0 level touch spell


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

Dark Archive

so a player in my campaign is making a rogue/sorc/arcane trickster and is asking me for a 0 level touch spell that deals 1 point of damage

i realize that lets him make sneak attacks a lot easier, but does it sound OP to anyone?

how bad of an idea is this?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Since it's a standard action to cast, he gets one touch attack to add SA to. As opposed to TWF for seven to add it to. Don't see a problem.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Since it's a standard action to cast, he gets one touch attack to add SA to. As opposed to TWF for seven to add it to. Don't see a problem.

well the player in question isnt planning to twf anyway, but that points got some good merits

Scarab Sages

I would have him create the spell in game, make his character do the research, design the spell from a flavor standpoint, and make a spellcraft check to create a new spell. if he fails the check he has to do more research, try different material/verbal/somatic components and try again no less than a week later

Dark Archive

Some 0 level touch energy damage spells from Sean Reynolds

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I mean really, it's this or he'll use Shocking Grasp and the like.

Liberty's Edge

Why touch instead of ray of frost for ranged attack? IIRC, sneak attack works within 30 ft. of the target. Is it just that he wants to actually go toe to toe with his targets (never a good idea for most arcane casters)?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Unfortunately it is much harder to get SA in PF any other way.

Dark Archive

Forgottenprince wrote:
Why touch instead of ray of frost for ranged attack? IIRC, sneak attack works within 30 ft. of the target. Is it just that he wants to actually go toe to toe with his targets (never a good idea for most arcane casters)?

its a lot harder to get SA with ranged attacks, rather than flanking

Scarab Sages

You mean the possibility of making unlimited a sneak attacks against touch AC? Nah, not OP.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
"Phos" wrote:
You mean the possibility of making unlimited a sneak attacks against touch AC? Nah, not OP.

It is limited. Once per round. Also, only while flanking or target is flatfooted.

The Exchange

Well, the Arcane Trickster will have a horrible BAB anyways, and he would only get SA as bonus damage (nothing from strength or magic weapon bonuses and the like). So, I think it would be fine to give him a 0-level spell that does 1d6 energy damage at touch range, as proposed in the link above

Sovereign Court

I thought there was something in the rules about not being able to sneak attack with touch attacks?

Oh, that's thrown splash weapon. Suppose that melee touch attacks are in the clear then. :)

Also depends on what the rogue is fighting for a spell. If it's got resistance/immunity then it's worse, if it's got a decent touch AC it doesn't help that much (sure that's monks but still) and does put the rogue right up against things looking to smash them.

It isn't over powered at all it seems like.

HOWEVER

Your rogue has all the rules for creating a new magic spell at their disposal. It is not your job as the Dungeon Master to create custom spells for your players, it is their job to invest time and gold into getting a benefit. No freebies!


Name Violation wrote:

so a player in my campaign is making a rogue/sorc/arcane trickster and is asking me for a 0 level touch spell that deals 1 point of damage

i realize that lets him make sneak attacks a lot easier, but does it sound OP to anyone?

how bad of an idea is this?

It's not overpowered in the least. Arcane tricksters are quite underpowered in combat, if you're not redesigning the PrC for him then it's the least you can do.

Honestly I would suggest that he look to use flameblade or equivalent spells instead... but then again I'd suggest a pure rogue do that as well.

What is the party makeup like?

-James

Dark Archive

james maissen wrote:


What is the party makeup like?

-James

all human

monk 5 (melee specs)
Ranger 5 (ranged)
Cleric 5 (battle spec)
Bard 5
Wizard 4 (universalist)
and the Rogue 4/Sorc 1 (going 4/4/AT)


If you're feeling that the whole "Unlimited 0 Level Spells" might make the Arcane Trickster too Over-Powered {although, as has been stated, they are sort of under-powered; I've played them, although it was 3.5}, perhaps introducing a material component to those linked 0 level spells might help. They will no longer be completely infinite. Sure, pinches of sulfur and the like may be inexpensive and light to carry, but they are not limitless, right?

Suggested examples:

Fire Spells: pinch of sulfur

Frost Spells: several drops of glacial melt water

Acid spells: Common acid, like orange juice or whatnot

Sonic Spells: pinch of gunpowder

Electrical Spells: pinch of copper powder

Or something like that. Just to take away the 'infinite', and add a little flavor.

