Can a spell casting caster with spring attack, more forward, cast a touch spell (a melee attack), and then move away?
Casting a touch spell is a standard action, not a melee attack. You can make a melee attack as part of that standard action, but it's still a standard.
Now, on the other hand, the caster could cast the spell, hold the charge, then on his next turn use Spring Attack to deliver it.
Maybe? Move,touch, move, yes. Cast and touch is part of the same standard action. Cast and then Spring att the next round or hasted maybe, Mr. Fishy would check the RAW and then maybe playtest it if the book was silent. Check the Book or ask your DM. If you are the DM ask the other players for their opinion. Just remember the GOLDEN RULE
"Your game, your way"
|
Okay, I believe the confusion is related to how touch spells incorporate touch attacks.
If you cast a touch spell, you may either expend the charge immediately by making a free touch attack as part of the casting action, or choose to hold the charge of the spell and forfeit your free touch attack.
Preforming a touch attack, by itself, is also a standard action. If you are holding the charge from a spell, you must choose whether or not you are trying to effect your touch target with the spell before you roll, and the charge goes away regardless of whether or not your attack hits.
So you could use Spring Attack to move within touch range of your target, cast your spell (risking the AoO), make the free touch attack to effect the target, then move away.
Or you could move to safety, cast the spell, move some more, end your turn, and next turn move to touch range, make a touch attack as a standard action and expend the touch charge, and then move out of range.
But you can't delay taking the free touch attack. You can't separate it from the spellcasting action and use it after taking even a 5ft step.
Think of it this way: your character is going through the motions, building up the spell. He has to be standing relatively still to do this. At a certain fixed point in the casting, the energy will release itself unless he takes additional steps to hold it in place. So he can either direct the spell's energy as he is casting it, with the free touch attack, or direct the energy into a stored form which requires additional effort to expend.
It doesn't exactly work with the way the rules are written, like a couple people have said, but it does require a 3 feat investment so I think I'd probably allow it..
By the RAW, no; remember that you're not casting the spell for free as part of the attack, you're making the attack for free as part of the spell. However, you could easily do this with touch spells that grant multiple touches (such as chill touch), or if your first touch misses and you end up with a charge in hand anyway. You could also pull it off with quicken spell.
Or, at least, that's what the rules as written seem to state. James has been known to deliver funny rulings when it comes to natural attacks or touch attacks interfacing with traditional fighter tactics, but hey, it's your game.
It doesn't exactly work with the way the rules are written, like a couple people have said, but it does require a 3 feat investment so I think I'd probably allow it..
Personally, I think that the rules would be a lot clearer and simpler if all touch spells were swift action spells, leaving you to deliver the touch however you see fit (charge, full attack, AoO, whatever).
If you cast a touch spell, you may either expend the charge immediately by making a free touch attack as part of the casting action, or choose to hold the charge of the spell and forfeit your free touch attack.
Preforming a touch attack, by itself, is also a standard action. If you are holding the charge from a spell, you must choose whether or not you are trying to effect your touch target with the spell before you roll, and the charge goes away regardless of whether or not your attack hits.
So you could use Spring Attack to move within touch range of your target, cast your spell (risking the AoO), make the free touch attack to effect the target, then move away.
Or you could move to safety, cast the spell, move some more, end your turn, and next turn move to touch range, make a touch attack as a standard action and expend the touch charge, and then move out of range.
But you can't delay taking the free touch attack. You can't separate it from the spellcasting action and use it after taking even a 5ft step.
I'm pretty sure this isn't an accurate description of the rules.
Under the Combat section of the PHB, in the Actions in Combat:Standard Actions:Cast a Spell section, it says that "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target."
So when considering the round in which you cast the touch spell, you can perform a standard action (casting the spell), a move action, and a free action (touching the target). You can take the move action before casting the spell, after casting the spell but before attempting to touch the target, or after casting the spell and attempting to touch the target.
