Chill Touch - does it end if you cast another spell?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I tried to search this but the threads seemed to bounce back and forth as to what position Chill Touch held.

So I cast Chill Touch and make an attack.
Next turn I decide to cast another spell while I still have uses of Chill Touch left. The the Chill Touch end?

If you do that with a Touch Attack like Vampiric Touch the Vampiric Touch ends. Is Chill Touch the same or is it treated like a normal duration spell, i.e. The Chill Touch keeps functioning?

Thanks


From touch spells in combat
Combat
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 touch spell dissipates after casting another spell. Despite having multiple uses.


The problem is Holding the Charge is clearly talking about a single charge attack spell.
So their is a legitimate question of whether it still applies to Chill Touch, especially given that it's a legacy spell (in other words doesn't always fit the current rules).That seemed to be a large part of the previous back and forth arguments in previous thread. I didn't look through all the previous threads.
Was their ever a FAQ or errata confirming multitouch attacks spells operate by the same rules as single touch attack spells?


Chill Touch, Frostbite and similar spells grant multiple charges per casting so you would be able to hold the charge repeatedly until you've all the available charges.

However by casting another spell you lose the remaining charges...

I cant find anything in the rules that would allow you to keep the charges or multiple melee touch attacks as the spells call them.

These specific touch spells have a duration of instantaneous which is Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. rather than a timed duration which means to me you have to be holding charges as that is the only option from the rules regarding touch spells that would allow you to even keep the spell active for more than a turn to begin with.

In regard to the Holding the charge stated above it says until the spell is discharged not just a single attack so I would say that the holding the charge option is applicable to multiple attacks from a single spell until the spell is discharged entirely.

And then it says If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates therefore you'd lose any charges you have yet to use.


Stephen Ede wrote:
The problem is Holding the Charge is clearly talking about a single charge attack spell.

No, it isn't. Notice the second sentence states "you can continue to make touch attacks round after round". (Emphasis mine.)

The rules for Holding the Charge clearly also apply to spells with multiple charges. :)

So yes, casting another spell would dissipate any held charges as per usual.


Touch spells with multiple charges dissipate if you cast another spell prior to using all charges.


Beast Form into a Hydra THEN cast Chill Touch... which means you need to have the silent & still spell feats.


Omagi wrote:

From touch spells in combat

Combat
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 touch spell dissipates after casting another spell. Despite having multiple uses.

The problem I see is that with an instant spell, the spell is already discharged when you cast the second spell. The first spell's effects are still hanging around, however.

Both Chill-Touch and Frostbite list a range of touch, yet both specify your attack is what causes damage. Chill Touch places energy around your hand that is clearly there after the instantaneous spell is cast. Frostbite transforms you so that your melee touch attacks do magical damage for multiple attacks, which can clearly be well after the instantaneous spell is cast.

So either these are personal spells that are instantaneous or touch spells that are not instantaneous. The former allows casting an additional spell, the latter does not. Which is it? Since text trumps table in several FAQs, and no FAQ reads table over text, I am inclined to think the former.

/cevah


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure I follow your logic there Cevah, I can't see any justification for your position (albeit slightly less so with frostbite than chill touch). They are touch spells that are instantaneous - same as any other touch spell. Just because you have multiple uses doesn't change the fact that you are holding the charge and if you cast a second spell that charge dissipates taking all remaining uses with it.


The difference is between a held spell and an active spell.

How do I "hold" a charge on an active spell? It is already cast and activated.

Say I cast a spell that I can use on 6 people I touch. I can cast, move, then touch 6 people in a round. Possibly avoiding an AoO for casting in combat by casting at a distance first. This is clearly a held spell.

If I cast, say, goodberry, I transform several berries into delayed healing/food, but the spell is cast and over with that round. This holds the effect for days. Does the effect go away if I cast another spell? I don't think so. This is clearly a cast spell with an effect that lasts beyond the spell casting.

What are Chill Touch and Frostbite? They act like the latter, so I think they should not be considered held charges.

EDIT:

dragonhunterq wrote:
They are touch spells that are instantaneous - same as any other touch spell.

Actually, only about 20% of touch spells are instantaneous.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

The difference is between a held spell and an active spell.

How do I "hold" a charge on an active spell? It is already cast and activated.

