So, here the rules fail us in terms of specific direction...As far a specific rules on that subject...we have none.
Which usually means it isn't allowed, though that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an impromptu GM ruling for its creativity. There are no rules for cutting the rope holding up a chandelier and using it to swing down into the center of the ballroom and kick the BBEG in the face. Only a jerk GM wouldn't allow it though ;)
Let me set aside my interpretation and ask if you would allow a caster in your game to disarm almost any opponent with just a touch attack?
At an appropriate spell level and with a properly worded spell, sure. Hydraulic Push a 1st lvl ranged bull rush spell.
Where does the item shrink to?
I'd say he's still holding it. If he passes a spellcraft check he'll even know how to get it back to normal.
If he is holding it does it spring back into being when he smashes the fist holding it into someone? Does his fist count as a solid surface?
No and no. You have to "toss" them onto a solid surface.
Are these all valid questions?
Don't see why they wouldn't be. If you didn't read my earlier post, check it out. I really think sunder is the answer here for a house rule to do this. It means any old caster can't just bust this spell out at random and hope to outperform a maneuver-based character. But a caster wanting to excel at this could put points/items into str, take Improved Sunder and explore other options to make this a tactic worth trying, like increasing their natural reach with a bloodline, enlarge person, or fluid form.
Sidenote: it occurs to me that by the time a caster would be using Shrink Item as an attack, most enemies will be holding onto magical items so it doesn't even matter.
Let me set aside my interpretation and ask if you would allow a caster in your game to disarm almost any opponent with just a touch attack? I think the answer is no. So what would you do to make it a little harder within the rules? Attack of opportunity? Combat Maneuver?
It this case it is a 3rd-level spell. Shatter, a 2nd-level spell does this with only a will save (against a non-magical weapon). So, I don't think it completely out of line. As I said above, I would still call for an attack of opportunity.
I could see a crazy extensive rules argument come out of this.
I see fertile ground for GM interpretation. Toe-may-to, Tah-mah-to. :-)
Where does the item shrink to? Is the hill giant holding a tiny cloth version of his weapon? Or does it flutter to the ground? If he is holding it does it spring back into being when he smashes the fist holding it into someone? Does his fist count as a solid surface? Are these all valid questions?
I imagine it thusly:
Mage squares off against giant. Mage casts shrink item and goes into to touch the giant's club.
"Hey, Grog, no say you can touch club." Swings at mage. Mage ducks and touches club.
Club shrinks down to size of a pencil. Grog looks at the tiny stick in his hand.
Mage curls his finger downward as the stick turns to cloth.
Grog watches, frowning, as his tiny stick droops.
Grog bellows with rage and drops useless tiny cloth club. Club hits the ground. Club returns to normal size.
"What dis? Grog club no stay broke." Grog picks up the club and advances on mage. "Come here, funny man."
I'd definately allow an AoO, seems the most sensible thing to do.
I would probably use the size modifier of the weapon rather than the wielder, but otherwise not changing the touch ac, CMD also applies deflection bonus and similar ac bonuses to the final score so taking them into account seems fair.
You are not attacking a creature. You are attacking a held object.
So, here the rules fail us in terms of specific direction. This is where people are taking cues from combat maneuvers in that if you attack a held weapon you suffer an attack of opportunity from the creature holding the weapon. Also the concept that held and worn objects get the saving throws of the wielding creature favors that interpretation. As far a specific rules on that subject...we have none.
I do not think that recommends against my path as even with no attack of opportunity the question is: what is the rule to target a specific piece of equipment? The only rules that provide solutions are the combat maneuver rules for sunder and disarm. Which leads back to an attack of opportunity question.
In this case it is a touch attack against the piece of equipment -- if the club is magical nothing else will matter since the spell fails.
Here's the thing though -- IF it's an unarmed attack against the club then no AoO.
If we extend the attended object rule to include AC then it's still no AoO.
It specifically is not a combat maneuver so no AoO for that.
In fact all it comes down to is a touch attack against an object -- which we already have the rules for... which still allows no AoO.
Simply put there isn't an AoO without simply inventing rules out of midair, which isn't necessary since we already have all the rules we need to deal with this situation:
Mage casts spell, mage makes touch attack, attended object gets the save throw, if successful item is unaffected, if failed the item shrinks (and at the mage's option) becoming clothlike. If the object is magical the spell fails to no effect.
