I have a few questions about spells and actions in combat.
If a character casts Shocking Grasp, using a standard action to cast the spell, can they still make a touch attack to attack someone with the spell, assuming that they are within range of a target?
Does it work like this.
Character A wants to cast Shocking Grasp on Character B who is 20 feet away. To do this Character A must move 20 feet (Move Action) next to Character B, then cast Shocking Grasp (Standard Action) , incuring an Attack of Opportunity while doing so. Then on Character A's next turn, he can use a Standard Action to touch Character B. Alternatly Character A could cast the spell (Standard Action), then Move 20 feet (Move Action) to be adjacent to Character B. Avoiding any Attacks of Opportunity.
Is this the way it is suppose to work? What about Produce Flame, or Flame Blade?
We have had discussions at our gaming sessions where some people think this is the way it is suppose to work, others think that the character who casts the spell should be able to attack by touch in the same round as casting the spell. We have read and re-read the rules, but as far as I can see, To actually damage someone with a Flame Blade or Shocking Grasp, it would take 2 rounds. One to cast the spell and another to actually attack with it.
Can someone clear this up for us?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm not sure exactly WHERE in the PHB it states this, but I know its in there somewhere:
Any spell which requires touch to deliver treats the touch attack as part of casting the spell, just like a ranged touch attack (Melf's Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, Enervation, etc.) has you roll the attack ALONGSIDE the spell. Ranged touch and regular touch attack spells are resolved the same way, the only difference is that one uses Strength to hit and the other uses Dexterity and can be done at range.
With touch attacks, however, if your attack roll fails, you can choose to 'hold the charge' of the spell and attempt to deliver it in successive rounds until you are successful or until something disrupts your ability to maintain the charge. With ranged touch spells, the spell simply misses if the roll fails and cannot be re-used the next round.
But does casting a touch spell (Shocking Grasp) in a threatened square create an attack of opportunity?
I don't believe it does, because the act of casting creates a chance for you to attack, and therefore a threat to the opponent in question. I could be wrong, though. In any event, a caster who plans on using such spells extensively probably wants to take combat casting and lots of ranks in concentration, which makes it a virtual non-issue after a few levels. Also, ghost hand eliminates the problem as well--it's particularly useful for sorcerers, who can basically then specialize in touch attack spells, casting ghost hand once per combat to allow them to deliver their spells.
Another question about spells and combat. How many spells per round can a character cast? Say his BAB is 6/1. This means he gets two attacks if he uses the full round action with only a 5 foot step. Can a spell caster cast, say, two fireballs in one round with only a 5 foot step or none at all? Most spells count as 1 standard action as does an attack. Therefore, my reasoning is at higher levels, spell casters should get more than one spell per round. Thoughts? Directions to PHB page stating that you only ever get one spell per round? I've had this argument with the players I DM for, and I want an official ruling. Thanks in advance.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Casting the spell still provokes an attack of opportunity. You need to cast-move-touch to avoid that consequence.
Edit: Here's the rules section regarding touch spells in the SRD. The casting of the spell provokes an AoO, the touching does not.
Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
BAB only effects the number of attacks you can make, not the number of spells you can cast. It would be cool if there was a mechanic like that for spellcasters (the ability to cast a spell and then a spell 3 levels lower) to make lower level spells worth casting at higher levels (excluding, of course magic missile, which is always worth casting).
You need to cast-move-touch to avoid that consequence.
Is that a legal move? I thought that the casting of a touch spell and a touch attack was all part of a single standard action (where, like you mention, the casting portion provokes and the touch does not), and thus would not permit movement during this action. Any clarrification on this?
Another related maneuver: Your adjacent to an enemy with standard 5 foot reach in an open area. You move our of the threatened square to either cast a spell/drink a potion/fire your bow. The movement out of the single threatened square provoked an attack of opportunity, right?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Is that a legal move? I thought that the casting of a touch spell and a touch attack was all part of a single standard action (where, like you mention, the casting portion provokes and the touch does not), and thus would not permit movement during this action. Any clarrification on this?You need to cast-move-touch to avoid that consequence.
Sure thing. From the SRD:
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.
Another related maneuver: Your adjacent to an enemy with standard 5 foot reach in an open area. You move our of the threatened square to either cast a spell/drink a potion/fire your bow. The movement out of the single threatened square provoked an attack of opportunity, right?
Yup. 5 ft move doesn't provoke an AoO, and once you take the AoO provoking action, you are not in a threat zone.
No access to sources at the moment, but to quick respond:
Casting/moving/attacking: You can definitely cast and make a touch attack in the same round, as part of the casting action. Unless I'm mistaken, you can even Cast, then move, then still make your touch attack.
Attack of opportunity?: There will be an attack of opportunity provoked if you cast a spell within the opponents' threatened area (unless it is cast on the defensive). There won't be an attack of opportunity for the touch attack, as you are considered armed. Separate AOO's.
Ghost hand: The spell allowing touch attacks at a range is Spectral hand (Necromancy, sor/wiz 2) by the way.
Multiple spells from Base attack bonus: Multiple spells cannot be cast via high base attack bonus precisely because casting a spell is a standard action, not an attack action, and you only get one standard action per round.
