willuwontu's page

What if they were bastard swords? Then you could dual wield them with just two hands, but using them 2 handed makes the proficiency easier and allows for extra strength damage.

If you could get the same number of attacks on a character with 2 hands when wielding them in the same manner, then yes. Otherwise, no.

This thread indicates that the only thing you need to pay attention to is how many attacks you're getting. Even if the quality of the attack is a substantial upgrade its fine so long as the number of attacks you're making is the same.

Incorrect, this is covered somewhere in there (I hate going through that thread though, so you'll have to find it on your own), but if you have 2 arms, wield a two-handed weapon and get 1 attack, when you sprout 2 extra arms from vestigial arm, you're still only allowed a single attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. Otherwise you'd be gaining more attacks, which vestigial arms explicitly prevents.

A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane.

Firearms do not meet those conditions, and thus can't be a black blade (thus bladebound won't work).

At 2nd level, whenever an eldritch archer casts a spell that calls for a ranged attack, she can deliver the spell through a ranged weapon she wields as part of a ranged attack. Instead of the free ranged attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, an eldritch archer can make one free ranged attack with a ranged weapon (at her highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. The attack does not increase the spell’s range.

If the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies each attack; if the spell allows multiple attacks and the eldritch archer can make additional ranged attacks as part of a full-round action with spell combat, one additional ray, missile, or effect from the spell accompanies each subsequent ranged attack the eldritch archer makes in the same round until all attacks allowed by the spell are made. Unused missiles, rays, or effects remaining at the end of the eldritch archer’s turn are wasted.

This ability alters spellstrike.

Ranged spellstrike changes how spellstrike works, you would have to cast reach frostbite, because it only allows spells that use ranged attacks to work with it. It would then expire at the end of your turn because you cannot hold the charge with a ranged touch attack.

Spell cartridges would negate the need to reload.

Nothing about it changes that they disappear when the spiritualist is unconscious or asleep. They return to the ethereal plane. Don't take naps after summoning them.

It would immediately explode if you roll misfires on both attacks.

You select a specific weapon, e.g. pistol, this ability doesn't apply to any other weapons, e.g. a double pistol.

Here's the SKR post on the huge thread about this.

Paizo set a precedence with phantasmal killer that knowing an illusion is an illusion makes you immune to the mind affecting effects that come with seeing it.

No. It set set a precedent that spells that you roll to disbelieve, or to recognize as fake are foiled by true seeing. Pattern spells are neither of those.

True Seeing: Does this spell protect you from phantasmal killer?

Yes. True seeing lets you "see all things as they actually are." Because phantasmal killer is an illusion (phantasm) spell and creates an image directly in the target's mind, a target with true seeing would (mentally) see the image and (physically) see that there is nothing really there, and would therefore immediately recognize that the mental image is actually unreal. Because phantasmal killer says the target "gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal," the creature with true seeing automatically succeeds at that saving throw (no roll needed), and therefore never has to deal with the Fort-save aspect of phantasmal killer.

True seeing does not stop pattern spells, because you do not roll to disbelieve them.

So what happens when you see a pattern with True Seeing? Almost all are mind affecting. Patterns are real, though. You see light. Does true seeing not see the pattern or does it see the pattern and you still have to make the save (because knowing it is an illusion doesn't stop the effects of a pattern spell, necessarily).

As you suspect true seeing has no effect on patterns, it only helps you disbelieve illusions. When you make a will save against a pattern it is to see if it affects you, thus true seeing offers no benefits.

If the grappled tiger still gets its 2 claws + bite + rake, what penalty does it suffer for being grappled? I mean, there has to be some down side to being grappled.

This is also for Society, so we go by the letter of the law. I’m saying a “full attack action” for the eidolon would be specifically 2 claws + 1 bite—all three things need to be there. The two claws part of that action requires two “hands,” so it technically violates the Rule As Written. That would mean that, technically, the whole thing does because some part of it requires two hands. Tossing that entire action out, the eidolon is left with a single attack action.

You still take a penalty to dex when grappled, can't move, no AoOs, and a couple other things.

Full attack doesn't require you to make all the attacks you have, it's just the action required to attack with more than 1 attack. Therefore they shouldn't be limited to solely the attack action.

Dweomercraft (Su): A magician can use performance to manipulate magical energies. Allies of the magician gain a +1 bonus on caster level checks, concentration checks, and attack rolls with spells and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and every six levels thereafter. This ability relies on visual and audible components.

