| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is this "legal"?
F/MU (not Magus) with TWF casts Shocking Grasp, misses with free touch attack.
On next round, uses TWF to attack with weapon in one hand and a touch attack with the other.
Now, I know that if he/she/it has IUS, then no problemo, just use unarmed strike, but if the F/MU doesn't have IUS, does the fact that a held spell counts as "armed" allow for it to be included in a TWF sequence without incurring an AoO?
Here's the text for Held Spells:
"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."
Is this "legal"?
F/MU (not Magus) with TWF casts Shocking Grasp, misses with free touch attack.
On next round, uses TWF to attack with weapon in one hand and a touch attack with the other.
Now, I know that if he/she/it has IUS, then no problemo, just use unarmed strike, but if the F/MU doesn't have IUS, does the fact that a held spell counts as "armed" allow for it to be included in a TWF sequence without incurring an AoO?
Here's the text for Held Spells:
** spoiler omitted **
There isn't a "free touch attack", the standard action of casting the spell includes the attack (just a nit pick/clarification). On to your question, the spell being "held" makes that limb count as armed. As for how it interacts with TWF, it is a touch attack and would count as a light weapon. If you attempt to make a regular attack (meaning you are attempting to deal damage as well as the spell effect) you would provoke an AoO for not having IUS - you are attempting to use it in away that it wasn't meant and that would be the penalty. If you are just using it as the touch attack it would go off with whatever penalties (being primary or off hand) from TWF would be appropriate.
There isn't a "free touch attack", the standard action of casting the spell includes the attack (just a nit pick/clarification). On to your question, the spell being "held" makes that limb count as armed. As for how it interacts with TWF, it is a touch attack and would count as a light weapon. If you attempt to make a regular attack (meaning you are attempting to deal damage as well as the spell effect) you would provoke an AoO for not having IUS - you are attempting to use it in away that it wasn't meant and that would be the penalty. If you are just using it as the touch attack it would go off with whatever penalties (being primary or off hand) from TWF would be appropriate.Is this "legal"?
F/MU (not Magus) with TWF casts Shocking Grasp, misses with free touch attack.
On next round, uses TWF to attack with weapon in one hand and a touch attack with the other.
Now, I know that if he/she/it has IUS, then no problemo, just use unarmed strike, but if the F/MU doesn't have IUS, does the fact that a held spell counts as "armed" allow for it to be included in a TWF sequence without incurring an AoO?
Here's the text for Held Spells:
** spoiler omitted **
Zactly!
er I mean
+1
As for how it interacts with TWF, it is a touch attack and would count as a light weapon. If you attempt to make a regular attack (meaning you are attempting to deal damage as well as the spell effect) you would provoke an AoO for not having IUS - you are attempting to use it in away that it wasn't meant and that would be the penalty. If you are just using it as the touch attack it would go off with whatever penalties (being primary or off hand) from TWF would be appropriate.
The group I'm playing with rule that you can't mix melee touch and standard melee attacks, so I'd warn the OP to check with their DM before building a character around this. My character DOES have Improved Unarmed Strike, so I could use a held charged spell on an unarmed strike, but I'd be against standard AC, not touch AC. (And I would get unarmed strike damage along with the magic damage, as usual, but the spells are mostly for when I can't hit enemy AC with my piddly multi-class/AT to-hit, so that's less useful than it might appear.)
As for how it interacts with TWF, it is a touch attack and would count as a light weapon. If you attempt to make a regular attack (meaning you are attempting to deal damage as well as the spell effect) you would provoke an AoO for not having IUS - you are attempting to use it in away that it wasn't meant and that would be the penalty. If you are just using it as the touch attack it would go off with whatever penalties (being primary or off hand) from TWF would be appropriate.
The group I'm playing with rule that you can't mix melee touch and standard melee attacks, so I'd warn the OP to check with their DM before building a character around this. My character DOES have Improved Unarmed Strike, so I could use a held charged spell on an unarmed strike, but I'd be against standard AC, not touch AC. (And I would get unarmed strike damage along with the magic damage, as usual, but the spells are mostly for when I can't hit enemy AC with my piddly multi-class/AT to-hit, so that's less useful than it might appear.)
I'm not going to argue the DM's ability house rule and to say no, but by the game rules (we are in the rules forum) it does actually work. If the DM were implementing things of that sort, they should be warning players of the house rules before character creation as a matter of fairness and courtesy.