Say I cast a spell that I can use on 6 people I touch. I can cast, move, then touch 6 people in a round. Possibly avoiding an AoO for casting in combat by casting at a distance first. This is clearly a held spell.

If I cast, say, goodberry, I transform several berries into delayed healing/food, but the spell is cast and over with that round. This holds the effect for days. Does the effect go away if I cast another spell? I don't think so. This is clearly a cast spell with an effect that lasts beyond the spell casting.

What are Chill Touch and Frostbite? They act like the latter, so I think they should not be considered held charges.

EDIT:

dragonhunterq wrote:
They are touch spells that are instantaneous - same as any other touch spell.

Actually, only about 20% of touch spells are instantaneous.

/cevah

all melee touch spell that you cast only has one charge (same for ranged that you decide to not throw), some say they have more charge but it do not matter how much charge they have the moment you cast another spell all the charge are gone since the spell is dismissed, and you can't cast move then do 6 attack, casting require a standard action (that let you take one touch attack for free) and doing 6 touch attack is a full attack which is a full round action but you are still limited by your BAB iterative attack


While holding the charge states you can make multiple attacks to discharge the spell, it does not say you can make multiple hits to do so. That is, each time you attack and miss, you still hold the charge. Once you hit, it is discharged.

As to cast, move, and then multiple touch, you can if the touch is on allies. [Since touching allies is not an attack.]

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

While holding the charge states you can make multiple attacks to discharge the spell, it does not say you can make multiple hits to do so. That is, each time you attack and miss, you still hold the charge. Once you hit, it is discharged.

As to cast, move, and then multiple touch, you can if the touch is on allies. [Since touching allies is not an attack.]

/cevah

touching an ally is a standard action, it is free if you cast the spell and touch them right now, or else its a standard action for one and up to 6 as a full round action.

specific rules negate generic rules, the rule for holding a charge is the generic one, the one that the spell say is a specific one and is above the general one, so if a spell say after x hit the spell is discharge it is discharge after x hit, but since it do not say otherwise so you return to the general rule which is, if you cast another spell it is discharge completely


Cevah wrote:

The difference is between a held spell and an active spell.

How do I "hold" a charge on an active spell? It is already cast and activated.

Say I cast a spell that I can use on 6 people I touch. I can cast, move, then touch 6 people in a round. Possibly avoiding an AoO for casting in combat by casting at a distance first. This is clearly a held spell.

If I cast, say, goodberry, I transform several berries into delayed healing/food, but the spell is cast and over with that round. This holds the effect for days. Does the effect go away if I cast another spell? I don't think so. This is clearly a cast spell with an effect that lasts beyond the spell casting.

What are Chill Touch and Frostbite? They act like the latter, so I think they should not be considered held charges.

/cevah

The rules on touch spells are clear (clearer than most at least :)). You hold the charge until you run out of charges or cast another spell. There is nothing in either spell to alter the way the basic rules work. Goodberry is not a touch spell and works quite differently by design. Any parallels you see are incidental and have no basis in the rules. I certainly don't agree that they work the same way at all.


Are people seriously arguing that you're supposed to be able to cast a bunch of spells like chill touch and then trigger them all at once in a single attack?


PRD

Holding the Charge wrote:
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.

If you attack and hit, the charge is discharged. You cannot hold a charge beyond that first touch.

So how does a multi-touch spell like Chill Touch work? That second touch cannot be the spell, since the spell is already discharged per the rules on holding the charge. Also, the spell is instantaneous, so it is not hanging around. What does hang around is the effect of the spell: the energy glow on the hand that does cold damage.

Since the spell is already cast and discharged, casting another spell cannot dissipate it.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Are people seriously arguing that you're supposed to be able to cast a bunch of spells like chill touch and then trigger them all at once in a single attack?

Given the way I read the rule for holding a charge, I don't see any problem with multiple such spell at the same time. However, I can see problems this can make with adjudicating multiple spell effects at ocne.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

PRD

Holding the Charge wrote:
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.

If you attack and hit, the charge is discharged. You cannot hold a charge beyond that first touch.

So how does a multi-touch spell like Chill Touch work? That second touch cannot be the spell, since the spell is already discharged per the rules on holding the charge. Also, the spell is instantaneous, so it is not hanging around. What does hang around is the effect of the spell: the energy glow on the hand that does cold damage.

