving without having a feat, spellcasters sure as hell can't touch attack someone without it either.
Martials don't get nice things, Spellcasters do. Therefore, Martials must spend feats to attack while moving. Spellcasters can do it for free. #Pathfinderlogic
But in all seriousness, I agree 100% on the RAI you present.
Byakko |
Hmmn, Darksol, I believe there are situations where you can "trick" a target into accepting a spell that they would not normally via the Bluff skill, and whatnot.
So assuming our superstitious barbarian has no knowledge of how spells and supernatural abilities work (which isn't that unreasonable of an assumption), could a character claim to be using a supernatural healing ability when they, in fact, had a healing spell "on hand"? While they might innately and instinctively resist the healing spell itself, the barbarian may willingly allow you to touch them before realizing the difference.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting gaming the system by using this as an excuse. This is purely cognitive conjecture.
Gauss |
If the list is exclusive, then what are the other implications?
Between casting and delivering the spell in the same round:
Can you not perform other move actions that are not moving towards the target?
Can you not make swift actions?
Can you not take some other free action before touching?
If you are flying, must you be hovering?
If you have Spring Attack, can you still not touch while moving?
If you cast a harmful spell, and high five your friend as you run by towards your target, would that NOT discharge the spell?Those (at the very least the last 3) would all have to be true to accept the premise that the list is exclusive and are the only actions you can perform.
The answer lies in if you think the list is exclusive vs it is their attempt to provide helpful examples. If you think you must be still to deliver a touch vs you think the touch is instant. If you must actually want to touch and deliver the spell vs can you accidentally discharge the spell by touching someone
Berti, the list controls only when you can move in relation to delivering a touch spell when you cast and deliver a touch spell in the same round. It is not altering any other rule. As such, all other rules are still in play.
Thus, to answer your questions:
Yes, you can still perform swift actions (provided it does not violate some other rule such as holding a charge) because the rule does not touch on swift actions.
Yes, you can still make other free actions (same proviso) because the rule does not touch on other kinds of free actions.
Flying/Hovering, I am not sure why you think this is relevant, but you can fly/hover normally. Nothing in the fly rules is being altered.
No, you cannot use Spring Attack in the same round that you cast.
Spring Atack is it's own full-round action. Note: If you were to somehow cast your touch spell and still be able to perform a full round action (say, a Quickened Spell) then you might have an argument for using Spring Attack (I would have to look at it in more depth) to deliver a touch spell.
Yes, if you cast a harmful spell and high five your friend it discharges into your friend. That is in the rules.
Again, I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand (movement and delivering a touch spell as a free action).
Not one of your list of problems is related to this issue. Do you have anything that is?
Byakko |
Okay, Gauss, so what happens when this characters casts a touch spell as a standard action. Then he takes a move action, walking past an ally. You're saying at the point where he passes his ally, he can take all manner of free (and swift) actions, EXCEPT using the free action touch granted by the rules?
Heck, they could even cast a quickened touch spell and deliver it in the middle of a move. Yet somehow they couldn't deliver the touch spell they already had on hand?
The answer is, yes, they can deliver the touch spell as a free action in the middle of a move because it is a free action. That they give you some additional, permissive, examples in the next sentence is irrelevant.
I agree this whole situation gets a little silly. What I'm EVENTUALLY trying to argue for here is a ruling that you can't take swift/free actions in the middle of other actions, unless specifically allowed by the rules or if it makes sense to the GM to allow it. In effect, this whole thread is one example (of many) of why it's a good idea to make such a ruling.
Gauss |
It seems my response was eaten by yesterday's server update. So, lets see what I can remember of my response (the second version is never as good).
Okay, Gauss, so what happens when this characters casts a touch spell as a standard action. Then he takes a move action, walking past an ally. You're saying at the point where he passes his ally, he can take all manner of free (and swift) actions, EXCEPT using the free action touch granted by the rules?
Yes, he can take free and swift actions provided there is not another specific rule that says otherwise (see point 2).
Heck, they could even cast a quickened touch spell and deliver it in the middle of a move. Yet somehow they couldn't deliver the touch spell they already had on hand?
Casting a quickened touch spell is a swift action.
Yes, this can be done during a move but then he has a free action to deliver it as per the rules and as per the rules his move action must occur before or after delivering the touch spell, not in between.There is nothing regarding a quickened touch spell that I could find that changes this rule.
The answer is, yes, they can deliver the touch spell as a free action in the middle of a move because it is a free action. That they give you some additional, permissive, examples in the next sentence is irrelevant.
