If, say an oracle has this feat and wants to use it on a cure spell does he have to roll a ranges touch to use it on his allies?
Obviously if he was trying to attack undead he would.
|
The only thing the text of the feat says on this subject is
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.
I have had GMs rule that ANY spell with a range of touch (like CLW or shield of faith) would then require a ranged touch attack. However that's not what the feat says. You only have to make an attack roll for the reach spell if the unmodified spell required an attack roll.
Clerics and druids must take more time to spontaneously cast a metamagic version of a cure, inflict, or summon spell. Spontaneously casting a metamagic version of a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast.
Yes, it requires an extended casting time.
Re: Touch spells, ranged touch spells, and attack rolls: A CLW that is used to damage a foe requires an attack roll, and there is no such thing as a 'ranged touch spell' that does not require a ranged touch attack; therefore, it seems sensible that a Reach CLW used on an ally would still require a ranged touch attack.
|
|
Clerics and druids must take more time to spontaneously cast a metamagic version of a cure, inflict, or summon spell. Spontaneously casting a metamagic version of a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast.Yes, it requires an extended casting time.
Ummm... I don't see any question about extended casting time.
Re: Touch spells, ranged touch spells, and attack rolls: A CLW that is used to damage a foe requires an attack roll, and there is no such thing as a 'ranged touch spell' that does not require a ranged touch attack; therefore, it seems sensible that a Reach CLW used on an ally would still require a ranged touch attack.
You can always touch a willing ally with no attack roll required. Just because casting cure light wounds on an undead requires an attack roll, it doesn't mean that it requires an attack roll on a willing ally.
The feat changes the range from "touch" to "close" (as one of the options). The additional text in the feat states that when a spell that normally requires a touch attack (like shocking grasp or using CLW to attack an undead) is modified with reach to be a close, medium, or long range spell it now requires a ranged touch attack.
So, yes you need a ranged touch attack to use CLW on an undead. No, you don't need it on a willing ally.
Ummm... I don't see any question about extended casting time.
Maybe I misread; pretty certain when it was first posted this morning it was also asking about the time required.
You can always touch a willing ally with no attack roll required. Just because casting cure light wounds on an undead requires an attack roll, it doesn't mean that it requires an attack roll on a willing ally.
You're right in that you can always make a touch attack on a willing ally with no attack roll. But that's a different mechanic from a ranged touch spell.
This has little to do with the feat; it's in the basic rules on touch spells, touch attacks, and ranged touch attacks.
Note that the first entry covering touch spells is in bold, while its sub-entries are in italics.
Then note that the section on ranged touch is also in bold, denoting that it is a separate mechanic, and that the section does not include the text about getting to touch a friend for free.
It's the difference between successfully handing a friend a potion (doesn't require a roll, because you're adjacent) and successfully throwing a friend a potion (does require a roll).
This leads to the question: can you deliver the reach spell as a melee touch, thus no longer requiring an attack roll?
RAW seems to leave clerics hung out to dry on this one. For once, a metamagic feat can actually make a spell worse. (Obviously, an oracle has no such issue.)
I have never required the roll. But I've always considered that in contradiction to RAW in this instance.
Given the difficulties of firing into combat, potential cover, etc., it seems like you must use a ranged touch attack.
The closest thing to a rules answer on this, that I've found, is the Heavenly Fire ability of Celestial Sorcerers:
Heavenly Fire (Sp): Starting at 1st level, you can unleash a ray of heavenly fire as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. Against evil creatures, this ray deals 1d4 points of damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. This damage is divine and not subject to energy resistance or immunity. This ray heals good creatures of 1d4 points of damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. A good creature cannot benefit from your heavenly fire more than once per day. Neutral creatures are neither harmed nor healed by this effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Read in a silly manner, you can't actually use it on allies (since it specifies targeting foes), but otherwise it does not make any allocation for using not requiring a ranged touch attack to use it to heal an ally.
|
|
Bear in mind that the range progression for a reach spell is touch, close, medium, long.
Attack spells with a range of touch always require a touch attack. Spells with a range of close, medium, or long never require an attack roll unless the spell description specifically calls for a ranged touch attack. The language in the Reach metamagic feat exists to clarify that just because you made shocking grasp a close range spell, that doesn't mean it automatically hits. I don't believe it's supposed to penalize beneficial spells (which don't require a touch attack).
If, say an oracle has this feat and wants to use it on a cure spell does he have to roll a ranges touch to use it on his allies?
Obviously if he was trying to attack undead he would.
It depends on how the GM handles it. Generally, a character doesn't need to roll for a touch attack against an unresisting target (just like a character can voluntarily fail saving throws, such as with the "Yes (harmless)" spells) when not in combat. Ranged touch attacks generally do require attack rolls.
In a combat situation, if the ally is fighting in melee (requiring continuously shifting position, etc.), the GM may treat them as flat-footed against the ally; if they are standing in one place (casting spells, making ranged attacks, or just waiting for the caster to touch them), then the GM may treat them as helpless against the ally. Ranged touch spells can be handled the same (although with the -4 for firing into melee if it applies and the caster lacks Precise Shot).
The feat seems to say the touch become close and touch attacks become ranged touch attacks so whether or not you have to use close or a ranged touch depends on the use of the spell.
Example
Cure light wounds to an ally is a touch spell so it becomes "close"=no ranged touch attack
Cure light wounds to an undead is a touch attack so it would become a ranged touch attack.
Thanks for all the replies! Really helps