This ability replaces inspire courage.

It doesn't increase the caster level of spells, it gives a bonus on caster level checks.

As you note, it never says you lose inspiration each day for each mechanism you have (theoretically you can have one for everything it works on, and only benefit from 1 at a time), but that problem is easily nixed by GMs.

By associated skill, they refer to the skill it benefits. It would apply to all checks in that time. I would say it is a held device, so you need to be holding it to benefit.

While strong, it isn't overtly so, imo.

except the feat says that the EDL caps at the Character level.

also: the Extraordinary Ability that grants Beastmasters their ability to have a pack of animals is called "Animal Companion" which is in singular form.

so those 4HD are applied to the pack(Animal Companion(Ex)) or lone animal(Animal Companion(Ex))

As I said before

It increases the level of that companion to a cap of your character level, not your class feature.

Those 4HD are applied to that companion only, and only care if that companion would have more HD than your character level, not if total sum of HD by your animal companions is greater than your character level.

so my first example is possible?

"level 20: 20 Animal companions, 5x8=40HD + 12x1= 12 = 52 total HD worth of animal companions."

Correct, nothing in Beastmaster limits you to only having 20 HD of Animal Companions.

The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level.

It increases the level of that companion to a cap of your character level, not your class feature.

They are correct, it only applies to a specific companion/familiar.

Special: You can select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.

It does not apply to a class feature that grants them, but to the animal itself.

D20PFSRD Skinwalker

Ah D20PFSRD, they incorrectly ported it over from the book.

To quote the book (bestiary 5, pg.233)

Change Shape (Su) A skinwalker can change shape to a bestial form as a standard action. In bestial form, a skinwalker gains a +2 racial bonus to his choice of Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. While in this form, a skinwalker also takes on an animalistic feature that provides a special effect. Each time a skinwalker assumes bestial form, he can choose to gain two claw attacks that each deal 1d4 points of damage, 60 foot darkvision, or a +1 natural armor bonus.

I can't find anything in the errata that changes that, D20PFSRD is wrong. They do not gain a racial bonus to natural armor, instead they gain a +1 natural armor bonus.

Edit: I realized they were printed in inner sea races as well (pg 248), quoting that below.

Change Shape: A skinwalker can change shape to and from a bestial form as a standard action. In bestial form, a skinwalker gains a +2 racial bonus to her choice of Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. While in this form, the skinwalker also takes on an animalistic feature that provides a special effect. Each time a skinwalker assumes bestial form, she can gain either two claw attacks that each deal 1d4 points of damage, darkvision to a range of 60 feet, or a +1 natural armor bonus. These benefits last until the skinwalker returns to her humanoid form as a swift action. A skinwalker must first return to her humanoid form before changing to bestial form again to change benefits. Different skinwalker heritages (see below) allow skinwalker characters to select from different sets of bestial features.

Skinwalkers change shape ability specifically says "Racial Bonus" to "Natural Armor" not "Natural Armor Bonus", thanks proving my point.

What are you smoking, and where can I get it?

Change Shape (Su) A skinwalker can change shape to a bestial form as a standard action. In bestial form, a skinwalker gains a +2 racial bonus to his choice of Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. While in this form, a skinwalker also takes on an animalistic feature that provides a special effect. Each time a skinwalker assumes bestial form, he can choose to gain two claw attacks that each deal 1d4 points of damage, 60 foot darkvision, or a +1 natural armor bonus. These benefits last until the skinwalker returns to his humanoid form as a swift action. A skinwalker must first return to his humanoid form before changing to bestial form again to change benefits.

That clearly says "Natural Armor Bonus", they get a Racial Bonus to an ability score, but not to natural armor.

This applies to all those races to because they all specifically state they have the"natural armor" abilty.

Oh really , lets look at Nagaji.

Armored Scales: Nagaji have a +1 natural armor bonus because of their scaly flesh.

Huh, no "Natural Armor" ability called out.

Reptoid maybe?

Scales: When in its natural form, a reptoid has a +1 natural armor bonus.

Struck out again.

Skinwalker?

Change Shape (Su) A skinwalker can change shape to a bestial form as a standard action. In bestial form, a skinwalker gains a +2 racial bonus to his choice of Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. While in this form, a skinwalker also takes on an animalistic feature that provides a special effect. Each time a skinwalker assumes bestial form, he can choose to gain two claw attacks that each deal 1d4 points of damage, 60 foot darkvision, or a +1 natural armor bonus. These benefits last until the skinwalker returns to his humanoid form as a swift action. A skinwalker must first return to his humanoid form before changing to bestial form again to change benefits.