Actually, Pathfinder added the free action sentence. They did not add the restriction.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. 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 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.
Pathfinder added the free action statement because without it people wouldn't know what the actual action of touching is. But Pathfinder did not create the limitation, that was already part of the 3.5/PF system and Pathfinder did not alter it. The limitation is not an permissive example, it is a concrete 'how you can use this' limitation that was in place years before the free action sentence was added.
Note: while it is often not helpful to go back to 3.5 to explain something in PF it is clearly useful in this case since it gives us an explanation as to the nature of the sentence in question (ie: a rule and not a permissive example).I agree this whole situation gets a little silly. What I'm EVENTUALLY trying to argue for here is a ruling that you can't take swift/free actions in the middle of other actions, unless specifically allowed by the rules or if it makes sense to the GM to allow it. In effect, this whole thread is one example (of many) of why it's a good idea to make such a ruling.
This situation is quite simple really. If you are allowed to touch during a move it opens up tactical options which the designers clearly did not want you to have.
As for your free action house rule, it would be a house rule. I find no problem with free and swift actions being taken during other actions provided the rules are followed.
alexd1976 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are explicit.
You're allowed to use rules items unless something else prohibits you or forces you to use another option.
Words like "may" and "can" give you options. You don't have to use these option.
If you don't, there are generally rules which cover what happen in the base case.The rules are FULL of examples that demonstrate this.
--------------------
Rapid Shot: "When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round."
Do you have to fire an additional time? No.
Okay, using what you have said above... I don't want to fire an additional time... I choose to fire FIVE additional times. The option isn't listed, but neither is it forbidden in any way, right?
Heck, I'll choose to fire a thousand extra times. It is equally allowed.
The rules about touch spells inform the player of their options. They aren't suggestions that people can just arbitrarily add to, they are rules. Ignoring them is cheating, and should be treated as such by the GM running the game.
Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?
Berti Blackfoot |
Yes, if you cast a harmful spell and high five your friend it discharges into your friend. That is in the rules.
Again, I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand (movement and delivering a touch spell as a free action).
Then you agree that you can touch an ALLY to deliver a touch spell in the middle of a move.
To say otherwise would be to say: you can accidentally discharge your touch spell into an ally while moving, but you could not deliberately discharge your touch spell into an ally while moving. And that makes no sense whatsoever.
edit: well apparently the accidental discharge rules only apply to a HELD charge, not the first round.
So then I'd say you can indeed touch someone while moving if you hold the charge and do it in round two, for the same reason you can accidentally discharge.
alexd1976 |
alexd1976 wrote:Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?
I'm still a bit lost though, where does it say casters are allowed to do this?
The rules on touch spells list what options are made available, if an exception to this exists, I would love to see where it is.
Can you give me a book and page reference that contradicts the rules that are written for Touch Spells? Not saying that it should be allowed because it is a free action, but saying that it is allowed DESPITE the rules that have been been published showing that touch spells are an exception to how free actions normally work.
So...
Book and page number please.
If you are right, I will be glad, because it will increase the survivability of the characters in the game I run, and the character I intend to play soon. I await your proof with baited breath.
Berti Blackfoot |
So...
Book and page number please.If you are right, I will be glad, because it will increase the survivability of the characters in the game I run, and the character I intend to play soon. I await your proof with baited breath.
Do you think this applies only AFTER the first round?
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#holding-the-charge
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
This would mean if you touch someone while running past them, you discharge. But I ask, even though it says "while holding a charge", should that apply only after the round you cast?
I think to state this applies only after the first round is a far bigger change to the rules. It's saying that touch spells have a free till-the-end-of-your-round buffer where you can't accidentally discharge, and I've never heard of such a rule or even idea. But maybe that is how you have always played it. I think most of us have played with the accidental discharge sentence applying always (even during the round you cast), because that is the most dangerous for the player.
Darksol the Painbringer |
Hmmn, Darksol, I believe there are situations where you can "trick" a target into accepting a spell that they would not normally via the Bluff skill, and whatnot.
So assuming our superstitious barbarian has no knowledge of how spells and supernatural abilities work (which isn't that unreasonable of an assumption), could a character claim to be using a supernatural healing ability when they, in fact, had a healing spell "on hand"? While they might innately and instinctively resist the healing spell itself, the barbarian may willingly allow you to touch them before realizing the difference.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting gaming the system by using this as an excuse. This is purely cognitive conjecture.
This is a corner case and delves into the matter of "Can Bluff be used to do that?"