This is similar to why an archer can't use Manyshot on each of his incremental attacks, or rapid shot a manyshot.
Game On!
|
I thought that the casting of a touch spell and a touch attack was all part of a single standard action (where, like you mention, the casting portion provokes and the touch does not), and thus would not permit movement during this action. Any clarrification on this?
Another related maneuver: Your adjacent to an enemy with standard 5 foot reach in an open area. You move our of the threatened square to either cast a spell/drink a potion/fire your bow. The movement out of the single threatened square provoked an attack of opportunity, right?
I'll let someone else answer the first question, since I don't have my rules in front of me.
There are two ways to move out of a threatened square without provoking an AoO (assuming all criteria are met for the AoO: enemy is aware of you, armed, not flatfooted, etc etc). One is the 5-foot step, the other is the withdraw action (which is a full round action). So in answer to your question, if the character only moved 5 feet out of their threatened square in order to cast a spell, drink a potion, fire a ranged weapon, etc, there would be no attacks of opportunity involved.
Edit: I see we were all posting at the same time *mutters*
Another question about spells and combat. How many spells per round can a character cast? Say his BAB is 6/1. This means he gets two attacks if he uses the full round action with only a 5 foot step. Can a spell caster cast, say, two fireballs in one round with only a 5 foot step or none at all? Most spells count as 1 standard action as does an attack. Therefore, my reasoning is at higher levels, spell casters should get more than one spell per round. Thoughts? Directions to PHB page stating that you only ever get one spell per round? I've had this argument with the players I DM for, and I want an official ruling. Thanks in advance.
Well, casting a spell isn't the same as swinging a melee weapon. A spell flat out takes as much time to cast as it says in its stat block under Casting Time. If a spell calls for 1 Standard Action to cast then that's what it takes to cast it. Iterative attacks granted by a high base attack bonus are compleatly unreleated to how many spells you can cast in a round. That only applies to melee, unarmed and ranged attacks. The only way to use iterative attacks in a round is by taking the Full Attack Action and doing that doesn't say it grants you additional spell casting. The exception would be spells like Scorching Ray that grant you multiple attack rolls for one spell. In that case though I believe they're still 'considered' one attack. You just roll multiple times to see which rays hit so your BAB doesn't diminish with each successive attack. Of course you can cast two fireballs in a single round if you Quicken one of them. ^_^
Edit: Everyone's quick on the draw. ;-p
I'll let someone else answer the first question, since I don't have my rules in front of me.
There are two ways to move out of a threatened square without provoking an AoO (assuming all criteria are met for the AoO: enemy is aware of you, armed, not flatfooted, etc etc). One is the 5-foot step, the other is the withdraw action (which is a full round action). So in answer to your question, if the character only moved 5 feet out of their threatened square in order to cast a spell, drink a potion, fire a ranged weapon, etc, there would be no attacks of opportunity involved.
Edit: I see we were all posting at the same time *mutters*
Withdraw doesn't completely negate AOO's for moving. The square you first start from is no longer considered threatened.
Well, casting a spell isn't the same as swinging a melee weapon. A spell flat out takes as much time to cast as it says in its stat block under Casting Time. If a spell calls for 1 Standard Action to cast then that's what it takes to cast it. Iterative attacks granted by a high base attack bonus are compleatly unreleated to how many spells you can cast in a round. That only applies to melee, unarmed and ranged attacks. The only way to use iterative attacks in a round is by taking the Full Attack Action and doing that doesn't say it grants you additional spell casting. The exception would be spells like Scorching Ray that grant you multiple attack rolls for one spell. In that case though I believe they're still 'considered' one attack. You just roll multiple times to see which rays hit so your BAB doesn't diminish with each successive attack. Of course you can cast two fireballs in a single round if you Quicken one of them. ^_^Edit: Everyone's quick on the draw. ;-p
That being said, has anyone had any luck (good or bad) with houseruling multiple spells (standard action or less casting time) as a fighter's multiple attacks as a full round action?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That being said, has anyone had any luck (good or bad) with houseruling multiple spells (standard action or less casting time) as a fighter's multiple attacks as a full round action?
I haven't tried it yet, but I've been meaning to using a system like I described above. The problem I run into is whether you can do attack/spell/attack as part of your routine, and if so, how to implement that.
[I haven't tried it yet, but I've been meaning to using a system like I described above. The problem I run into is whether you can do attack/spell/attack as part of your routine, and if so, how to implement that.
Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't aware that one could cast, move, than touch.
As for the multiple spells in a round issue - thats a slippery slope that I would be afraid to undertake. Its more than a house rule - thats a major change or addition to the magic system. Certainly a mechanic change like this would require the figuring of the spell level into the equation (i.e. casting 3 first level spells, ok. casting 3 sixth level spells - that seems unbalanced IMO).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Multiple spellcastings in a single round would unbalance spellcasters, imo. Sure the fighter can swing 4 times at level 16, but assuming he's fighting a CR 16 monster, those last two swings are probably not even hitting the ACs you face at those levels. Even if they ARE hitting, assuming non-critical hits, those hits are landing for somewhere in the 20-40 damage range depending on weapon, power attack, etc.