Thanks for the input everyone.
For the record, I am the DM in the campaign. I just wanted to make sure the next BigBad's tactics were kosher.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
On to your question, the spell being "held" makes that limb count as armed. As for how it interacts with TWF, it is a touch attack and would count as a light weapon. If you attempt to make a regular attack (meaning you are attempting to deal damage as well as the spell effect) you would provoke an AoO for not having IUS - you are attempting to use it in away that it wasn't meant and that would be the penalty. If you are just using it as the touch attack it would go off with whatever penalties (being primary or off hand) from TWF would be appropriate.
Well... The Touch Attack rules are very poorly worded / organized, but per RAW I don`t believe that`s actually the case. Perhaps if/when it is Errata`d your take on it could be in line with RAW, but until then it isn`t.
Discharging a ´Held Charge´ gives you two options vs. non-Allies (allies can be touched 6/round):
via Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapons (i.e. in place of any IUS/Natural attack)
OR via a Standard Action to Touch one opponent. Per RAW there is nothing that says you can make a Touch Attack (vs. Touch AC) via ANY attack (i.e. Iteratives, CLeaves, AoO`s of all things) unless using the UAS/Natural option, only via the Standard Action. This is in conflict with the idea that `any touch` discharges the spell, but there just isn`t actually any wording describing the ´attack mode´ of a Touch Attack besides the Standard Action wording.
IMHO the problem is that Touch Attacks aren`t really defined anywhere explicitly, only in passing in relation to Touch AC, and alongside ´Armed´ Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells in Combat. ´Armed UAS´ counting as armed is subsumed to UAS, which doesn`t get around needing to target non-Touch AC, and as mentioned the rules for Touch Spells in Combat / Holding a Charge only gives 2 options: Standard Action for Touch vs. Touch AC and any Unarmed Strike/Natural Weapon attack.
Now I definitely agree, your suggested approach makes alot of sense, and I think it`s reasonable that it coresponds to the RAI, but the actual rules text doesn`t allow you to do that.... Hit the FAQ button and hopefully this will be addressed finally.
Well... The Touch Attack rules are very poorly worded / organized, but per RAW I don`t believe that`s actually the case. Perhaps if/when it is Errata`d your take on it could be in line with RAW, but until then it isn`t.
I'll post the pertinent rules, I'm not sure what makes it poorly worded, but I agree sometimes the rules may be spread around and could be organized better.
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.
Discharging a ´Held Charge´ gives you two options vs. non-Allies (allies can be touched 6/round):
via Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapons (i.e. in place of any IUS/Natural attack)
OR via a Standard Action to Touch one opponent. Per RAW there is nothing that says you can make a Touch Attack (vs. Touch AC) via ANY attack (i.e. Iteratives, CLeaves, AoO`s of all things) unless using the UAS/Natural option, only via the Standard Action. This is in conflict with the idea that `any touch` discharges the spell, but there just isn`t actually any wording describing the ´attack mode´ of a Touch Attack besides the Standard Action wording.
Normally you would be correct you cannot just choose to make touch attacks BUT the general rule is countered by the fact that the spell specifically states it is a touch attack. The spell , provides the exception to the general rule and allows you to make a touch attack with the held charge. This is further expounded upon by the rule quoted and in bold above, where you can CHOOSE to instead make a regular attack with the held charge.
IMHO the problem is that Touch Attacks aren`t really defined anywhere explicitly, only in passing in relation to Touch AC, and alongside ´Armed´ Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells in Combat. ´Armed UAS´ counting as armed is subsumed to UAS, which doesn`t get around needing to target non-Touch AC, and as mentioned the rules for Touch Spells in Combat / Holding a Charge only gives 2 options: Standard Action for Touch vs. Touch AC and any Unarmed Strike/Natural Weapon attack.
Where you looked didn't have the rules, but they are there as copied from the PDF for you (or anyone). I'd have to say you wasted a FAQ clicky >.<
Skylancer, you're missing his point: he's arguing that nowhere in the rules does it specifically say you can use charged touch attacks iteratively or with TWF/cleaves/AOOs. (Nor is it listed in spells like Chill Touch, which give multiple charges.) The language implies and defaults to making them as standard actions, and therefore, not compatible with TWF, which needs a Full Attack.
You may feel that, as a kind of attack, they're obviously compatible with iteratives/TWF/AOOs, but it never specifically says they are, and others -- like my group -- find it just as self-evident that they're standard actions.