With that said, it falls into GM discretion, and a case could be made on a couple levels. The Bluff check could be used to either deceive or lie about your touch being a spell (but it's far-fetched, considering the Barbarian sees energy glowing from your hands), or you can try to feign harmlessness with your touch, but I imagine that too would be using similar modifiers. So I suppose it could be possible to negate the need for an attack roll with the associated skill check, but it is as you've said, it doesn't negate saving throws (and spell resistance) against the spell.
I suppose the opposite side could also be taken (Barbarian sees glowing hands of a Supernatural ability and thinks it's a spell), so YMMV.
alexd1976 |
alexd1976 wrote:
So...
Book and page number please.If you are right, I will be glad, because it will increase the survivability of the characters in the game I run, and the character I intend to play soon. I await your proof with baited breath.
Do you think this applies only AFTER the first round? I think to state this applies only after the first round is a far bigger change to the rules. It's saying that touch spells have a free till-the-end-of-your-round buffer where you can't accidentally discharge, and I've never heard of such a rule or even idea:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#holding-the-charge
PRD wrote:If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.Because really, why would that apply only after the first round? I know it says "while holding a charge", but wouldn't it make more sense for spells to work that way even in the round you cast? If not then what we are saying is touch spells behave differently in the first round than they do in later rounds (besides getting the attack as a free action). To me that just seems like a much bigger deal than letting someone slap their friend as they run by in the first round. Because (if it's not too late) they could just do it in the second round.
The rules on touch spells tell you what you can do in the round you cast the spell.
If you hold the charge, there are rules for that also.
They are different.
Where is the confusion exactly?
Darksol the Painbringer |
alexd1976 wrote:Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?
The attack is what causes the character to stop, not the attack roll. Even if they are hand-in-hand, we've already demonstrated that the only difference between touching an ally and touching an enemy is that one requires an attack roll for the effect to take place, the other does not and works automatically.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Notice how the same language is used in regards to both entities.
Again, if it's the Attack Roll that constitutes the stop, then Fireballs don't break Invisibility (because you say since no attack roll is involved, it's not an attack).
Berti Blackfoot |
The rules on touch spells tell you what you can do in the round you cast the spell.If you hold the charge, there are rules for that also.
They are different.
Where is the confusion exactly?
Not confusing, it just makes no sense for the behavior of a touch spell to change after round 1. But Re-reading it I agree your interpretation is RAW. I think I often just missed the word "held" in that sentence.
So then I suppose you can indeed deliver a touch spell to an ally while moving if you hold the charge and wait until the next round, for the same reason that you can accidentally discharge by merely a touch, in the next round.
Almost every single group I have played with uses the "accidental discharge" rule to apply always, even during the round you cast, since that is the most dangerous. I guess we've been playing wrong, or going by what we thought they intended.
The Human Diversion |
The Human Diversion wrote:alexd1976 wrote:Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?
The attack is what causes the character to stop, not the attack roll. Even if they are hand-in-hand, we've already demonstrated that the only difference between touching an ally and touching an enemy is that one requires an attack roll for the effect to take place, the other does not and works automatically.
Touch Spells in Combat wrote:You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Notice how the same language is used in regards to both entities.
Again, if it's the Attack Roll that constitutes the stop, then Fireballs don't break Invisibility (because you say since no attack roll is involved, it's not an attack).
And touching a willing ally to deliver a beneficial spell does in no way constitute an attack.
Gauss |
Gauss wrote:Yes, if you cast a harmful spell and high five your friend it discharges into your friend. That is in the rules.
Again, I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand (movement and delivering a touch spell as a free action).Then you agree that you can touch an ALLY to deliver a touch spell in the middle of a move.
To say otherwise would be to say: you can accidentally discharge your touch spell into an ally while moving, but you could not deliberately discharge your touch spell into an ally while moving. And that makes no sense whatsoever.
The OP asked about allies (not superstitious barbarians or enemies)
If you can unintentionally discharge a touch spell merely by touching, then you can intentionally discharge a touch spell merely by touching.
No, I do not agree that you can touch an ally to deliver a touch spell in the middle of a move.
First, if you are trying to touch your ally you must refer to the touch spell rules.
Second, if you are trying to say that giving someone a high five is a free action I would like you to demonstrate the rule regarding that.
If you try to high five someone while holding a charge then that is an intentional touch and falls under the touch spell rules.
It ends your movement since you cannot deliver a touch spell and continue moving as per the quoted rule.