Dark Archive

Ezh Darkstrider wrote:

If you're feeling that the whole "Unlimited 0 Level Spells" might make the Arcane Trickster too Over-Powered {although, as has been stated, they are sort of under-powered; I've played them, although it was 3.5}, perhaps introducing a material component to those linked 0 level spells might help. They will no longer be completely infinite. Sure, pinches of sulfur and the like may be inexpensive and light to carry, but they are not limitless, right?

Suggested examples:

Fire Spells: pinch of sulfur

Frost Spells: several drops of glacial melt water

Acid spells: Common acid, like orange juice or whatnot

Sonic Spells: pinch of gunpowder

Electrical Spells: pinch of copper powder

Or something like that. Just to take away the 'infinite', and add a little flavor.

sorcs get eschew materials, so that doesnt really change anything

Liberty's Edge

He will not always SA better because of the lower BAB.

However, he will be able to damage enemies with DR far better than a pure Rogue (as touch bypasses DR).

He should go for Chill Touch.

Or, if you allow it, he can take the Dervish Dance feat from the Qadira sourcebook and become a Druid with Flameblade. Maybe add a level of Sorcerer of the Elemental bloodline (hint : not Fire) to bypass the annoying Immunity to fire ability.

Be warned though that said feat will allow him to outdamage a fighter at lower levels with a regular scimitar (BTW, the feat does not apply to Flameblade).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Note that there's a reason that Pathfinder changed cure/inflict minor wounds (3.5) to stabilize and bleed. Being able to heal 1 hp per action, without limit, causes balance issues; and with cure minor wounds gone, thematic balance requires getting rid of inflict minor wounds as well.

OP: It sound like the player just wants to pull off unlimited Sneak Attacks vs. touch AC. Considering that touch AC tends to be extremely low, I would say that it is unbalanced. Also, the presence of chill touch (1 touch per level, does 1d6 damage per touch with a possibility of 1 Str damage) would seem to be a solution in most situations.


Generally, things that require a touch attack for an arcane trickster to hit are not things that the arcane trickster wants to be caught standing around next round. Yet, that's exactly what this spell would do, as it's impossible to use it and spring attack. It's a suboptimal solution to the problem. Go to town.

Liberty's Edge

If you do let him create a touch attack cantrip that does 1 point of damage, I suggest you name it Ghost Touch Chopstick.
Somatic component: fingers together and outstretched, as if holding a chopstick.
Verbal component: "That's my dumpling!"


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

way could he only do it every other round? cou can cast and touch in the same round


Ravingdork wrote:

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

my dog has a better sense of balance and he has three legs as a result of falling off a balcony.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

<blatant trolling>

Bravo, sirrah!


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

my dog has a better sense of balance and he has three legs as a result of falling off a balcony.

No need to be nasty, Remco.

There's one other thing to think about. The touch spell/SA trick bypasses DR, true. But the SA damage will be the same type as the spell, and thus subject to energy resistance unless the spell does damage that's positive energy, negative energy, force, etc. So the trickster may still get his comeupance.


Lathiira wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

my dog has a better sense of balance and he has three legs as a result of falling off a balcony.

No need to be nasty, Remco.

There's one other thing to think about. The touch spell/SA trick bypasses DR, true. But the SA damage will be the same type as the spell, and thus subject to energy resistance unless the spell does damage that's positive energy, negative energy, force, etc. So the trickster may still get his comeupance.

you are right ofcourse xD

Sorry RD

Anyway, so you have a touch attack that does nearly as much damage as a normal attack, all energy damage which can be quite beneficial especially if you are an elemental sorcerer or know a few more cantrips like that, as a swift action casting it does not provoke and you can make a full attack with it.

The only balancing factor is the 1 damage that the spell inflicts except it is designed to bypass that balancing factor and the fact that it isn't ranged is actually the purpose of the spell.

I'd rather use chill touch or a spell design based on chill touch.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4

The APG has a 0 level 1 point of damage touch spell. Though its not on a rogue/sorc/arcane trickster's spell list.

Dark Archive

Make up a 'Minimagic' feat that reduces the prepared level of a spell in exchange for minimizing it's damage.