I think we are all on the same page on allowing this action.
Allowing in some form or fashion yes...
Let me set aside my interpretation and ask if you would allow a caster in your game to disarm almost any opponent with just a touch attack? I think the answer is no. So what would you do to make it a little harder within the rules? Attack of opportunity? Combat Maneuver?
Gee I hope he never casts color spray which will do the exact same thing... or ghoul touch... heaven forbid he cast hold monster, sleep, deeper slumber... why the list goes on and on...
I could see a crazy extensive rules argument come out of this. Where does the item shrink to? Is the hill giant holding a tiny cloth version of his weapon? Or does it flutter to the ground? If he is holding it does it spring back into being when he smashes the fist holding it into someone? Does his fist count as a solid surface? Are these all valid questions?
Is there a reason it would go anywhere? There is no teleportation involved in the spell so it stays in the giant's hand... albeit in a useless form (for the time being). If the giant tosses it to a solid surface then it can regain its original shape (in fact if the giant simply tosses it over his shoulder when it hits the ground it would change back). If he swings his fist without letting go of it there will be no effect since it wasn't tossed (it's not nitro here where simply slamming it would do -- it's more like C4 where you have to introduce the proper action to get it to pop).
So to answer these questions:
1. Still in hand
2. Yes -- possibly (if the mage decides to make it clothlike)
3. No.
4. No.
5. invalid question (has to be tossed).
6. Some are.
Going by pattern... I think it should provoke AoO (unless the wizard had improved sunder/disarm... which I doubt he has).
As my example, here's a touch spell that's is expected to be used against wielded items. It provokes an AoO when you employ it.
Rusting Grasp
School transmutation; Level druid 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target one nonmagical ferrous object (or the volume of the object within 3 ft. of the touched point) or one ferrous creature
Duration see text
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Any iron or iron alloy item you touch crumbles into rust. If the item is so large that it cannot fit within a 3-foot radius, a 3-foot-radius volume of the metal is rusted and destroyed. Magic items made of metal are immune to this spell.
You may employ rusting grasp in combat with a successful melee touch attack. Rusting grasp used in this way instantaneously destroys 1d6 points of AC gained from metal armor (to the maximum amount of protection the armor offers) through corrosion.
Weapons in use by an opponent targeted by the spell are more difficult to grasp. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against the weapon. A metal weapon that is hit is destroyed. Striking at an opponent's weapon provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, you must touch the weapon and not the other way around.
Against a ferrous creature, rusting grasp instantaneously deals 3d6 points of damage + 1 per caster level (maximum +15) per successful attack. The spell lasts for 1 round per level, and you can make one melee touch attack per round.
Specifically when used against weapons in use -- not against armor or shields.
However that's a specific spell with its own specific set up, it doesn't state that these are the general rules.
Specifically when used against weapons in use -- not against armor or shields.
However that's a specific spell with its own specific set up, it doesn't state that these are the general rules.
That's correct. The problem is that there are no general rules.
The only RAW way to attack an attended item in combat is through the use of the Sunder combat maneuver. Pathfinder does not have a general rule for attacking an attended item otherwise.
|
I stand corrected. Thanks.Targeting an attended object with a spell is more-or-less a called shot, an option that isn't covered with the core rules.I am surprised at you Howie.
Ya know, the more I look at this, I'm seeing the following:
1) A character can make a touch attack for which an opponent is the target; the rules for this are clear.
2) A character can cast a spell that targets an attended object; the rules for this are pretty clear. Dispel magic comes to mind.
But...
3) There is a grey area that is not clearly spelled out, which is whether a character can make a touch attack that targets an attended object. Stynkk called me on the targeting of objects...he was correct. But, I'm not convinced that my original objection, that of targeting an item with a touch attack when it is attended, I'm not convinced this is possible without invoking another rules source, whether that is an existing combat manouver, etc.
As my example, here's a touch spell that's is expected to be used against wielded items. It provokes an AoO when you employ it.
Rusting Grasp
Nice. Thanks, Sekret. I know it won't be accepted by everyone, but when you're working between the lines any precedence helps.
Specifically when used against weapons in use -- not against armor or shields.