The fact that you are trying to sidestep the rules by intentionally using 'unintentional touching' should be a clue that that is not intended.
Here is an example of what should be allowed:
You move, cast, and have no target.
Your ally moves to you and then spends an action (GM fiat as to what type, I would rule move) to grab your hand. That is unintentional (by you) touching and the spell discharges into your ally.
But, he has done the deed, not you.
alexd1976 |
The Human Diversion wrote:alexd1976 wrote:Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?
The attack is what causes the character to stop, not the attack roll. Even if they are hand-in-hand, we've already demonstrated that the only difference between touching an ally and touching an enemy is that one requires an attack roll for the effect to take place, the other does not and works automatically.
Touch Spells in Combat wrote:You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Notice how the same language is used in regards to both entities.
Again, if it's the Attack Roll that constitutes the stop, then Fireballs don't break Invisibility (because you say since no attack roll is involved, it's not an attack).
With the Touch Spells, its the rules text that determines the caster must stop... I have quoted it so many times I'm not going to bother anymore.
I wish the game allowed healers to move-heal-move, but as written, it really doesn't. If you want to house rule it to be different, that's your business.
Darksol the Painbringer |
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:And touching a willing ally to deliver a beneficial spell does in no way constitute an attack.The Human Diversion wrote:alexd1976 wrote:Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?
The attack is what causes the character to stop, not the attack roll. Even if they are hand-in-hand, we've already demonstrated that the only difference between touching an ally and touching an enemy is that one requires an attack roll for the effect to take place, the other does not and works automatically.
Touch Spells in Combat wrote:You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Notice how the same language is used in regards to both entities.
Again, if it's the Attack Roll that constitutes the stop, then Fireballs don't break Invisibility (because you say since no attack roll is involved, it's not an attack).
It does in the case of a Raging Superstition Barbarian, who is also an ally to the caster. Why is an attack required for that ally and not some other party member?
The Human Diversion |
It does in the case of a Raging Superstition Barbarian, who is also an ally to the caster. Why is an attack required for that ally and not some other party member?
That's not a "willing" ally. Rules are pretty clear that they stop being a willing ally when they rage and have the superstition rage power.
Darksol the Painbringer |
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:That's not a "willing" ally. Rules are pretty clear that they stop being a willing ally when they rage and have the superstition rage power.
It does in the case of a Raging Superstition Barbarian, who is also an ally to the caster. Why is an attack required for that ally and not some other party member?
Hmmm, it seems being an unwilling ally actually means nothing in regards to actually delivering the spell.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
Nothing in Superstition says you are required to try and avoid the spell, but then again, the ramifications of being a willing or unwilling target isn't 100% specified, and the only intent we can draw from it is that being unwilling requires you make a saving throw to mitigate/negate the effect of the spell, as per Superstition.
Coriat |
Byakko wrote:Hmmn, Darksol, I believe there are situations where you can "trick" a target into accepting a spell that they would not normally via the Bluff skill, and whatnot.
So assuming our superstitious barbarian has no knowledge of how spells and supernatural abilities work (which isn't that unreasonable of an assumption), could a character claim to be using a supernatural healing ability when they, in fact, had a healing spell "on hand"? While they might innately and instinctively resist the healing spell itself, the barbarian may willingly allow you to touch them before realizing the difference.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting gaming the system by using this as an excuse. This is purely cognitive conjecture.
This is a corner case and delves into the matter of "Can Bluff be used to do that?"
With that said, it falls into GM discretion, and a case could be made on a couple levels. The Bluff check could be used to either deceive or lie about your touch being a spell (but it's far-fetched, considering the Barbarian sees energy glowing from your hands), or you can try to feign harmlessness with your touch, but I imagine that too would be using similar modifiers. So I suppose it could be possible to negate the need for an attack roll with the associated skill check, but it is as you've said, it doesn't negate saving throws (and spell resistance) against the spell.
I suppose the opposite side could also be taken (Barbarian sees glowing hands of a Supernatural ability and thinks it's a spell), so YMMV.
You might get them on the touch.
Still, FAQ precedent does suggest (by analogy) that tricking someone about the nature of an effect you are going to use on them is ultimately ineffective in changing whether or not they get a saving throw.Malachi Silverclaw |
The 'may' word here is a restriction, not a limited sample of a myriad of ways.
Why? Because the sentence, understood as a limit on the ways you can use it, is the reason for the sentence being written.
If the sentence were to be understood as mere examples of the general rule that free actions can be taken at any time, even during other actions, then the sentence would have no function at all!