Since the spell is already cast and discharged, casting another spell cannot dissipate it.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Are people seriously arguing that you're supposed to be able to cast a bunch of spells like chill touch and then trigger them all at once in a single attack?

Given the way I read the rule for holding a charge, I don't see any problem with multiple such spell at the same time. However, I can see problems this can make with adjudicating multiple spell effects at ocne.

/cevah

like i have said earlier specific rules are above general rules, normally you touch something or someone the spell is discharge but spell like chill touch say how much attack you can made before it is discharge, the amount is written in the spell, and since it say nothing else you return to the general rule which say if you cast another spell it is discharge, and dude you are limited by you BAB for the number of attack you can make, chill touch say you have X attack with this spell before it is discharge, its very simple you just need to read


Spells like Chill Touch are still touch attacks, and thus you are holding a charge. The fact that Chill Touch grants X touch attacks is entirely irrelevant. You're still hold a charge, this one can just be used X times.

If you then cast Cure Light Wounds, you dispel your Chill touch. Or lightning bolt. Or fireball. Or Prestidigitation.

Any touch attack which can be used this way is, in fact, a charge-based spell, regardless of how many uses the spell has.

Further, to the folks politely saying that you can touch your allies with it and not discharge into them, no. You can't. "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." This is clear, explicit, and specific. If you cast Cure Critical Wounds and to heal an ally, but they're out of range so you have to hold the charge, and your enemy punches you, you heal them. If you cast Chill Touch and have not discharged it's full capacity, and your cleric heals you, you discharge into THEM. The key here is "even unintentionally."


I'm pretty sure you have to do the touching to discharge a Touch spell.

If you are holding a Intesified Shocking Grasp and a Monk attacks and hits you with an unarmed attack they don't take damage from the Shocking Grasp.

Grappling is more iffy. Personally I would say if your opponent initiated the Grapple you can argue that he doesn't let you hand touch him.
On the otherhand if in your turn you initiate an opposed grapple check, even if only to break free, I would think it's pretty much guaranteed you will get to touch the enemy and discharge the spell.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Are people seriously arguing that you're supposed to be able to cast a bunch of spells like chill touch and then trigger them all at once in a single attack?

It would appear so.

Foolish mortals, all they need to do is activate spell trigger items for all spells after the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
So how does a multi-touch spell like Chill Touch work? That second touch cannot be the spell, since the spell is already discharged per the rules on holding the charge.

Chill touch (and some other spells like frostbite) can discharge multiple times. Discharging, unlike dissipating, doesn't necessarily end you holding a charge, it simply discharges one charge. Of course for all of the touch spells with a single charge, discharging one charge also means you are not holding any charges.

It is absolutely clear that casting a spell while holding a charged touch spell will dissipate the spell, meaning you are no longer holding any charges for that spell.


Well as the person who asked the question I'm reasonably satisfied with the answer that the spell is dismissed if you cast any other spell.

Although just to clarify - if you cast Chill Touch and then cast other spells using Spell Trigger devices your Chill Touch will remain. Correct?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You do realize that accepting the reigning opinion does nothing to stem the tide of responses, often unrelated, right? People (me included) tend argue, sometimes in violent agreement, indefinitely, just because. :)


Stephen Ede wrote:
Although just to clarify - if you cast Chill Touch and then cast other spells using Spell Trigger devices your Chill Touch will remain. Correct?

Not based upon my understanding. Activating these items allows you to cast a spell, but even though the item is giving you the access (and providing the 'spell slot') you are still casting a spell.

Wands: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Staves: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Potions are more questionable, but they do say that the imbiber is both the target and the caster of the spell. Other items would depend on their wording, but most commonly wouldn't be casting a spell.

Spell-like-abilities, with their language of "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." probably count as casting a spell. Supernatural abilities generally would not.


"Even unintentionally" This is a clear line. Yes, if you cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp, and a monk punches you, YES, you've just discharged into the monk. It doesn't matter if you like it. It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense. That's expressly what the rules say.