A minimized Shocking Grasp would inflict 1 hp of damage / level (max 5 hp) but occupy only a 0 level slot, allowing your Arcane Trickster to shock touch to his heart's content. A minimized Chill Touch would inflict only 1 pt of damage per touch, and last for multiple touches, making it even more useful for conveying sneak attacks.

And while they'd be no help with sneak attacks, since they don't use attack rolls, Mimimized Magic Missiles would inflict 2 hp each. Minimized Burning Hands would inflict 1 hp / level (max 5) to an entire cone, as a cantrip! Such overwhelming power!

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:


And while they'd be no help with sneak attacks, since they don't use attack rolls, Mimimized Magic Missiles would inflict 2 hp each.

The capstone ability of the Arcane Trickster would in fact make these helpful with sneak attack.


Ravingdork wrote:

Make the spell a swift action cast and give it a duration of 1 round (ending at the start of his next turn).

That way he can get maybe 2 or 3 attacks at high levels and would be able to use it every round rather than every other round.

Considering it would only really be useful to those with sneak attack (and at lower damage dice too since he is multiclassed), and that there are still plenty of better attack/spell options out there, I find it quite balanced.

Sorry, dude, but that's not a 0th level spell. If he wants to do full attack actions, he should use Chill Touch.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lathiira wrote:
But the SA damage will be the same type as the spell, and thus subject to energy resistance unless the spell does damage that's positive energy, negative energy, force, etc. So the trickster may still get his comeupance.

Has that been determined to be true? I know in 3.5 it was the same damage type, But It was not stated as such in Pathfinder from what I can find.

Dark Archive

Dragnmoon wrote:
Lathiira wrote:
But the SA damage will be the same type as the spell, and thus subject to energy resistance unless the spell does damage that's positive energy, negative energy, force, etc. So the trickster may still get his comeupance.
Has that been determined to be true? I know in 3.5 it was the same damage type, But It was not stated as such in Pathfinder from what I can find.

from arcane trickster

"This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell."

Lathiira wrote:
But the SA damage will be the same type as the spell, and thus subject to energy resistance unless the spell does damage that's positive energy, negative energy, force, etc. So the trickster may still get his comeupance.

its still subject to energy resist of those types. its just that most things dont have energy resist to those

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Name Violation wrote:


"This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell."

Is this for sneak attack for any Sneak attack done with a spell, or just that 10th level ability? If I take the Rogue Ability to Cast 0 level spells that qualifies for a sneak attack because it has a attack roll, does it do the same type damage?

I wish they did not stick that text linked to a specific ability, as written it reads to me that it is only the same type with that 10th level ability.


Dragnmoon wrote:
Name Violation wrote:


"This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell."

Is this for sneak attack for any Sneak attack done with a spell, or just that 10th level ability? If I take the Rogue Ability to Cast 0 level spells that qualifies for a sneak attack because it has a attack roll, does it do the same type damage?

I wish they did not stick that text linked to a specific ability, as written it reads to me that it is only the same type with that 10th level ability.

Ofcourse it is the same type, if you are hit by a bolt of fire what other type of damage could it be ? Just like being stabbed by a dagger makes it piercing damage, it will be the same damage as the attack.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:


Ofcourse it is the same type, if you are hit by a bolt of fire what other type of damage could it be ? Just like being stabbed by a dagger makes it piercing damage, it will be the same damage as the attack.

Logically that makes sense, at my Home game that is how I would run it, the problem is in the rules of Sneak Attack, it does not actually say that, It only mentions Non-Lethal Damage, it never mentions Damage Type as being the Same, you could run a problem with this in Society Games with different GMs running it different ways.

A Simple line added to Sneak Attack stating that Damage done by Sneak Attack is the same type as the Weapon used would fix this, right now it does not say that at all.

Unless it says it somewhere else and if you point it out to me I would appreciate it.


Dragnmoon wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


Ofcourse it is the same type, if you are hit by a bolt of fire what other type of damage could it be ? Just like being stabbed by a dagger makes it piercing damage, it will be the same damage as the attack.

Logically that makes sense, at my Home game that is how I would run it, the problem is in the rules of Sneak Attack, it does not actually say that, It only mentions Non-Lethal Damage, it never mentions Damage Type as being the Same, you could run a problem with this in Society Games with different GMs running it different ways.