Nope.

Kobold?

Armor: Kobolds have a +1 natural armor bonus.

So close, but not it.

Tiefling?

Scaled Skin The skin of these tieflings provides some energy resistance, but is also as hard as armor. Choose one of the following energy types: cold, electricity, or fire. A tiefling with this trait gains resistance 5 in the chosen energy type and also gains a +1 natural armor bonus to AC. This racial trait replaces fiendish resistance.

Nope, yet again.

Hobgobbos?

Scarred A hobgoblin can scar himself with both blade and fire to toughen his hide into a mass of horny scars. Hobgoblins with this racial trait gain a +1 natural armor bonus to Armor Class. However, the repeated exposure to fire permanently damages their eyes. This racial trait replaces the darkvision racial trait.

Nope, Merfolk maybe?

Armor: Merfolk have a +2 natural armor bonus.

Darn it.

Gathlain?

Natural Armor: Gathlains have a +1 natural armor bonus.

Oh, hey we finally found another one.

I guess 2 races out of 9 being able to take it isn't bad.

Nope. Maximum weight that a medium size character with strength 9 can carry is 90 pounds. The maximum weight that such a character can drag is five times that, or 450 lbs. The multiplier for a tiny quadruped is x3/4, so the maximum weight that a fox can drag is 3/4 x 450 lbs., or 337 lbs.

TIL I've been doing it wrong, I've been multiplying it by the Bipedal sections first (I thought that was an initial size multiplier), and then the quadrupedal, never realizing I just do the quadrupedal. Thanks.

Gnoll hides are remarkably tough, granting them a +2 natural armor bonus.

So a gnoll would get an additional stacking +2 to natural armor? As do merfolk?

Kobold, Gathlain, Reptoid, Skinwalker, Nagaji, Tiefling, and Hobgoblin can all also get an additional +1?

They all also don't qualify for improved natural armor because it requires "Natural Armor", and they only have a "Natural Armor Bonus".

/s

Let's be real, the video game has many issues with it and shouldn't be used as a basis for how things work, similar to blindly trusting hero lab.

Really, Natural Armor Bonus doesn't stack, and is the same thing as Natural Armor in game terms. The reason INA stacks, is because it doesn't give a natural armor bonus, instead it increases any you have by 1, similar to Dragon Disciple.

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Be careful around those foxes. With 9 strength, they can drag off people who weigh up to 225 lbs.

You forgot that they are quadrupeds. Make that 337 lbs.

Foxes are tiny, it's actually 169 lbs.

Never said entering their square, merging with the host is what I said, as the quoted text states a ghost does. how does a ghost do it then? They don't have any ability listed that allows it, but the incorporeal possession says a ghost can.

They'd need to either have enough class levels of a spell casting class to have possession, or have an ability that allows them to do so, otherwise they can't possess (and thus merge).

It's likely that since ghosts are known for possession in fiction, the writer included them as an example on accident, thinking they had the ability to do so in pathfinder.

No, you need to have some sort of possession ability to possess a creature. The rule merely states what happens when an incorporeal creature does so (they don't leave a body behind). Incorporeal creatures cannot merge with other creatures merely by entering their square, you merge when you use possession.

Those two feats work together, they do not work for an alchemist bombs per RAW.

It is a standard action (not an attack action) to attack with an alchemist bomb, since it's not an "attack" you can't perform it using a charge. Similarly you can't cleave, vital strike, etc.

Fast bombs let you take a full round action to throw additional bombs as if using a full attack action, it would not let you use charging hurler.

Impact and Inevitable Fist do not stack.

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Enlarge Person does stack with one of those two though.

This seems like more of an general/advice/homebrew post, than a rules question.

For me the difference has always been Hard/Soft cover books for PF as to what I consider "splat" content. The editing and writing teams for the different lines aren't by any means BAD at what they're doing, but it's clear to me the Hardcover books get more love and attention in the testing and writing process.

Ultimate Wilderness, Reeeeeeee.

Regardless using Spellcraft to identify precisely what is been cast remains something that can be done with spells, and given Spell-like abilities existed when that rule was written the assumption should be that if they had meant it to be used to identify precisely what spell-like ability was been cast they would've said.

They didn't need to call them out as identifiable in that way.

Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.

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.