However that's a specific spell with its own specific set up, it doesn't state that these are the general rules.
That's correct. The problem is that there are no general rules.
The only RAW way to attack an attended item in combat is through the use of the Sunder combat maneuver. Pathfinder does not have a general rule for attacking an attended item otherwise.
Or a touch attack with a spell.
Nice. Thanks, Sekret. I know it won't be accepted by everyone, but when you're working between the lines any precedence helps.As my example, here's a touch spell that's is expected to be used against wielded items. It provokes an AoO when you employ it.
Rusting Grasp
It is a better precedent to stand on than anything else so far as far as a reason to give the giant an AoO.
Actions that provoke attacks of opportunity are clearly defined in the rules.
Actions that do not provoke attacks of opportunity will not refer to attacks of opportunity at all (unless they are circumventing a previously defined provocation)
If a specific action is not specifically defined as provoking an attack of opportunity, then it doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
This is how the rules work.
Shrink item does not specifically talk about the mechanics behind targeting an object that is in an enemy's possession, so we can therefore conclude that the standard rules for touch spells apply. (Once again, only exceptions to existing rules need specific notation, otherwise we assume the rules work as written)
We can determine that it is legal to use it this way since the spell provides a saving throw (without a "harmless" notation), which means it can be used on objects in the possession of an enemy, and is intended to be used in that manner.
Based on the rules, it would therefore require the caster to cast on the defensive if they are threatened (or face an attack of opportunity), then complete a touch attack, and then the enemy in possession of the item gets a will saving throw to negate the effect. If all those conditions are met, the spell should work as written.
Shrink item does not specifically talk about the mechanics behind targeting an object that is in an enemy's possession, so we can therefore conclude that the standard rules for touch spells apply.
There are no standard rules for making a touch attack against an object. The rule isn't there; we can't just pick another rule and decide that's how it works.
Your decision to "make a touch attack against a creature" is no more or less valid than any other existing rule you want to shoehorn in here, such as "make a sunder combat maneuver against a creature". The rules don't spell out for us which, if either is correct.
Shrink item does not specifically talk about the mechanics behind targeting an object that is in an enemy's possession, so we can therefore conclude that the standard rules for touch spells apply.There are no standard rules for making a touch attack against an object. The rule isn't there; we can't just pick another rule and decide that's how it works.
Your decision to "make a touch attack against a creature" is no more or less valid than any other existing rule you want to shoehorn in here, such as "make a sunder combat maneuver against a creature". The rules don't spell out for us which, if either is correct.
You are assigning his (and mine) position incorrectly.
We never said you make a touch attack against the creature -- we said you make the touch attack (against the item either being stated or inferred).
You have no reason to make a touch attack against the creature and the rules for attacking objects are already in place -- so quit acting like they aren't.
Shrink item does not specifically talk about the mechanics behind targeting an object that is in an enemy's possession, so we can therefore conclude that the standard rules for touch spells apply.There are no standard rules for making a touch attack against an object. The rule isn't there; we can't just pick another rule and decide that's how it works.
Of course not, but standard rules do exist.
The touch spell rules begin with (emphasis mine):
You must touch a creature or object to affect it.
This means these rules apply to creatures or objects targeted by a touch spell. So when the rules go on to say that touch spells do not provoke attacks of opportunity, this by simple grammar must include both creatures and objects targeted, unless specified otherwise.
No offense Treantmonk, but that seems a very close minded interpretation, though by RAW I can not disagree because technically there are no rules going into this specifically, the precedent of special actions like sunder, disarm or especially the rusting grasp spell seem to indicate the direction the game takes in very similar situations.
There possibly could be some clarification on how to handle touching an attended/wielded object thoughit is a corner case, I see no reason to handle it different than rusting grasp does.
Now I know that it is a specific spell which makes it useless as rule reference, but I hold that the reason to note it in the spell is not because it is a rule exception but rather something that is not covered in the rules.
I think it is not mentioned in the item spell simply because it's use as an offensive spell to attack an opponents weapon had not been considered.
@Some call me Tim
I would use a Touch AC as the target for the spell touch attack.
For those that are arguing that Rusting Grasp is a good basis to conclude that it provokes an AoO, please note that Rusting Grasp AoO only applies to weapons carried (so attacks against other attended objects do not provoke) and it allows no saving throw as it destroys the weapon.