A Simple line added to Sneak Attack stating that Damage done by Sneak Attack is the same type as the Weapon used would fix this, right now it does not say that at all.

Unless it says it somewhere else and if you point it out to me I would appreciate it.

no there isnt a specific mention, I look upon it from reverse perspective, it doesn't say sneak attack is a specific damage type, rather it is like a critical hit, it deal extra damage but it is still the same type.

EDIT: ofcourse there can be a complication if you wield a flaming sword, for realism it should increase the fire damage as well, though I am fairly sure it would just add physical damage in that case.

Dark Archive

Dragnmoon wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


Ofcourse it is the same type, if you are hit by a bolt of fire what other type of damage could it be ? Just like being stabbed by a dagger makes it piercing damage, it will be the same damage as the attack.

Logically that makes sense, at my Home game that is how I would run it, the problem is in the rules of Sneak Attack, it does not actually say that, It only mentions Non-Lethal Damage, it never mentions Damage Type as being the Same, you could run a problem with this in Society Games with different GMs running it different ways.

A Simple line added to Sneak Attack stating that Damage done by Sneak Attack is the same type as the Weapon used would fix this, right now it does not say that at all.

Unless it says it somewhere else and if you point it out to me I would appreciate it.

by that logic it never says the damage isn't the same type.

besides isn't the rule of thumb "if pathfinder didn't specifically change it from 3.5 its still the same"?

but anyway back to 0 level spells

an d6 for a 0 level touch spell? the rays deal d3, and the only existing thing that does a d6 the 0 level is disrupt undead.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Name Violation wrote:

besides isn't the rule of thumb "if pathfinder didn't specifically change it from 3.5 its still the same"?

Depends on if you allowed the Completes series.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Name Violation wrote:


by that logic it never says the damage isn't the same type.

besides isn't the rule of thumb "if pathfinder didn't specifically change it from 3.5 its still the same"?

Rules should not be thought of that way, if you start doing that you can start to make anything up. And I never except that argument when some says,"well the rules don't say I can't do that!"

For Home games as a GM I can rule it the way I want to, but for Society Games I can't I have to go by RAW.

That rule of Thumb was for Beta not the PFRPG, the PFRPG is meant to replace 3.5 Players/GM Guide.

As Written by RAW I would say that Only the 10 level Arcane Trickster power lets you use the same type, otherwise Sneak Attack is 'Untyped Damage'

Edit: Sorry Name Violation, The first part of my reply is directed at Remco Sommeling, not you. I apologize.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Name Violation wrote:

besides isn't the rule of thumb "if pathfinder didn't specifically change it from 3.5 its still the same"?

Depends on if you allowed the Completes series.

but the rule didn't magically appear in the complete series, it was merely clarified there.

but this subject has been brought up a million times before, and isnt the topic at hand


Dragnmoon wrote:
Name Violation wrote:


by that logic it never says the damage isn't the same type.

besides isn't the rule of thumb "if pathfinder didn't specifically change it from 3.5 its still the same"?

Rules should not be thought of that way, if you start doing that you can start to make anything up. And I never except that argument when some says,"well the rules don't say I can't do that!"

For Home games as a GM I can rule it the way I want to, but for Society Games I can't I have to go by RAW.

That rule of Thumb was for Beta not the PFRPG, the PFRPG is meant to replace 3.5 Players/GM Guide.

As Written by RAW I would say that Only the 10 level Arcane Trickster power lets you use the same type, otherwise Sneak Attack is 'Untyped Damage'

Edit: Sorry Name Violation, The first part of my reply is directed at Remco Sommeling, not you. I apologize.

Untyped damage means it can penetrate any DR or energy resistance, you really want to rule it like that ?

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:


Untyped damage means it can penetrate any DR or energy resistance, you really want to rule it like that ?

Now that Makes it interesting and a very good Counter Argument, By that Argument it makes it unlikley that the ability for Sneak Attack to be the Same type of Damage only with the 10 level Arcane Trikster power unlikely, since at that point you are making it worse.. Good Job of Convincing me, and an Argument I can bring at Table at Society Games.

Still wish they made it clear in the Sneak Attack ability though.


Any chance SKR's spells linked to earlier in this thread could find their way into an official Pathfinder source? Ultimate Magic, maybe?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 0 level touch spell All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.