If the writers wanted to leave the general rule unchanged here, they would not have written such a sentence at all! If they thought we needed reminding about the general rule (as they sometimes do) then they would have quoted the general rule, not limited parts of it using a word which could be understood as a limit.
As Gauss pointed out, the original 3.5 wording was the same rule but without the superfluous 'free action' terminology. So, in 3.5, it wasn't a free action to deliver the touch, just part of the action that they allowed you to break up casting an delivery in these specified ways.
Byakko |
As Gauss pointed out, the original 3.5 wording was the same rule but without the superfluous 'free action' terminology. So, in 3.5, it wasn't a free action to deliver the touch, just part of the action that they allowed you to break up casting an delivery in these specified ways.
In 3.5 it wasn't a free action, and thus didn't fall under the purview of the free action rules.
Because pathfinder added the free action tag, it is now affected by all the rules concerning free actions, including the timing of their delivery.
Thus, this change has rendered the following sentence irrelevant where before it served a purpose. They could actually edit it out now, with no effect.
Byakko |
As for your free action house rule, it would be a house rule. I find no problem with free and swift actions being taken during other actions provided the rules are followed.
It's not a house rule:
Free Action: 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.
Okay, using what you have said above... I don't want to fire an additional time... I choose to fire FIVE additional times. The option isn't listed, but neither is it forbidden in any way, right?
Rapid shot gives you the option to fire a single additional time. You can either choose to take this option, or not. Where are you getting that you're allowed to use this option multiple times? Feats almost never stack with themselves.
Malachi Silverclaw |
If a feat or special ability or any other combat rule says that it's a free action to use it, but you may only take that free action before or after another action (but not during), then this is not trumped by the general rule that lets you use it during another action. Such a priority order is not sane, as it renders the specific limitation inoperable.
The only possible, logical interpretation of this is 'specific beats general'. You might have heard this phrase before.
In context, the general rule (that you may take free action during other actions) is trumped by the specific rule (you may only deliver the touch attack in the three ways described).
As for PF adding the free action phrase meaning that PF deliberately changed how it works, the if they deliberately wanted to allow touch attacks to be delivered during other actions, then they would have taken out the sentence which meant that you could not do that.
Darksol the Painbringer |
However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
So this line would actually support the RAI of Spring Attack setting the precedent of being unable to deliver touch spells to allies as a free action while moving, as it is a reasonable limit on that Free Action.
Although the ultimate choice is GM FIAT, I'm certain that in PFS gameplay, you aren't getting away with those shenanigans.
Darksol the Painbringer |
If a feat or special ability or any other combat rule says that it's a free action to use it, but you may only take that free action before or after another action (but not during), then this is not trumped by the general rule that lets you use it during another action. Such a priority order is not sane, as it renders the specific limitation inoperable.
The only possible, logical interpretation of this is 'specific beats general'. You might have heard this phrase before.
In context, the general rule (that you may take free action during other actions) is trumped by the specific rule (you may only deliver the touch attack in the three ways described).
As for PF adding the free action phrase meaning that PF deliberately changed how it works, the if they deliberately wanted to allow touch attacks to be delivered during other actions, then they would have taken out the sentence which meant that you could not do that.
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.
Show me where in that paragraph the word "only" is. And I'll give you the answer: You can't. Because it's not there.
If you're going to say that there are limiting factors, show language that implies such. You have no case otherwise.
Byakko |
Although the ultimate choice is GM FIAT, I'm certain that in PFS gameplay, you aren't getting away with those shenanigans.
Actually, it's completely the opposite. The rule is there to prevent people getting away with shenanigans, particularly in organized play like PFS. Note this isn't making use of "Rule 0". The adjudication of free actions by the GM is written directly into the rules item concerning them.
If a feat or special ability or any other combat rule says that it's a free action to use it.
, butyou mayonlytake that free action before or after...In context, the general rule (that you may take free action during other actions) is trumped by the specific rule (you may
onlydeliver the touch attack in the three ways described).
1) As noted above, there is no "only" in the sentence. If there was, or if the word "must" was used, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
2) Specific beats general, yes. However there is no specific rule given which overrides the general in this situation. The use of the word "may" gives an option (or presents an example), and doesn't restrict the use of the standard and generic rules.
Byakko |
This wouldn't be the first time unneeded language or unnecessary examples were given with a piece of rules. Heck, we all remember the old Prone Shooter, right?