To the OP: I think you should go for it, especially if your DM-style tends towards allowing anything not forbidden, as opposed to forbidding anything not expressly permitted. I think the rules are ambiguous, but you're the DM and you think it might be fun, do it. Personally, I love that kind of thing, and anything that makes weird melee casters, rogues with greataxes, or anything else strange viable is peachy-keen in my book.
Skylancer, you're missing his point: he's arguing that nowhere in the rules does it specifically say you can use charged touch attacks iteratively or with TWF/cleaves/AOOs. (Nor is it listed in spells like Chill Touch, which give multiple charges.) The language implies and defaults to making them as standard actions, and therefore, not compatible with TWF, which needs a Full Attack.
.
You may feel that, as a kind of attack, they're obviously compatible with iteratives/TWF/AOOs, but it never specifically says they are, and others -- like my group -- find it just as self-evident that they're standard actions.
So what is being said is that when attempting to use a held charge as a touch attack it is unable to be used as anything other as a standard action? And that if you wish to use a held charge you must use it as an unarmed strike (as they are mentioned) instead of a touch attack?
I'd actually agree if the rules didn't allow you to make an attack and then choose whether or not you wish to make a full round attack. The way the rules are laid out, every attack is listed to be a standard attack (be it with a weapon, IUS, ranged attacks or natural attacks). After resolving the attack and expending the standard action you can, from that point, decide if you are going to take a movement or continue attacking and in fact make it a full round action. What this means taking the TWFing example is, if you are attacking with your touch attack with a held charge that is your "primary" attack (at the highest bonus) and from there you would have to use the weapon (or whatever is making the other attack) as the off hand weapon. Now it might not be the best choice if BAB is high enough and there is only 1 charge held (as you'd be stuck with an unarmed attack as your "main hand" for the subsequent attacks) but it does allow you to fire off a touch attack and follow up that attack with an off hand attack by deciding to make a full round attack after that initial Touch Attack (which was a standard action).
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Chapter 3), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks. If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Is this "legal"?
F/MU (not Magus) with TWF casts Shocking Grasp, misses with free touch attack.
On next round, uses TWF to attack with weapon in one hand and a touch attack with the other.
You're good to go. You require ONE free hand to cast, it would make sense that you only need 1 hand to deliver the charge.
Now, I know that if he/she/it has IUS, then no problemo, just use unarmed strike, but if the F/MU doesn't have IUS, does the fact that a held spell counts as "armed" allow for it to be included in a TWF sequence without incurring an AoO?
The spell is considered to be arming you, unless you also try to make a regular attack to deal 1d3+ str damage + the spell.
Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Just because I can. Told you I would watch what you post Jake. Now I know everything. Good thing for you I went out and have been drinking so I will probably not remember this.
Someone's forgotten my love of misdirection. Muahahahahahaha*hack*hahaha.
Skylancer, you're missing his point: he's arguing that nowhere in the rules does it specifically say you can use charged touch attacks iteratively or with TWF/cleaves/AOOs. (Nor is it listed in spells like Chill Touch, which give multiple charges.) The language implies and defaults to making them as standard actions, and therefore, not compatible with TWF, which needs a Full Attack.
Exactly. THis is what the rules say:
Touch Spells in Combat: (...) You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
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.
SO besides the fact that the rules are wasting word-count re-hashing how you calculate Touch AC (which is described under the ´Touch Attacks´ sub-section of the Armor section), we´ve learned something about Touch Attacks, but nothing regarding their action typing, i.e. what actions they require.
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. (...)
So now we learn the action typing to touch 1 or up to 6 friends per round. Honestly, I swear I remembered that it was a Standard Action to Touch (Attack) 1 opponent, but the PRD currently actually has NO action typing to do that, it only gives that for `friends`.
So what is being said is that when attempting to use a held charge as a touch attack it is unable to be used as anything other as a standard action?
And that if you wish to use a held charge you must use it as an unarmed strike (as they are mentioned) instead of a touch attack?
Essentially, yes, though on the second point re: UAS/NaturalAttack delivery, that is the only option for delivery via Iteratives or AoO`s. (and that is based on stretching the rules for touching 1 friend as a Standard Action, since no action typing is given for touching an enemy, beyond free touch attacks as part of casting a spell, etc).