With spells at 16th level, you have area effect spells that, even when the enemy makes a saving throw, still deals half damage (in most cases). Even if, say, you could only cast a spell 4 levels lower than your max as your second spell in the round, you're still looking at a level 16 sorcerer launching a delayed blast fireball followed by a lightning bolt. The average damage of the first spell is ~50. Assuming a save for half, the monster takes 25. Then the second spell deals an average of 35. Save for half means taking 17. Total of 42 damage to one creature in one round, roughly equal to a solid hit from the fighter with a 2-handed sword, right? Well, consider the fact that the wizard's spells are hitting EVERYTHING in the spell radius. Perhaps direct damage spells with no save are more accurate here. We'll assume a maximized scorching ray followed by a REGULAR scorching ray. The touch attack ACs are seldom very impressive, so we'll assume that, of the 6 bolts being fired, the sorcerer manages to hit with all of them. The first three bolts are hitting for 24 damage EACH, meaning a total of 72 damage. Then the second spell hits with all 3 for an average of 13 damage each. That's another 39 damage. 72 + 39 = 111 damage. This leaves the fighter's damage total for the round in the dust unless he crits. Granted, the fighter can't run out of swings per day, but the caster is doing this damage at range while hiding out behind his protection from arrows, mage armor, shield, and stoneskin spells. Plus, if we consider the idea of a creature failing a Fortitude save, the idea of a disintegrate followed by a scorching ray in the same round is rather terrifying. Sure, you can do this combination with the Quicken Spell feat, but you've used 2 6th level spell slots to pull it off and probably don't have too many of those to throw around. At level 12 or so, you've got quite a few 2nd level slots to mess with.
I dunno. In summary, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you want to beef up the spellcasters in your games to near-godlike power in the later levels, be my guest. It is your game, afterall. This is just my opinion.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Couple things:
1. Multiple spells per round would definitely require a scaling element similar to the way BAB is lower for iterative attacks.
2. Isn't scorching ray already limited by the number of attacks you can make per round?
3. We did this all the time in 3.0. It was called haste. It was powerful, but part of that power was because you could cast two high level spells per turn. The proposed system would not be as powerful as 3.0 haste (and as powerful as 3.0 haste was, it was not a gamebreaker, it was just the best 3rd level spell by a large margin).
4. We can argue ad infinitum regarding the actual effects of this system, but I think the only way to get a true read on its power level is to play it out. The problem with examples like the above D.B.F. and lightning bolt is that it's easy to point out various holes (and counter holes). My experience with high level spellcasters has been that except for a few really good spells like glitterdust or magic missile, the lower level spells don't matter at high levels.
5. In my ideal world, all classes would get extra actions that would allow them to employ ancillary actions that are not worth the time they take to do in most games. Ex: drinking a potion in combat. It's generally a waste of time considering you have to spend a full round to take it out and drink it and the effect is only a low level spell. If characters could drink potions and make full attacks, potions would go up in value. So would low level short duration defensive spells.
|
A few other lines of thought:
At higher levels, many people have pointed out on other posts that combat slows to a crawl. How much more so would that be if spell casters got to do multiple spells?
Many spells at lower levels gain in power the higher in level the character gets. This makes it particularly difficult to try and find some form of balance.
There is a feat for this kind of thing -- quicken spell. In addition, there are feats in the Epic Level Handbook that allow a spellcaster to cast more than one quickened spell in a round. Which is where I think casting three spells a round should be kept -- epic play.
Just a few thoughts.
Well, in response to the drinking of the potion, the FRCS has bandoleers and potion belts and such that keep the item ready for use, requiring only a free action to draw. You can only hold between 8 and a dozen items in this storage (don't remember off hand), but that's typically more than enough.
Back in 3rd edition (as opposed to the current 3.5), Haste allowed an extra standard action, and casters used this to cast an extra spell. It was incredibly unbalancing. Based on my personal experiences with this, I strongly recommend that you don't allow some sort of "iterative spellcasting."
By the way, the paragraphs from the SRD regarding casting a spell, then moving, then touching the target all in the same round, are on pages 140-141 of the Player's Handbook, starting under the caption "Touch Spells in Combat" - just in case it's easier for you to show them the book than this web page.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
After giving the matter more thought, I think the key would be to change caster level, not spell level. So, you cast your first spell at full caster level and then your iterative spells at caster level -5. This has a dramatic effect on your iterative spells, reducing their effectiveness, duration, and ability to penetrate SR. The biggest problem I see is logistical - keeping track of the different durations/caster levels is a pain, and as mentioned, adding additional options to characters slows the game down further.
I'm not sure where this whole 3.0 was broken because of haste idea came from. That certainly wasn't my experience, nor was it the sentiment in the general D&D community (e.g., ENworld). The general consensus was that haste was far too powerful, not that it broke the game, or even was horribly unbalancing between classes (though it was clearly unbalanced between spells). Despite the power of haste, the wizard and sorcerer were still considered relatively underpowered. I don't even remember that many house rules being in effect neutering haste at the time. Haste was seen (and experienced) as a badly designed spell, not as a game breaker.