They likely added the "free action" tag without fully realizing the effects of the change, and failed to edit the following sentence to account for it. (either by removing it or changing its language)
Anguish |
All it takes is one Bad Touch dragon doing this in the middle of a nice fly 250 to convince players they don't want touches to be delivered during movement.
When trying to determine what the rules mean when there is language ambiguity, it's useful to ask yourself "why do we want this to be allowed?" In this case, it's so a caster can do moar! It's not because it makes sense, aids realism, or solves some in-game problem. It's "wouldn't it be nice if - unlike everyone else in the game - a touch spell caster could start & end his turn unthreatened and/or not waste any precious movement?"
When you're trying to parse "may" and "can" like a Clintonian lawyer asking what the meaning of the word "is" is, and you're doing it so "moar!", it's probably a really good sign that no, you can't do whatever it is you're asking for.
Not the most broken rules question ever, but part of the balancing nature of touch spells is that you have to get to your target and stay there. Risk, reward.
Malachi Silverclaw |
1) As noted above, there is no "only" in the sentence. If there was, or if the word "must" was used, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The word 'must' cannot be used here, because if it was then you'd have no option but to deliver the touch this round. You may deliver the touch this round, but you can hold the charge if you want to.
2) Specific beats general, yes. However there is no specific rule given which overrides the general in this situation. The use of the word "may" gives an option (or presents an example), and doesn't restrict the use of the standard and generic rules.
When I was a kid, I'd ask my dad, 'Can I have a cookie?'
His answer? 'You can, but you may not'.
He was teaching me that 'can' implies the ability to eat a cookie, while 'may' gives me permission.
I'd try again: 'Dad, may I have a cookie, please?'
'Well...okay, you may have a Custard Cream'.
If I took a chocolate digestive instead, and tried to tell him that he never said I couldn't have a chocolate digestive, I would've been sent to bed without supper, and no I couldn't stay up late to watch Star Trek after all!
The rule about touch spells and when you can deliver that touch gives you permission to do something that the rules do not usually allow, but only in the specific ways mentioned. If the word was used in the way that meant 'you can use this free action in these three specific ways...or any other way you can use free actions!', then it would be a mockery of both the rules and the reader. The three specific ways mentioned would be a totally pointless waste of ink, space and time.
Also, we know that the rule in 3.5 worked in those three exact ways, because the phrase 'free action' isn't mentioned. We must also conclude that PF did not deliberately change the delivery time from 'those three' to 'any time', because if they were deliberately changing how the rule worked then they'd've taken out the part which can be read as meaning the opposite, that you only have permission to use those three ways.
We know that 3.5 used 'may' as permission, because without that rule there would be no way to deliver the touch except as part of the action used to cast the spell. PF knew that the word 'may' meant 'permission' in that sentence, therefore they could not leave that sentence in there if they were deliberately changing how the rule works.
Byakko |
I have no ulterior motives here. I don't have a caster who uses touch attacks, nor do I plan to.
This is about analyzing what the rules do and do not allow. Just because they don't conform with your preconceived notion of how they should work doesn't give you blanket permission to ignore them.
Case in point: I was under the impression that you couldn't cast a quickened spell in the middle of a charge. Turn out the rules do actually allow for it. Do I think it's intended for people to do this? Not really, but I accept that it conforms with the rules, and can only hope that a FAQ will one day address it.
I would hope people would take a similar position in regards to this.
Gauss |
Byakko,
This isn't the same as the old Prone Shooter.
Prone Shooter removed a limitation that did not exist.
The addition of free action to the Touch Spells rule established an action type without removing the limitation on when the action could be used.
That is completely different since the rule still works. It just doesn't work the way you want it to.
Anyhow, it has been shown that this isn't an example which was once claimed.
The Touch Spells rule governing when the action can occur still works (unlike Prone Shooter).
For this to be a mistake on the Devs part you would need to show why the Touch Spells rule cannot function as written, or, you could FAQ it.
Byakko |
Byakko wrote:1) As noted above, there is no "only" in the sentence. If there was, or if the word "must" was used, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.The word 'must' cannot be used here, because if it was then you'd have no option but to deliver the touch this round. You may deliver the touch this round, but you can hold the charge if you want to.
Quote:2) Specific beats general, yes. However there is no specific rule given which overrides the general in this situation. The use of the word "may" gives an option (or presents an example), and doesn't restrict the use of the standard and generic rules.When I was a kid, I'd ask my dad, 'Can I have a cookie?'
His answer? 'You can, but you may not'.
He was teaching me that 'can' implies the ability to eat a cookie, while 'may' gives me permission.