I'd actually agree if the rules didn't allow you to make an attack and then choose whether or not you wish to make a full round attack. The way the rules are laid out, every attack is listed to be a standard attack (be it with a weapon, IUS, ranged attacks or natural attacks). After resolving the attack and expending the standard action you can, from that point, decide if you are going to take a movement or continue attacking and in fact make it a full round action.
OK, this is the crux of the matter. Touch attack ISN`T amongst the attacks defined as variants of the attack action. Under ¨Unarmed Attacks: ´Armed´ Unarmed Attacks¨ touch spells are mentioned, but clearly in the context of using UAS to deliver a Touch charge (i.e. vs. normal AC along with Unarmed damage, allowing Iteratives and AoO`s), not in the sense we are discussing (Touch Attacks vs. Touch AC).
Like I said, the way you suggest is emminently reasonable and I would have no complaint playing that way, and in fact I would run any game in that way myself. This is solely an issue for Errata, because the RAW simply doesn`t provide the (needed) justification for how to run Touch Attacks... Re-checking the rules, I find this even more the case as even a Standard Action to touch a single enemy is in fact nowhere mentioned. The fact that so much word-count is wasted re-hashing the same info (how to calculate TOuch AC, etc) makes the fact this basic info is missing even more egregious. It`s an easy enough fix to add a ´Touch Attack´ sub-heading to the attack types (which themself need to be moved out from ´Attack Action´ and placed directly under Attacks / Attack Roll). If the game expects people to make clear distinctions between things like Attack Actions and ´any´ attack roll (obviously, an interpretation undermined by the fact that the rules for various attack modes are subsumed under the Attack Action itself, i.e. not general attack rolls), it shouldn`t simultaneously expect readers to IMAGINE that Touch Attacks are defined and treated as just another type/option of ´attacking´ action as you suggest. This isn`t merely pointless rules arguing, but the lack of definition of Touch Attacks actually has broader consequences: How exactly do you make a Touch Attack? Is it like an Unarmed Strike except as explicitly differentiated (vs. Touch AC, always considered armed)? Do you need a hand free to make a Touch Attack?
Touch attack ISN`T amongst the attacks defined as variants of the attack action. Under ¨Unarmed Attacks: ´Armed´ Unarmed Attacks¨ touch spells are mentioned, but clearly in the context of using UAS to deliver a Touch charge
No, that's clearly NOT the context. It is offering you an alternative method of delivery as opposed to the standard touch attack, something that was covered under 3.5 in a splatbook but never in the core rules.
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack <----- it is an attack in its own right. Attacks are by default ATTACKS, not standard actions.
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
Like I wrote above, the non-definition of Touch Attacks just leaves too many holes.
Do they otherwise work just like UAS? That`s pretty counter-intuitive to assume, considering one of the alternate delivery options is... using UAS to deliver a Touch (provoking unless w/ Imp. UAS).
Likewise, does it need a free hand?
UAS can be delivered via kicks, etc. So what`s the case for Touch Attacks (not delivered by the UAS option)?
Or does the `any touch discharges´ clause mean that UAS/Natural Attack delivery DOES discharge Touch Effects (but not melee damage) when beating Touch AC? (that`s a reasonable interpretation I´m fine with, but it doesn`t seem to be consensus at all, and if the case, it seems like the ´alternate option´ of UAS/Natural Attacks may as well be the ONLY option).
Is there a Weapon Focus: Touch Attacks, or does WF:Unarmed apply to such attacks?
Again, the problem is that the obvious way to describe this is with Touch Attacks as another variant attack mode along with melee, ranged, unarmed (as a subset of Unarmed if so intended). ...Which would let the remaining sections where it`s mentioned be seriously pared down to just the additional useful info (i.e. the Holding a Charge rules... which shouldn`t even contain the `alternate delivery options´, which should properly belong under UAS / Natural Attacks, since not all multi-round/target Touch Attacks need be Held, e.g. Calcific Touch which has a duration instead).
I`m not aware of any 3.5 material where it was actually defined, though I´d be interested to hear more.
Although that wasn`t technically dealt with as `Errata` by WotC (though I would say that defining basic concepts in another book is just MISPLACED Errata), it rather goes along with the other de jure 3.5 Errata which Paizo didn`t incorporate into PRPG because it wasn`t on the PRD.