Dave Justus wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Although just to clarify - if you cast Chill Touch and then cast other spells using Spell Trigger devices your Chill Touch will remain. Correct?
Not based upon my understanding. Activating these items allows you to cast a spell, but even though the item is giving you the access (and providing the 'spell slot') you are still casting a spell.

Activating a "Spell Trigger" item is completely separate from "casting". In terms dissipating held charges, spell trigger items are no more considered casting than use-activated items (e.g. confirming a critical hit with a flaming burst weapon) or a command word activated item (e.g. an Iron Fortress).

Of the four methods of activating magic items, only "Spell Completion" has any similarities to actual spell casting. As Spell Completion specifies that you are finalizing the casting of a spell, and using all the components and mechanics of spellcasting, it would most likely dissipate held charges.

We could, argue that emulated spellcasting works like actual spellcasting, but we know that to be false. It does not.


Zarius wrote:
"Even unintentionally" This is a clear line. Yes, if you cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp, and a monk punches you, YES, you've just discharged into the monk. It doesn't matter if you like it. It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense. That's expressly what the rules say.

no its not if someone or you touch each other or similar its if you touch someone even unintentionally, if i hit you you do not touch me mechanically in the game, for touching me mechanically in the game you need to make a touch attack or i need to be willing to be touched


John Murdock wrote:
Cevah wrote:

The difference is between a held spell and an active spell.

How do I "hold" a charge on an active spell? It is already cast and activated.

Say I cast a spell that I can use on 6 people I touch. I can cast, move, then touch 6 people in a round. Possibly avoiding an AoO for casting in combat by casting at a distance first. This is clearly a held spell.

If I cast, say, goodberry, I transform several berries into delayed healing/food, but the spell is cast and over with that round. This holds the effect for days. Does the effect go away if I cast another spell? I don't think so. This is clearly a cast spell with an effect that lasts beyond the spell casting.

What are Chill Touch and Frostbite? They act like the latter, so I think they should not be considered held charges.

EDIT:

dragonhunterq wrote:
They are touch spells that are instantaneous - same as any other touch spell.

Actually, only about 20% of touch spells are instantaneous.

/cevah

all melee touch spell that you cast only has one charge (same for ranged that you decide to not throw), some say they have more charge but it do not matter how much charge they have the moment you cast another spell all the charge are gone since the spell is dismissed, and you can't cast move then do 6 attack, casting require a standard action (that let you take one touch attack for free) and doing 6 touch attack is a full attack which is a full round action but you are still limited by your BAB iterative attack

FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Touch Spells: If a spell allows multiple touches, are you considered to be holding the charge until all charges are expended?

Yes.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Activating a "Spell Trigger" item is completely separate from "casting". In terms dissipating held charges, spell trigger items are no more considered casting than use-activated items (e.g. confirming a critical hit with a flaming burst weapon) or a command word activated item (e.g. an Iron Fortress).

Other than your assertion, do you have any evidence to back this up? I quoted from the rules where it specifically says activating a spell-trigger item is casting a spell. A character casting a spell from an item is still casting a spell, as far as I can tell.

I could of course be wrong, but you just saying that I am is hardly convincing.

(Certainly neither damage from a flaming weapon or activating a Iron Fortress is casting a spell).


Zarius wrote:

Spells like Chill Touch are still touch attacks, and thus you are holding a charge. The fact that Chill Touch grants X touch attacks is entirely irrelevant. You're still hold a charge, this one can just be used X times.

If you then cast Cure Light Wounds, you dispel your Chill touch. Or lightning bolt. Or fireball. Or Prestidigitation.

Any touch attack which can be used this way is, in fact, a charge-based spell, regardless of how many uses the spell has.

Further, to the folks politely saying that you can touch your allies with it and not discharge into them, no. You can't. "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." This is clear, explicit, and specific. If you cast Cure Critical Wounds and to heal an ally, but they're out of range so you have to hold the charge, and your enemy punches you, you heal them. If you cast Chill Touch and have not discharged it's full capacity, and your cleric heals you, you discharge into THEM. The key here is "even unintentionally."

You need to read the spell carefully.

