As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delevering a spell attack"
I disagree. Any rules buffs want to take this one on?
As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delevering a spell attack"
I disagree. Any rules buffs want to take this one on?
Seems like a no brainer to me. You touch the target you take fire shield damage.
Ah, but you ARE striking with your body. Your body still contacts the enemy to discharge the spell. Assuming you're not using spectral hand or whatnot. Also, a touch spell is still an attack; it's a melee touch attack. The wording could use some clean-up, I think, but I'd say "sorry, you reached into the flames, congratulations, you inflicted wounds on him and you burned yourself in the process".
|
As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delevering a spell attack"
I disagree. Any rules buffs want to take this one on?
Umm...fire shield triggers when you attack with a melee WEAPON (with no reach ability) and you think that touching somebody with your hands don't count as getting close enough?!? Sorry, but yer wrong and your not gonna get much support on that.
Umm...fire shield triggers when you attack with a melee WEAPON (with no reach ability) and you think that touching somebody with your hands don't count as getting close enough?!? Sorry, but yer wrong and your not gonna get much support on that.As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delevering a spell attack"
I disagree. Any rules buffs want to take this one on?
Perhaps you'd like to read a little more carefully before giving such a strong opinion.
As i see it, when you are making a touch attack, your hand (the spell) counts in all regards as a melee weapon, and as such you are subject to a fire shield spell. I mean you can take Weaponfocus(touch attack/spell).
As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delevering a spell attack"
The assumption isn't in the rules its in the logic. Its assuming that "you are striking with your body" and "you are delivering a spell attack" are mutually exclusive terms. You are in fact, delivering a spell attack WITH your body.
Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject
This isn't the back of mom's station wagon. You can't say "the spell went off" but "I'm not toouuuuching you!"
The assumption *is* in the rules.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee).
Peruse:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering---final/combat---final#TOC-Touch-Atta cksAdditional, and pertinent, information:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering---final/combat---final#TOC-Standard-A ctions
Specifically the part where it says that a caster delivering a touch attack counts as an "armed" unarmed attack (much like a monks unarmed strike). Which ALSO means that a caster can deliver a touch spell as an AoO
|
As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delivering a spell attack"
I disagree. Any rules buffs want to take this one on?
Umm...fire shield triggers when you attack with a melee WEAPON (with no reach ability) and you think that touching somebody with your hands don't count as getting close enough?!? Sorry, but yer wrong and your not gonna get much support on that.
Perhaps you'd like to read a little more carefully before giving such a strong opinion.
Errr...I think he was actually agreeing with you.
His bile was directed at the sort of person who would try to weasel that poking someone with their finger did not count as touching them.
Hell; they should take double damage, since they're even closer than the guy who whacks with a sword.
Specifically the part where it says that a caster delivering a touch attack counts as an "armed" unarmed attack (much like a monks unarmed strike). Which ALSO means that a caster can deliver a touch spell as an AoO
Ooookaaaaay.... I'm not saying that casters can't deliver touch spells as AoO. I have no idea where you're going with that or what its supposed to mean.
I'm answering the question "Does Fire Shield apply to melee touch attacks?" with an emphatic yes. With fire shield if you strike the caster with your body or a handheld weapon the spell goes off. You can make an attack of opportunity with a sword or a chill touch or a held inflict serious wounds... you're still touching the wizard with something you're holding and you're going to set off the shield. You cannot both make contact with the wizard to set off your touch spell (you must touch him) and not contact him to set off the fire shield.
|
|
As the subject. The situation was someone using a melee touch attack to deliver an inflict wounds spell. Claim was made that "you aren't striking with your body. You are delevering a spell attack"
I disagree. Any rules buffs want to take this one on?
This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each
creature that attacks you in melee.
The spellcaster is certainly attacking the shielded creature in melee. Not sure why the claimant wants to rely on the second paragraph of the spell and ignore the first.
The spellcaster is certainly attacking the shielded creature in melee. Not sure why the claimant wants to rely on the second paragraph of the spell and ignore the first.
Because thats the paragraph that lets the claimant not get burned.