And like I said before, it seems bizarre to expect readers to follow the letter of the rules contrary to standard English in cases like Attack Action vs. Attack Roll, while expect readers to connect the dots and fill in what the rules don`t actually say in this and other cases. Some of the unanswered questions are so arbitrary (free hand? weapon focus? does it work with the attack action, benefitting from vital strike, or since touch attack isn`t an option for the attack action, would a touch attack be `it`s own` standard action, not compatable with vital strike?) that I can`t even GUESS what Paizo`s RAI is, as both options seem utterly reasonable and workable.
Touch attacks are defined as "Attacks" in the standard action (PFRPG pg 182 "Armed" Unarmed Attacks) rules.
The full round full attack rules state that after a person makes an attack they can chose to take a movement action or continue to attack (fulfilling the full attack action). I guess technically you could call that they need to state they are using a full round attack action prior to making the touch attack so the rule kicks in.
Scenario (TWF caster with +4 BAB):
Character is holding a charge from last round and has a dagger in the other hand.
Character states they are taking a full round action (TWF - charge and dagger, character has option with which weapon is attacked with first pg. 187)
>- Standard action: Touch attack is rolled, (assume target is still up).
- Character decides to continue attack and now makes off hand attack with dagger.
<- Character has option to take a 5' step.
Same scenario
Character states they are taking a full round action (TWF - charge and dagger, character has option with which weapon is attacked with first pg. 187)
>- Standard action: Touch attack is rolled, (assume falls).
<- Character decides to take a Movement action: (prematurely ends Full Attack) to pull out another dagger.
-Character uses 5' step to close and threaten another target.
You cannot use a melee touch attack in a full round attack unless the spell say it functions as a weapon.
A spell armed is always a spell, so need a standard action. "Armed" means only you don't have AoO when you touch somebody.
So definitevely NO, you cannot use a touch attack with TWF.
See here Explanation by J. Jacobs
Problem is that thread is for Produce Flame, and then what he goes on to say doesn't mesh up with the written rules in the book. He does say that is how he runs it in his game and that is what they use as the baseline assumption they used for balance when they were reading the SRD. I have the utmost respect for the Paizo crew but even they play differently between them so you might get one answer from him and another answer from another Paizo employee. We've even had things said (like when Paizo does psionics they're going to use a spell slot system to make it compatible with the spell system currently used, just to have another person say we've made no decision about it yet). It's a shame he didn't come back to the thread to answer the questions that cropped up after.
I'm not saying he is wrong or not what they intended, just saying that the spell says it is a touch attack which is in fact stated to be a standard action in the rules, and the same rules say after you make an attack you can chose to continue on with a full round attack. At least in this case we have what they say is the intent, but the written rules seem to conflict with that.
A spell is a spell. So a spell follows the rules of spell.
Like flame blade, a sorcerer's claws, polymorph,iron body...
Even if you you have a spell hold in your arm, it keeps on to be a spell.
Show it in the rules. The rules i see define it as an attack.
I don't see the problem. Rules are clear, it's you who makes confusion.
A spell is a spell. So a spell follows the rules of spell. Even if you you have a spell hold in your arm, it keeps on to be a spell.
...and the same rules say after you make an attack you can chose to continue on with a full round attack.No. The rules don't say that. They just say you can use it a number of time = your caster level.
It is not written, because there are no needs for that: a spell is always a spell.By RAW and RAI, the rules are not in conflict with themselves.
J. Jacobs doesn't invent new rules nor make an errata: he just explains how the rules are.
The rules say one thing, James says his preference and how they consider the rules to work conflict with that. As the actions are actually stated to be one thing, and what James has said isn't spelled out in the rules, there is a conflict. If you want to jump on the intent band wagon ok, but when we play RAW there isn't any intent involved.
He explains how he runs them, that isn't the same as "how the rules are" That is how they play them. There is a difference.
And to clarify the spell is SRD, and the vast majority of the rules of PFRPG are SRD, technically they didn't write those rules unless the rule was reworded or rewritten. He even says as much with his comment about (paraphrase) this is what we assumed it to be when interpreting the SRD for balance.(end) This just comes down to what a huge job they had in creating this in such a short time and how many things are a copy and paste but might not have been meant as such. Again I will happily accept the intent was there and that is what they wanted, but the written rule doesn't bare that down. At this point it just comes down to waiting for an official errata of touch attack spells I guess.