Spring Attack might work with this, although I'm not certain. Spring Attack says that you can "move up to your speed and make a single melee attack." This is different from the wording of the 3.5 Spring Attack, which specifically says "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack." Since the PF Spring Attack doesn't specifically require the use of the attack action like the 3.5 version does. Thus its arguable that since when casting a touch spell you can use a free action to make a melee attack, you could cast a spell with a standard action, and then use spring attack to move up to your speed and make a single melee attack (free action touch attack). This clearly couldn't have been done in 3.5, since after casting a spell the caster wouldn't have an attack action left touse, but it seems doable here since the caster can still make a single melee attack as a free action.
Given that the wording for Spring Attack has changed from 3.5 and didn't retain the language of "attack action," I'd say this is doable now. And as Aratex says, its a 3 feat investment, so sure let the wizard guy with 3 suboptimal feats have his fun.
Now, in the round after casting the spell, if the touch attack was not discharged already, the caster can hold it indefinitely and continue to make touch attacks until the spell is discharged by touching a creautre or object, or by casting another spell. Touching a friendly creature is a standard action, touching two to six friendly creatures is a full round action. Or you can try to touch an enemy creature with a "normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon)." Its not entirely clear here that this would require a standard action to do, as it says "normal unarmed attack" which isn't necessarily a standard action attack. My thought is that, like in 3.5, it would simply require an attack action. Thus if the caster had multiple attacks, he could as part of a full attack attempt to touch an enemy target, discharging the spell on the first succesful touch attack, and still being able to continue his full attack action. (Or of course, making the single attack as part of a standard action single attack and taking a move action.)
Now since Spring Attack doesn't specifically require the attack action, it seems perfectly viable to use Spring Attack here to attack an enemy. You are making a "single melee attack" which is all that is required for Spring Attack. If using Spring Attack, the action of moving to the target doesn't provoke an AoO from the target (say the target has 10' reach); however, the attack itself could provoke an AoO if the unarmed or natural attack used to deliver the touch would otherwise provoke (say a wizard without Improved Unarmed Strike).
However, BobChuck has a couple things wrong. It seems pretty clear that you could in no way move, cast the spell, and move afterwards in the same round using Spring Attack, as casting the spell is clearly not "making a single melee attack." If Spring Attack is to be useable in the same round as casting the spell, it would have to be after the spell is cast, using the standard action to cast the spell first, then moving and attacking with the touch attack.
Also, you can't choose whether or not to effect the target of the touch attack with the spell. Whatever you first touch after casting the spell will be affected. Its also clear from the text that you can move after casting the spell but before attempting to touch the target. And you certainly can delay the free touch attack.
1) Use spells to get a fly speed.
2) Take Flyby Attack (which IIRC lets you take any standard action during the movement)
3) ???
4) Profit
Can a spell casting caster with spring attack, more forward, cast a touch spell (a melee attack), and then move away?Any spell caster could do the following:
Standard Action: Cast a touch spell (with casting time 1 standard action, and range touch)
Move Action: Move up to target, without using your full movement rate.
Interrupting the move action, take a free action: deliver touch spell
Complete the move action, using the rest of your movement rate.
-James
No, you can take the melee attack as part of the spell casting, if you do not make the melee attack as part of casting the spell it requires it's own standard action to touch someone (however touch spells are a free action to apply to yourself, and I think there are rules about touching willing targets that reduce the action required)
Father Dale might have a point, actually. It's "a free action during the same round", not "a free action as part of the action taken to cast the spell." I totally spaced on that.
|
|
Yeah, that's definately not how it worked in 3.5; the spellcasting action included the touch attack as a part of the action, not a separate free thing you got to do.
That said, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of little changes just like this designed to simply things. So maybe. I'll have to check my book, but I suppose this is potentially possible now.
On the round after you cast a spell granting a touch attack, you could deliver the touch spell as part of an unarmed attack (which is against full ac, not touch ac) and use spring attack. If the caster had Imp. Unarmed Strike, S/he wouldn't take an AoO.