I'd try again: 'Dad, may I have a cookie, please?'
'Well...okay, you may have a Custard Cream'.
If I took a chocolate digestive instead, and tried to tell him that he never said I couldn't have a chocolate digestive, I would've been sent to bed without supper, and no I couldn't stay up late to watch Star Trek after all!
The rule about touch spells and when you can deliver that touch gives you permission to do something that the rules do not usually allow, but only in the specific ways mentioned. If the word was used in the way that meant 'you can use this free action in these three specific ways...or any other way you can use free actions!', then it would be a mockery of both the rules and the reader. The three specific ways mentioned would be a totally pointless waste of ink, space and time.
Also, we know that the rule in 3.5 worked in those three exact ways, because the phrase 'free action' isn't mentioned. We must also conclude that PF did not deliberately change the delivery time from 'those three' to 'any time', because if they were deliberately changing how the rule worked then they'd've taken out the part which can be...
I agree that there are multiple meanings for the word "may", but your example is not a particularly good one.
Consider this more apt example:
"You may have a cookie at any time during the day.
As mentioned before, you may have a cookie at any time during the day. You may have a cookie in the morning, at noon, or the evening."
The kid eats the cookie in the afternoon. Do you really think this is outside of the guidelines the father gave? To me, those three specific times sound more like examples than anything else, and aren't even really needed as they're encompassed within "any time during the day".
The rule about touch spells and when you can deliver that touch gives you permission to do something that the rules do not usually allow, but only in the specific ways mentioned.
I'd also like to note that the rules DO normally allow and give permission to deliver the touch spell in the middle of a move, because it is a free action to do so. You're also using the word "only" again whereas it doesn't exist in the actual rules.
Byakko |
Byakko,
This isn't the same as the old Prone Shooter.
Prone Shooter removed a limitation that did not exist.
The addition of free action to the Touch Spells rule established an action type without removing the limitation on when the action could be used.
That is completely different since the rule still works. It just doesn't work the way you want it to.Anyhow, it has been shown that this isn't an example which was once claimed.
The Touch Spells rule governing when the action can occur still works (unlike Prone Shooter).
For this to be a mistake on the Devs part you would need to show why the Touch Spells rule cannot function as written, or, you could FAQ it.
The Prone Shooter example was to show that rules aren't always perfectly thought out and sometimes rules are given which don't make perfect sense or provide unneeded options.
By labeling it as a free action, they also immediately attached all the rules associated with free actions. The preexisting rules on touch spells granted permission to deliver the spell in certain ways. Making it a free action granted it more, broader, permission on when it could be used. There are no limitations being made here, only permissions granted.
There is no need for a FAQ as the rules for touch spells work. An extra "example" sentence isn't doing any harm, unless you misread it.
Gauss |
Byakko, they made delivering touch spells a free action without changing the special rules on how you can deliver touch spells.
How can that not be a limitation?
The burden of proof is on you because the RAW clearly works as it is. For your statement to work we have to ignore the RAW by assuming that the Devs made an error. That is what you keep doing, assuming there was an error.
So, for that assumption to be borne out you need to get a Dev to agree with you (such as by FAQing it).
In any case, I think we are at an impasse unless you can show a rule or a Dev comment that allows you to ignore the limitation.
Byakko |
Gauss, by changing the delivery to a free action they intrinsically also changed how it could be delivered. The rules for free action delivery came along for the ride.
The second sentence is not semantically linked or phrased in a way as to be a limitation of the first sentence. It can either be read as a set of examples or an outdated set of permissions which have been subsumed by the broader permissions already given by merit of being a free action.
I'm doing a fairly literal reading of the sentences and basing my conclusions on firmly established examples located elsewhere in the rules.
If you wish to contend differently, the burden of proof lies on you, not me. While I'm guessing the Devs may have made a mistake, it is your task to decisively show that they meant something different than what they wrote. If this is the case, you should put in a FAQ so that they can correct RAW to reflect their actual intent.
Gauss |
Byakko, your logic escapes me. You tell me that it is my task to decisively show that they meant something different than what they wrote, and yet, you are claiming that they meant something different than what they wrote.
You are claiming that the limitation sentence does not apply, thus, they meant something different than what they wrote. Why are you contradicting yourself?
To put this another way:
1) It is a free action to deliver a touch spell in the same round you cast the spell.
2) A free action can be used during another action such as a move.
3) You can use a move action before you cast, before you touch, or after you touch.
How does 3 NOT contradict 2? Seriously, they are in direct opposition. There is literally no way to read #2 and #3 and not see that they are in conflict.