[one answer from him and another answer from another Paizo employee. We've even had things said (like when Paizo does psionics they're going to use a spell slot system to make it compatible with the spell system currently used, just to have another person say we've made no decision about it yet). It's a shame he didn't come back to the thread to answer the questions that cropped up after.Actually what's been said has been clarified repeatedly. James Jacobs, the Creative Director expressed his PREFERENCE for a Vancian spell slot system for psionics, the team as a whole has made no decision about psionics save that such a book is at best, years in the future.
Which is my point, someone saying something on the boards doesn't make it so or "official" even if they are working for Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Problems with Touch Attack definition:
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
No ´willing targets´ limitation on that last line... Whoops.
You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.
That should probably read ´...any one target [friend or enemy] as a standard action...´
This line crucially seems to run in conflict on how Paizo staff has ruled on this previously (see Produce Flame thread), where they say that Touch Attacks cannot be combined with Iteratives (unless delivering a Touch via UAS/Natural Weapon) but can only be done via a Standard Action. I belive that ruling is based on the assumption that this line in specific says that TOuch Attacks (vs. Enemies) can be made via a Standard Action, when in fact the PRD never mentions the action to Touch Attack an Enemy in any location.Meanwhile apparently there is the interpretation that one can make Iterative Touch Attacks as part of the Full Attack Action since the Full Attack Action doesn`t actually restrict itself to the options of the Attack Action (which are Melee, Ranged, and Unarmed but no Touch Attack according to the Table) and thus by default can be presumed to include any attack vector.
This non-definition of Touch Attacks (besides the ancillary problems which I mentioned previously in this thread) is doubly confusing for many because of the ´alternate delivery option via UAS/Natural Weapons´ which is mentioned in Holding the Charge and (partially/with variances) in `Armed´ Unarmed Attacks, which ends up being the clearest definition of a way to deliver Touch Attack Charges... and which thus may appear to BE synonymous with Touch Attacks in the eyes of many readers (who focus on ´Armed´ Unarmed as BEING a Touch Attack, rather than as a variant delivery option, as per Holding the Charge).
...But this has been long ago brought up, even if not hashed out in every aspect.
Will it change/see Errata? Who knows?
That should probably read ´...any one target [friend or enemy] as a standard action...´
It should... if it said what you wanted it to say. It doesn't, so it doesn't. You can't simply say it SHOULD say something to support your interpretation about what it should say, its circular.
I don't think there's any doubt that you could make a claw claw bite attack normally, with one claw being the enchanted claw. I don't see why taking a touch attack instead of a claw swipe should somehow require more time, either realistically or by the rules. It is an attack. It is stated several times that its an attack. I really don't see an argument in "its not on this table so it must be a standard action"
Maybe I wasn`t clear enough that it ¨should¨ say that if it was to support James Jacobs´ take on Produce Flame (and Touch Spells at large). Since the context of this discussion (to me) is clearly potential Errata, these posts are inherently addressed to Paizo, so squaring up with their RAI was the context of ¨should¨. To me, the subsequent sentences clearly demonstrate that the RAW does not support James Jacobs` take, which explains the context of my use of ¨should¨.
If you read my post again, you also might notice that I do point out that there is no restriction on the type of attacks within the Full Attack action, which I go on to say provides justification for including Touch Attacks within Full Attacks... while the part you quote just means that there isn´t any RAW way to make a SINGLE Touch Attack as a Standard Action, of all things. As I mentioned in my previous post, re-reading the actual RAW here was quite a shock as to how I had thought that RAW to read (my FIRST post to this thread claimed the only RAW means to make Touch Attacks was a Standard Action (unique, not Attack Action), which was inline with JJ`s take but not to the actual RAW, while my subsequent posts all point out that Standard Action to Touch Attack an Enemy does not actually exist per RAW).
Personally, I`m willing to make the leap that the text was INTENDED to allow a Touch Attack as a Standard Action (this text hasn`t changed from 3.5, it`s a legacy error) in line with JJ, and likewise accept that the INTENT is that Touch Attacks (as opposed to Touches delivered via UAS/Naturals) cannot be Iterated, again in line with JJ`s take on intent. If you belive there is some other intent, or that the rules SHOULD work some particular way, that`s fine (though you`re apparently at odds with JJ... again, which is fine, because JJ has changd his ruling on multiple occassions and often ignores rules specifics in his responces).
I don´t know how to take your responces to my posts here, they seem to be fundamentally misinterpreting what I`m saying, while not conflicting with much of what I`m actually trying to communicate. I don´t know if this is a problem with my writing or your reading...?