Accidentally discharging may merely fizzle the charge. Examples:
Cure Light Wounds: When laying your hand ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle.
Chill Touch: A touch from your hand, ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle. However, you can always attack with it once per level no matter how many discharges, since the wording is "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." You may be limited in number creatures touched due to the target line.
Frostbite: Your melee touch attack ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle. However, you can always attack with it once per level no matter how many discharges, since the wording is "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." Big issue is the target line is creature, singular not plural, so all those attacks must be on a single creature.
Vampiric Touch: You must succeed on a melee touch attack.... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Touch Spells: If a spell allows multiple touches, are you considered to be holding the charge until all charges are expended?

Yes.

Good find. Again, careful reading is important.

/cevah


Dave Justus wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Although just to clarify - if you cast Chill Touch and then cast other spells using Spell Trigger devices your Chill Touch will remain. Correct?
Spell-like-abilities, with their language of "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." probably count as casting a spell. Supernatural abilities generally would not.

Spell-like abilities aren't casting a spell.

They've made that quite clear repeatedly.

It should more be "except for creating the effect spell-like abilities are NOT like casting a spell."


Stephen Ede wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Although just to clarify - if you cast Chill Touch and then cast other spells using Spell Trigger devices your Chill Touch will remain. Correct?
Spell-like-abilities, with their language of "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." probably count as casting a spell. Supernatural abilities generally would not.

Spell-like abilities aren't casting a spell.

They've made that quite clear repeatedly.

It should more be "except for creating the effect spell-like abilities are NOT like casting a spell."

The rules do not agree with you on that. SLA's are identical to spells except for a few specifics listed. (There have been a couple of FAQs adding some exceptions to, but they are more like spells than they are different from them.)

SRD wrote:


Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.


Cevah wrote:
Zarius wrote:

Spells like Chill Touch are still touch attacks, and thus you are holding a charge. The fact that Chill Touch grants X touch attacks is entirely irrelevant. You're still hold a charge, this one can just be used X times.

If you then cast Cure Light Wounds, you dispel your Chill touch. Or lightning bolt. Or fireball. Or Prestidigitation.

Any touch attack which can be used this way is, in fact, a charge-based spell, regardless of how many uses the spell has.

Further, to the folks politely saying that you can touch your allies with it and not discharge into them, no. You can't. "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." This is clear, explicit, and specific. If you cast Cure Critical Wounds and to heal an ally, but they're out of range so you have to hold the charge, and your enemy punches you, you heal them. If you cast Chill Touch and have not discharged it's full capacity, and your cleric heals you, you discharge into THEM. The key here is "even unintentionally."

You need to read the spell carefully.

Accidentally discharging may merely fizzle the charge. Examples:
Cure Light Wounds: When laying your hand ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle.
Chill Touch: A touch from your hand, ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle. However, you can always attack with it once per level no matter how many discharges, since the wording is "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." You may be limited in number creatures touched due to the target line.
Frostbite: Your melee touch attack ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle. However, you can always attack with it once per...

Your first two examples are valid. They specify the hands, and specific overrules general. Your third and fourth, however, fall into what I was saying. A melee touch attack can easily be accomplished with the feet or, as previously mentioned, your genitals. Your first two have grounds to argue that it's not appropriate, but your other two do not.

More importantly, however, this is another case where the specific overrules the general. Discharging the spell, not disRUPTING the spell, is causing it to do it's effect. All of your spell information is upon casting the spells. Going stabbity on someone and causing the spell to discharge into your weapon is a form of disruption, as you've discharged into an inappropriate target (however, arguably, it's still discharged into your weapon and should damage your weapon). But regardless of what you like, the Holding the Charge rules take over AFTER normal spell casting has ended and you've chosen or been forced to hold the charge. This is a specific rule set for after normal functionality. This is RAW, this is a specific case set.


bbangerter wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Although just to clarify - if you cast Chill Touch and then cast other spells using Spell Trigger devices your Chill Touch will remain. Correct?
Spell-like-abilities, with their language of "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." probably count as casting a spell. Supernatural abilities generally would not.

Spell-like abilities aren't casting a spell.

They've made that quite clear repeatedly.

It should more be "except for creating the effect spell-like abilities are NOT like casting a spell."

The rules do not agree with you on that. SLA's are identical to spells except for a few specifics listed. (There have been a couple of FAQs adding some exceptions to, but they are more like spells than they are different from them.)

SRD wrote:


Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

You also can't can't tell what spell is been cast with a Spell-like ability.