Shrink Item, for attended items allows a saving throw to negate, and does not destroy the item.
Creatures and people usually keep their weapon between themselves and their opponents, which brings the weapon much closer to an opponent, making it easier to touch the weapon. Not easier to sunder or disarm, but easier to touch.
No offense Treantmonk
I take offense to personal insults only. To have my preconceptions challenged to discover my own mistakes is at least part of the reason I post.
Can I provide an out-of-game example that explains why I interpret it that way? (Not really a question...here I go!)
Treantmonk adds lemon juice to certain things he eats or drinks. If Treantmonk makes fish, he adds lemon juice. If Treantmonk makes Iced Tea, he will add lemon juice.
Treantmonk often makes himself hot instant coffee or English breakfast tea. He adds milk and sugar, then boiling water, stirs, and then enjoys while debating on the Pathfinder forums.
So, based on what I wrote, do you know what I put in my English Breakfast tea? More specifically, did I flavor it with lemon?
I will point out I never specifically said I don't put lemon juice in hot English Breakfast tea, and I did specifically say I do add lemon juice to iced tea which sets a precedent.
Given the example from rusting grasp i'll change my position to the wizard gets whacked. I was looking for such an example in neutrilize poison and didn't see it.
@Some call me Tim
I would use a Touch AC as the target for the spell touch attack.
For those that are arguing that Rusting Grasp is a good basis to conclude that it provokes an AoO, please note that Rusting Grasp AoO only applies to weapons carried (so attacks against other attended objects do not provoke) and it allows no saving throw as it destroys the weapon.
Shrink Item, for attended items allows a saving throw to negate, and does not destroy the item.
Creatures and people usually keep their weapon between themselves and their opponents, which brings the weapon much closer to an opponent, making it easier to touch the weapon. Not easier to sunder or disarm, but easier to touch.
Also Rusting grasp affects any metal weapon magical or no whereas shrink item only affects non-magical items.
(Which I point out means that someone's argument of "You'll allow any wizard to do this to anyone on a regular basis with just a touch attack" quite the strawman combined with slippery slope)
I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one. The mage here is going to suffer from an AoO from approaching or retreating from the Hill Giant, or from casting, or a full attack from not retreating, or get grappled, all to (momentarily) reduce the size of a weapon that the Hill Giant doesn't even need to use to smash you! Tactics = Epic Fail.
So let'im not be AoO'ed for touching the club, he'll suffer enough without it.
The real question here is, will this spoil the caster's invisibility?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ya know, the more I look at this, I'm seeing the following:
1) A character can make a touch attack for which an opponent is the target; the rules for this are clear.
2) A character can cast a spell that targets an attended object; the rules for this are pretty clear. Dispel magic comes to mind.
But...
3) There is a grey area that is not clearly spelled out, which is whether a character can make a touch attack that targets an attended object. Stynkk called me on the targeting of objects...he was correct. But, I'm not convinced that my original objection, that of targeting an item with a touch attack when it is attended, I'm not convinced this is possible without invoking another rules source, whether that is an existing combat manouver, etc.
Hmmm, the rules are pretty muddy here. The question is: what is the AC of an attended object or how/when you can target it?
We know the AC of an unattended object can be calculated and is given in some cases (potions, etc). However, how does one separate an attended object vs the creature.
If it can be calculated, and worn items can be broken down in this way and attacked separately without a combat maneuver, then doesn't that render Sunder pretty pointless?
For this reason I suggested simply using the Touch AC of the creature who is holding the object. The object receives the same saving throws as the possessor, why not the touch AC as well?
The real question here is, will this spoil the caster's invisibility?
Yes, as it is a Touch Attack, thus a Hostile Action.
Thanks for the input I am still on the fence about this one but I think that the precedence set by Rusting Grasp is a good place to start.
I was Dming when this happened all I could think of was "Damn. That's a use for that spell I never thought of." I allowed the Player to attempt it. He successfully cast defensively and delivered the touch targeting the Touch AC of the Hill Giant and beat the opposed will save of the great club. I didn't take the AoO but now I'm not sure... I just thought I'd ask on here as I have a feeling that it might come up again.
Not that it mattered as the 8th level Bard hit the Hill Giant with hideous laughter and I rolled a 1 to resist...