Since SLAs work just like spells, and spells are identified by spellcraft, SLAs are able to be identified by spellcraft.

You use spellcraft to identify a spell been cast before the spell is completed by observing the spell been cast by the casting. This is why you have to see the caster doing it.

Charm Person has Verbal and Somatic components.
When been cast as a Spell-like ability their are no Verbal or Somatic components so you can't identify it as it's been cast.

The errata regarding magic creating glowy effets whatever means you know a spell was cast. It doesn't mean you can identify what the spell been cast is. TTBOMK they never said "these effects can tell you what the person is casting". Apples and Oranges.

Yes, some spells are obvious after they've been cast - Fireball been a pretty classic example, but that's not what the Spellcraft check is for.

Sure there are ways of telling what magic is after it is cast - I didn't comment on those.
Telling what a spell is by studying afterwards has nothing to do with using Spellcraft

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

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.

The manifestations are quite literally what you use to identify spells, not the components.

I would note that there is no RAW for identifying a spell using Spellcraft after the spell is cast. At least not under the skill Spellcraft (there may be something elsewhere).

I'm not sure why you think my comment was "on the nose".

You use knowledge arcana to identify spell effects that are in place.

1. Maybe ethereal creatures, idk.

2. It works on incorporeal creatures.

Special: The Martial Focus feat counts as the weapon training class feature with the chosen fighter weapon group for the purpose of weapon mastery feat prerequisites and what weapons you can use with weapon mastery feats.

Gloves of dueling don't work with martial focus.

There is also an FAQ for it.

Magical Lineage (trait): Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

Wayang unfortunately will likely never be FAQ'd because it's from a splat book, and they don't FAQ splat books.

I've been wondering this as well. Do hexes, most of which are SU abilities, have spell manifestations and as such are identifiable via spellcraft? I've been playing a Shaman and have been wonder if in social situations whether Charm or Evil Eye can be used undetected.

Hexes are not spells, therefore they do not create spell manifestations. They are also not identified by spellcraft, instead a relevant knowledge can identify them when they are used (see the Recall Intrigues section).

Honestly though it's not [Fire] healing its just healing i would no more penalize the healing for someone having resistance than I would encourage the party to get free Empower spell for healing by being all cold subtype.

When casting any spell that deals fire damage, you can instead heal your targets. The spell deals no damage, and living creatures affected by the spell instead regain a number of hit points equal to half the fire damage the spell would normally deal.

The spell still has the [Fire] descriptor, immunity would cause you to be unaffected by it.

I must have misread, I thought the DC to kick the addiction is what stacked, not the effects of withdrawal. Dying from lack of alcohol makes little sense to me...

I mean, two consecutive saves cure you. And the DC for the save decreases by 2 each day you go with out the drug.

Immunity (Ex or Su)

A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.

Format: Immune acid, fire, paralysis; Location: Defensive Abilities.

It still has the [Fire] descriptor, so a creature that has fire immunity would be immune to that effect.

I'd say that fire resistance lowers the amount healed as well.

Why would there be an AO with Fly-by Attack and no AO with Ride-by Attack though? It makes me wonder what the purpose of the feat even is other than just moving past your opponent? Seems like a waste to me.

Unlike ride by attack, flyby attack lets you take a standard action during any part of your movement. This could be used to cast a touch spell, vital strike, hex, and so on before flying away.

Ride by attack is just a charge.

You are correct, you would need to use a normal metamagic rod of dazing since it's considered to be a 5th level spell.

Here's that archetype. Unlike the trait you cast the spell at +1 level however.

I believe 'persistent' implies it persists as long as you're addicted, not that it is cumulative or stacks.

If it was the way you described, a normal person with even a minor addiction would basically be dead in 5 days (the penalty can't lower them below 1 but they'd be in a pretty sad state). Even for a moderate addiction, like an alcoholic, that would be pretty severe slide.

That may be what's intended (as is the str bonus only lasting for the duration of the drug), but that's not how diseases work.

Effect: This is the effect that the character suffers each time if he fails his saving throw against the affliction. Most afflictions cause ability damage or hit point damage. These effects are cumulative, but they can be cured normally. Other afflictions cause the creature to take penalties or other effects. These effects are sometimes cumulative, with the rest only affecting the creature if it failed its most recent save. Some afflictions have different effects after the first save is failed. These afflictions have an initial effect, which occurs when the first save is failed, and a secondary effect, when additional saves are failed, as noted in the text. Hit point and ability score damage caused by an affliction cannot be healed naturally while the affliction persists.