So Spell like abilities require no Verbal, Somatic or Material Components, nor does it require a Focus, nor can you tell what is been cast. You also can't count been able to cast a Spell as a Spell like ability as a Prereq for a Feat, or Prestige Class. You can't apply general Metamagic feats to them (there are Metamagic feats for Spell-like abilities but they work quite differently. They also have different rules for casting time.

But the spell-like ability does have the same effect as the Spell, does cause an AOO if you don't defensively cast when threatened., you do have to make Concentration Cks if damaged while casting it.

So yeah, aside from an awful lot of differences, it's just the same.


SLA can be spellcrafted if it's imitating a spell, there is a clearly magical manifestation to ID the spell.
It counts as casting that spell for feats and prestige classes, just not as generic casting.


Stephen Ede wrote:


You also can't can't tell what spell is been cast with a Spell-like ability.

This FAQ disagrees with you.

Stephen Ede wrote:


...You also can't count been able to cast a Spell as a Spell like ability as a Prereq for a Feat, or Prestige Class.

As does this FAQ (with certain restrictions)

Stephen Ede wrote:


You can't apply general Metamagic feats to them (there are Metamagic feats for Spell-like abilities but they work quite differently.

You got this one right. It should be noted though that in the response they point out that SLA's don't have spell slots. So it doesn't make sense for metamagic to be applicable to an SLA because there is no slot for the SLA to be increased by the metamagic, resulting in an invalid operation.

Stephen Ede wrote:


They also have different rules for casting time.

Not really. From the rules I originally quoted from SLA's.

SRD wrote:


A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description.

When a SLA mimics an existing spell it uses the casting time of the existing spell. When it does something magical that is not an existing spell it is 1 standard action unless the SLA itself says differently.

And another FAQ showing they count as spells just for good measure.

Now as I did state in my first post there are some differences spelled out in the FAQ - can't use metamagic rods with them (but again with no spell slot you can't really determine what size rod you need).

And they don't count as being on your spell list for item activation purposes. But the spell list isn't really a comparison of SLA == spell.


Yeah, no... Except for metamagics and components, SLAs literally work exactly like their real spell counterparts. They can be detected through ALL of the same methods (no explanation how, just that they can). They non-inclusively qualify as spell casting for ALL purposes (a third level SLA doesn't count as second level spell casting, but an SLA of Mage Hand qualifies as having Mage Hand for prestige classes. Literally, there's FAQs that have been around for years that say this.


I read the FAQ pointed to as proof that you can identify what spell is been cast as a Spell-like ability by using Spellcraft.

I'll be blunt. Most political speeches are clearer and precise than that spiel.
The only thing that FAQ says is that when you use a Spell-like ability their is some sort of manifestation that indicates a spell is be cast.

What it doesn't do is say that you can use Spellcraft to know exactly what spell is been cast as a Spell-like ability.

faq wrote:
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

I would note that since Spell-like abilities are specific spells with levels (and the rules assume what that level is based on what Spell list it is taken from and how to work out what spell list is detailed out) there is no reason that they couldn't be used with Metamagic Rods.

A Fireball is a 3rd level spell. A Spell-like ability to cast Fireball still leaves it as a 3rd level spell (which is how the Save DC is worked out). If it was the same as a Spell there would be no reason not to be used with a Metamagic spell.

And even your own defense that Spell-like abilities count as prereqs like spells you admit they don't. They are similar but not the same.

My point is simply that Spell-like Abilities and Spells are same in many ways, and are different in many ways. Many of their differences are more a matter of been similar rather than the same, but that doesn't change the fact that despite the line "spell-like abilities are the same as spells except for" followed by 3 or 4 points when the fact as given by the actual rules and rulings is that they are treated differently in many places in the rules (even when they remain similar) and you can't approach them with the rule "Assume they are the same unless you have the rule saying they are different in front of you".


Stephen Ede wrote:
you can't approach them with the rule "Assume they are the same unless you have the rule saying they are different in front of you".

I think you can do exactly that when the rules say: "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."

The two statements are pretty much equivalent.