So, to resolve the conflict we ask which one is general and which one is specific.
#2 deals with free actions across the board. Thus, it is general.
#3 deals with touch spells only, it is very very specific.
Specific trumps General.
This is exactly RAW from what is written. I have shown it. Others have shown it. You do not see it, that is your prerogative. Do what you want in your own games, that too is your prerogative. But really, you cannot state that the Devs made an error and therefore RAW isn't RAW.
In any case, I think the sides are well established and the OP can decide what is good for his game. Debating this further with you is not productive.
Byakko |
Byakko, your logic escapes me. You tell me that it is my task to decisively show that they meant something different than what they wrote, and yet, you are claiming that they meant something different than what they wrote.
I suspect they may have intended something different than what they wrote, but this is pure speculation. My suspicions concern ALL free actions, not just the one in this particular example.
However, barring clarifications, we should look at the actual rules when deciding how to adjudicate.You are claiming that the limitation sentence does not apply, thus, they meant something different than what they wrote. Why are you contradicting yourself?
Again, there are no limitations involved here. Rules are generally permissive, and this is no exception. Being granted permission to do multiple things does not mean only one of them is allowed.
To put this another way:
1) It is a free action to deliver a touch spell in the same round you cast the spell.
2) A free action can be used during another action such as a move.
3) You can use a move action before you cast, before you touch, or after you touch.How does 3 NOT contradict 2? Seriously, they are in direct opposition. There is literally no way to read #2 and #3 and not see that they are in conflict.
2 and 3 do not contradict. They are two distinct options; you can use either of them.
If you have the Kip-Up ability, you can stand from prone as a swift action in addition to being able to stand up as a move action. While the second choice may seem redundant and overlapping, they are not mutually exclusive and either can be used as desired. If you became nauseated, you could still stand up as a move action.
So, to resolve the conflict we ask which one is general and which one is specific.
#2 deals with free actions across the board. Thus, it is general.
#3 deals with touch spells only, it is very very specific.Specific trumps General.
The general case is being able to cast as a standard action and affect a target within range.
There are two different specific cases:
#2 allows you to deliver the touch in the same round as a free action.
#3 allows you to, for example, cast the spell, move, and then touch someone as a free action.
While #3 is nice, it's not really needed as you can already do that using #2, so it would usually make sense to use specific rule #2. Indeed, #3 could be seen as examples of how you could use #2.
This is exactly RAW from what is written. I have shown it. Others have shown it. You do not see it, that is your prerogative. Do what you want in your own games, that too is your prerogative. But really, you cannot state that the Devs made an error and therefore RAW isn't RAW.
In any case, I think the sides are well established and the OP can decide what is good for his game. Debating this further with you is not productive.
I never stated the Devs made an error. I have merely noted that the rules they wrote have had (potentially) unexpected consequences. I am giving you the rules as written, and I'm sorry if the logic escapes you. I understand that if you stretch the English language, you can come away with alternate readings, but there's nothing solid to support such readings within the rules.
While I'd be happy to give additional examples, if your mind is firmly set, you're right in that it's probably not productive to continue. No hard feelings, though.
zza ni |
wow all this and it seems no1 ever bothered about my post right at the start..94 posts ago.
so once again.. the wording on the touch spell has nothing to do with limiting the uses of a free action. it is there to explain that you can move before the attack part of a touch spell happen.
look, normaly say with an auto attack spell like fireball\magic missile or a ranged touch attack like scorching ray, you do the attack as part of casting the spell.that is the defult- you can't move before the effect of the spell happen. now in the touch spells it is mantioned that you can move before casting the spell-which is true to ANY spell that take a standrd action to cast, or after you deliver the touch- again true to any spell with standrd casting time that you can move after you finish using it. what touch spell rules come to teach us is the fact you can move aftre the casting part,But beofre the attack part of the spell which in other spells do not happen!(unless you have cast on the run or however it is called).
the words of "may move ..etc" is not a limit on how you deliver the spell. it is an explanation of how you may MOVE in a round you cast one such spell.as in befoer the full effect of the spell happen. unlike other spells that cant be interupted in this way.
Gauss |
zza ni, it is NOT there to explain that you can move before the attack part of a touch spell happens. Didn't you read the counter to that?
Before the free action sentence was ever added to the Touch Spell rules that line diagramming how you were able to attack existed.
All the free action line does is spell out what actual action is used.
That does not remove the restriction placed upon it before the free action sentence was added.