Anyhow, I believe it´s clear the RAW is badly in need of Errata (6 creatures as a Full Round Action, without friendly limitation is clearly Errata). I don´t really care about what way it`s supposed to work, I`d be happy enough if Touch Attacks could be iterated (though that seems more open to cheese, it`s more consistent with the fluff text that ´any touch discharges´), but if they`re Standard Action only (unless specially allowed by spell/etc), so be it. I just think that the current RAW is a mess in 10 different ways WHATEVER the RAI is, and should be cleared up, so that if anybody wants to house-rule something different, they know what they are house-ruling and what they are following RAW.
Maybe I wasn`t clear enough that it ¨should¨ say that if it was to support James Jacobs´ take on Produce Flame (and Touch Spells at large).
that's your problem. As you've been told repeatedly, Produce flame is not your normal touch spell. It has a range and its own rules and wording that are specific to that spell and that spell alone.
If you read my post again
Read it enough times, thanks.
I don´t know how to take your responces to my posts here, they seem to be fundamentally misinterpreting what I`m saying, while not conflicting with much of what I`m actually trying to communicate. I don´t know if this is a problem with my writing or your reading...?
You're long on wind and short on rules.
Anyhow, I believe it´s clear the RAW is badly in need of Errata (6 creatures as a Full Round Action, without friendly limitation is clearly Errata). I don´t really care about what way it`s supposed to...
That doesn't need errata. Its clear as day from the context that the 6 you can touch as a full round action are the same six friendly creatures you can touch one or two sentences up. If you TRY to read contradictions into things you will find them.
I scrolled down at a few of JJ's answers. I saw where he is agreeing with you, but don't see what rules he's quoting for things like
Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way.
spells like chill touch let you threaten the space around you like a weapon does, negates the attack of opportunity for attacking like a weapon does, allows you to flank like a weapon does... in what way are they ever defined in the rules as not working like weapons?
I don't think there's any doubt that you could make a claw claw bite attack normally, with one claw being the enchanted claw. I don't see why taking a touch attack instead of a claw swipe should somehow require more time, either realistically or by the rules.
It might not require more time, but it would make your other claw and your bite secondary natural attacks for the round. Otherwise my Monk/Druid would do slap/slap/claw/bite instead of claw/claw/bite (no flurry, just iterative unarmed strikes).
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
I suppose one could argue that the touch attack isn't a melee weapon or unarmed strike, but then it wouldn't qualify to be combined with natural weapons anyhow (at least not per the rules I quoted, and I don't know of others covering the subject).
"Touch spells in combat" p185-186 is very clear, and it is what Jacobs speak of.
The rules don't support your interpretation.
Too vague to be useful. I've already quoted those pages to support my position. I'm not going to argue with a handwave. The rules lay out what happens on the round when you cast the spell. They do not say what sort of action it is to touch someone in subsequent rounds except to refer to it repeatedly as an attack.
That doesn't mean melee touch attack is a weapon.
In "Armed unarmed attack" p182, you have "natural physical weapon" too: a natural attack doesn't work like a weapon, even if it let you threaten the space around you like a weapon does, negates the attack of opportunity for attacking like a weapon does, allows you to flank like a weapon does...
... but there are listed rules for how natural attacks work. There are only listed rules for how spells work in the round they're cast.
So, you can
- touch an ally or yourself as a standard action (or as a swift the round of casting)
yes, this is spelled out.
-
touch an enemy as a standard action
The is not spelled out. The logic used to reach that conclussion wasn't spelled out in the rules either.
- make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge (A normal attack, not more) as a standard action.
There's nothing to indicate that your normal attack routine would have to be interrupted because one of your claws happens to have a spell on it.
"If you TRY to read contradictions into things you will find them."...sure, that's you have sought.
I don't see a contradiction. Nothing about how i'm reading the rules is contradictory with itself or with the text. If you think differently you need to point out the specific text you think i'm contradicting (in other words, quote it out of the book)
edit: we know that its not a standard action to use a held spell to attack because you threaten area around you and can make attacks of opportunity with it. if it was a standard action you couldn't do that.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
I don't try to convince you, it's hopeless...
Neither reading the text nor logic nor explanation of J.Jacobs can convince you, so i don't see why i should go on.Do what you want.
If you're not going to take the time to convince me then don't take the time to insult me either. Something isn't logic just because you say it.
You can make attacks of opportunity with a held touch spell. Nothing in your reading accounts for that.