Literally, "They have their own metamagics, so normal metas don't apply; they have no material, verbal, somatic, or focus components; and they have the same casting time as their base spell, unless the ability that gives it says otherwise; otherwise they're exactly the same" literally means that "Except these specific alterations, treat them the same unless their rule say otherwise." So, yeah, you CAN approach them that way...


Zarius wrote:
Cevah wrote:

You need to read the spell carefully.

Accidentally discharging may merely fizzle the charge. Examples:
Cure Light Wounds: When laying your hand ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle.
Chill Touch: A touch from your hand, ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle. However, you can always attack with it once per level no matter how many discharges, since the wording is "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." You may be limited in number creatures touched due to the target line.
Frostbite: Your melee touch attack ... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle. However, you can always attack with it once per level no matter how many discharges, since the wording is "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." Big issue is the target line is creature, singular not plural, so all those attacks must be on a single creature.
Vampiric Touch: You must succeed on a melee touch attack.... good things happen. If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle.
Your first two examples are valid. They specify the hands, and specific overrules general. Your third and fourth, however, fall into what I was saying. A melee touch attack can easily be accomplished with the feet or, as previously mentioned, your genitals. Your first two have grounds to argue that it's not appropriate, but your other two do not.

I was not saying you must use your hands.

I was saying that you must take an action to discharge the spell with good effects.
Any other form of discharge fails to grant the effects, and instead apply a fizzle.

Zarius wrote:
More importantly, however, this is another case where the specific overrules the general. Discharging the spell, not disRUPTING the spell, is causing it to do it's effect. All of your spell information is upon casting the spells. Going stabbity on someone and causing the spell to discharge into your weapon is a form of disruption, as you've discharged into an inappropriate target (however, arguably, it's still discharged into your weapon and should damage your weapon). But regardless of what you like, the Holding the Charge rules take over AFTER normal spell casting has ended and you've chosen or been forced to hold the charge. This is a specific rule set for after normal functionality. This is RAW, this is a specific case set.

Who was taking about disrupting the spell?

Having a charge go into an invalid target is just another way of causing the charge to fizzle.

/cevah


You were. "If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle." That's disrupting the spell, not discharging it.

And, except for positive/negative energy spells, there aren't a whole lot of touch spells that HAVE invalid targets. Objects can suffer energy damage, RAW. And the RAW expressly states "If you touch anything, or anyone, even unintentionally".

Please, PLEASE, explain to me HOW you UNINTENTIONALLY use an action. PLEASE.


From James Jacobs:

James Jacobs wrote:
Chill touch is a weird spell. The touch attacks it grants do not function as "held charges." They don't disappear if you cast another spell, and the spell is pretty vague on how long the effects last—in theory, you could cast the spell on a Tuesday and still have some touches left over on Friday, for example, as long as you haven't made more touches than your level. Re-casting the spell when you still have charges left doesn't add to the existing charges—it merely resets your total available touches to its maximum.

If you follow this, Chill Touch has an exception to the general rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:

From James Jacobs:

James Jacobs wrote:
Chill touch is a weird spell. The touch attacks it grants do not function as "held charges." They don't disappear if you cast another spell, and the spell is pretty vague on how long the effects last—in theory, you could cast the spell on a Tuesday and still have some touches left over on Friday, for example, as long as you haven't made more touches than your level. Re-casting the spell when you still have charges left doesn't add to the existing charges—it merely resets your total available touches to its maximum.
If you follow this, Chill Touch has an exception to the general rule.

That statement is both unofficial and invalidated by the FAQ which came later that makes it clear that Chill Touch functions as holding a charge.


Calth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

From James Jacobs:

James Jacobs wrote:
Chill touch is a weird spell. The touch attacks it grants do not function as "held charges." They don't disappear if you cast another spell, and the spell is pretty vague on how long the effects last—in theory, you could cast the spell on a Tuesday and still have some touches left over on Friday, for example, as long as you haven't made more touches than your level. Re-casting the spell when you still have charges left doesn't add to the existing charges—it merely resets your total available touches to its maximum.
If you follow this, Chill Touch has an exception to the general rule.
That statement is both unofficial and invalidated by the FAQ which came later that makes it clear that Chill Touch functions as holding a charge.

Not necessarily invalidated. The FAQ defines the general rule but there could be exceptions to that rule as James Jacobs outlined.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Chill Touch - does it end if you cast another spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.