1) Use spells to get a fly speed.
2) Take Flyby Attack (which IIRC lets you take any standard action during the movement)
3) ???
4) Profit
Flyby attack still provokes attack of oppurtunity for leaving a threatened square, unless you somehow have superior reach, so in itself it is little use. but spring attack or tumble *coughs* sorry.. ACROBATICS might avoid attacks of oppurtunity.
The rule seems to have changed, so you can infact cast a spell and make a spring attack to deliver a touch spell.
An unarmed attack 'armed' with a spell won't provoke an attack of oppurtunity in my opinion, though you would need to hit the target's actual AC not it's touch AC, other than that Father Dale seems to have it all well worked out.
Yeah, that's definately not how it worked in 3.5; the spellcasting action included the touch attack as a part of the action, not a separate free thing you got to do.
That said, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of little changes just like this designed to simply things. So maybe. I'll have to check my book, but I suppose this is potentially possible now.
Actually, the SRD has this, though it took me a few minutes to find it:
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.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm
An unarmed attack 'armed' with a spell won't provoke an attack of oppurtunity in my opinion
Melee touch attacks with a spell are 'armed'. Regular unarmed strikes with a touch spell piggybacking on them, however, are still unarmed strikes.
You're not adding unarmed damage to a touch attack, you're adding the spell affect to an unarmed strike, and it uses all the normal rules for an unarmed strike.
I very much doubt that it would provoke AoO since it is a very real threat certainly as dangerous as a dagger attack.
page 182 does not specifically state it is so or not so, though it mentions 'armed' unarmed attacks delivering a touch spell not provoking attacks of oppurtunity, now they might just mean a touch spell attack.. but I am inclined to believe they are talking about actual unarmed strikes here.
It's not that it isn't dangerous, it's that it's delivered ineptly. Any wizard knows how to tap an armed opponent and come out okay, but not every wizard can deliver a real punch or kick safely against an armed opponent, and having your hands crackling with energy doesn't make that any easier or harder.
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 SRD's wording is only slightly different and still explicitly states that you provoke.
It's not that it isn't dangerous, it's that it's delivered ineptly. Any wizard knows how to tap an armed opponent and come out okay, but not every wizard can deliver a real punch or kick safely against an armed opponent, and having your hands crackling with energy doesn't make that any easier or harder.
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 SRD's wording is only slightly different and still explicitly states that you provoke.
Anyone remember Duskblades?
Yar!
The paragraph diretly preceeding the one quoted above contains wonderful information regarding this.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, 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 as long as the spell deals damage. 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.
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.
I have bolded the important parts.
This was taken from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (pages 185-186, in the Combat section), and can also be found here.
I'm assuming that because this is a pathfinder section and not the 3x section, that you want the pathfinder answers, not the 3x answer (which although similar, are not exactly the same thing. hence, I give you the pathfinder version of the said rule)
^_^
Interesting, so many little changes.
Yar!
The paragraph diretly preceeding the one quoted above contains wonderful information regarding this.
** spoiler omitted **...
If you are making a melee touch attack with a touch spell you don't provoke.
However, if you choose to deliver the touch spell with an unarmed attack you probably do (see my post above for the PRD quote).
Interesting, so many little changes.
I think the only change was to Spring Attack. The whole touch-spell thing is simply worded more clearly than it was- you COULD cast, move, and attack in 3.5.
After rereading the touch spell section again, I think that holding the charge and making a touch attack to discharge the spell does NOT provoke AoOs, although doing so as part of an unarmed attack or natural attack would provoke if those attacks would normally provoke.
The key word here is "Alternatively" found right before the part about making normal unarmed attacks to deliver the spell, thus suggesting a different way of delivering the spell, i.e. via an unarmed or natural attack. It probably could have been phrased a little cleaner--perhaps if 'Alternatively' started a new paragraph--but its word-for-word from the 3.5 SRD.
Thats how we ran it in 3.5 anyways.
Well kudos to everyone, I think we actually resolved one this time ^^