As written, it's a cumulative -2 each failed save, so just avoid getting addicted and you'll be fine. Otherwise, you'll be slightly sturdier than wet tissue paper.

This is why you don't do drugs kids.

Minor Addiction

Type disease, variable; Save variable
Onset 1 day; Frequency 1/day
Effect –2 penalty to Con; Cure 2 consecutive saves

You've misread the rules on addiction, your addiction flares up every day, applying a cumulative -2 penalty to your con each time you fail. If succeed twice in a row, you're cured (and thus no longer gain a bonus to strength).

You are a creature, therefore self buffs would also count.

All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

If the spell rolls for damage, all the damage including the bonuses to it is increased by half. This includes bonuses from bloodlines, traits, and so forth.

Example: Bob a 6th level crossblooded sorcerer (Orc, Solar) casts empowered burning hands. He deals 5d4 + 10 ⇒ (4, 1, 1, 4, 1) + 10 = 21 damage normally. Since this is an empowered burning hands, he deals an additional 50% more damage, for a total of 21 + 21*0.5 = 31 damage.

willuwontu wrote:

1) Only 1 ray.

2) Increases the overall damage since it's rolled once.
3) Unsure.

First, thanks for responding so quickly. Secondly, I'm having trouble reconciling your answers in one way. The trait specifies that it is increasing the damage of the spell. Would it not make more sense to say only one ray, and only one target affected by Fireball, or conversely each ray and each target?

For clarification purposes, there is another similar trait called Draconic Infusion that specifies only 1 target of the spell.

Draconic Infusion:
Benefit(s): Choose the acid, cold, electricity, or fire spell descriptor when you take this trait. Once per day for every 2 caster levels you have (minimum once per day), when you cast a spell that has your chosen elemental descriptor, you can deal an additional 1d4 points of damage of that energy type to one target of that spell.

That would suggest, but certainly not prove, that since Volatile Conduit does not require 'to one target' that it could be more. Thank you again.

It increases the damage of the spell by 1d4, if you increase the damage of multiple rays by 1d4, you are increasing the damage of the spell by more than 1d4.

The reason it increases all fireball damage is that there is only one damage roll for fireball (which is then applied against multiple targets).

This is why I find it hard to rule on wall of fire, because you would only roll once per instance it gets triggered, but it also can be triggered multiple times. This means if you increase each roll by 1d4, the overall spell damage is increased by more than 1d4.

1) Only 1 ray.
2) Increases the overall damage since it's rolled once.
3) Unsure.

Goblin_Priest wrote:

You can't add your cha bonus twice to the same thing. Which makes undead antipaladins underwhelming, because, as you say, they aren't getting it twice for the same reason and thus their saves will be lower than a non-undead version. But that's the way the rules intend it.

Do you have some link to what the writer's intended? I'm using RAW. Unless they've already ruled on this, and I'd like to know if they have, I'm afraid I'd still have to disagree.

You mean like this FAQ that was posted earlier?

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

Those that own the book know that it did implement a lot of promising aspects that sound fun.

Sadly the detail and quality of writing lacked a bit and once again major things like attacks or abilities like pounce on the lion are missing in the aspects description.

You should get pounce according to beast shape II.

Now I can easily adapt to that and use all bsII offers, but is there any written proove yet? Or even a short explanaition why those are missing?

Do we need another shifter FAQ? (please not)

We need an FAQ. Shifter aspects only give what they list, which means it's a good thing dire lion gives bonuses to its allies, cause it sure ain't doing anything.

Somebody cast *Raise Dead*.... and I thought Chill Touch was to make the undead go away.

Chill Touch is written with "Range Touch", yet the description states "A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures." Most spells with this range affect the creature(s) touched. However, the spell actually affects you,

Under Touch Spells in Combat it states:

Quote:

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject.

...
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.

So clearly, the first thing you touch gets the effect of the spell. Except the spell affects you.

As the spell is instantaneous, it is discharged upon affecting you, which makes the Holding the Charge not applicable. Except everyone treats the effect of the spell (the allowed touches) as though it is the spell itself to get dispelled by casting another spell.

This spell needs to be better edited to be clear how it works.

/cevah

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

Yes.

Therefore casting a spell after chill touch dissipates it.

So if you had a silver/mithral etc. weapon would your attacks count as that?

As written, No.

I'd let them count as a houserule though.