| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a magus character in a game I am running. The question of holding charges on a touch attack inevitably came up. Thus far, my ruling has been that spellstrike does not allow for the charges of the spell to be held.
I will list my reasoning below, but I'm prepared to reverse my ruling if someone can point to some official errata stipulating otherwise. I'll also happily accept an unofficial quote from a developer that states that held charges remain.
As I see it:
Spellstrike allows the magus to change the way a touch attack spell is normally cast by allowing a melee attack to be performed "as part of" the casting of the spell.
Spellstrike specifically limits the Magus to ONE melee attack. That seems to me to be a specific rule that otherwise outweighs the general rule of touch attack spells.
Regardless, the charge of a touch attack spell dissipates if the caster touches anything, even something unintentionally touched, e.g. his enemy, his waterskin, his sword, whatever. Note, the Magus is, of course, touching his own weapon upon the casting of the spell.
Even if touching his weapon is ignored for purposes of dissipating the charge there is still the consideration of the actual attack made against someone's (non-touch) AC. A melee attack is going against an AC that is generally inclusive of an armor bonus, and a shield bonus (or even natural armor). In other words, the attack - unlike a touch attack - doesn't actually *miss* in terms of coming into contact with an item. The sword blow could scrap across a breastplate, or clash against a shield, but still do no damage thanks to the protective barrier between the attacker and defender. Missing due to a touch attack is clearly an all around miss; that's why the touch AC is so much lower.
Basically, "instead of" making the normal touch attack, you are making ONE melee attack, and you are attacking "as part of" the casting of the spell. Of additional importance, you are attacking a normal AC, and not a touch AC. Add all of that to the fact that you are by necessity touching something upon the casting of the spell, i.e. your weapon, then I can't see the sense of allowing for charges to remain held. Also note, if you're interpreting the "unintentional" touch ruling of held charges to only apply to your off hand you have to consider the use of wands with the Magus.
In short, I feel like my ruling is simple and elegant. I feel like it's supported by the rules, and not some house rule. There may be errata, or developer comment otherwise though, and while I haven't been able to find it yet I am open to reversing my decision in the face of strong evidence. I just want something reasonably official, or at least very well thought out, as opposed to a slew of opinions cloaked as facts.
Thanks.
Spellstrike allows the magus to change the way a touch attack spell is normally cast by allowing a melee attack to be performed "as part of" the casting of the spell.
This is incorrect.
Bob, the 2nd level magus casts a spell with a range of "touch" from the magus spell list, and holds the charge. He is fulfilling the requirements of Spellstrike, therefore he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. (Without Spellstrike, he would be limited to delivering the spell with a touch attack or a natural weapon)
If Bob misses, he is still holding the charge. He is also still fulfilling the requirements of Spellstrike, therefore he can STILL deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
As written, the ability is is simple and elegant. Any time the magus could deliver a magus touch spell, he can do so not only with a touch attack or natural weapon, but with any weapon he is wielding.
While I'm looking for something official, I do appreciate the thoughts that you folks have expressed. I'd like to try to respond to each of them respectively.
1. Banatine, you are perfectly eloquent.
My point is more that the spell does not go off when it obviously hits a touch AC, but not a regular AC. The very fact that it doesn't go off tells us that spellstrike is working in a very different manner than a regular touch spell. This means that the sword isn't, per se, holding the charge. Rather it is allowing the damage (via ONE melee attack) to be delivered alongside a bona fide melee attack.
The ability makes it clear that the Magus' gets one melee attack.
2. Rory,
PRD: "Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates."
Most does not equal all, and if ever there was an exception to this otherwise general rule, surely it is evident in the case of the Magus who is, by the definition of spellstrike, allowed one melee attack in place of the otherwise normal delivery of a touch attack. Again, the specific definition of spellstrike outweighs the general case of held charges.
3. Grick,
The statement you quoted is not incorrect. The below is quoted from the spellstrike ability:
"Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of the casting of this spell."
The melee attack occurs as a part of the casting of the spell. It does not occur after the spell is cast, the charge is held, movement is taken, etc. No, it occurs as part of the casting of the spell. While the spell is being cast the melee attack is occurring.
4. I still haven't seen a lot of commentary regarding the fact that the spell is pretty much discharged by the fact that you are holding (meaning touching) a weapon in the first place.
"If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
Hence, why the melee attack virtually HAS to happen during the casting of the spell. As the ability is written. Which is good, simple and elegant.
Is there a particular reason you are so dead set against a magus holding the charge? You seem to be grasping at any reason for spell strike not to work the way a touch attack would. The only thing the rules say is replace the touch attack with a weapon attack. It doesnt give an indication that other touch spell rules should also be vacated such as holding the charge. I actually think it is less elegant trying to justify exceptions to the touch spell rules rather then just accepting that the only variation in the rules is the one actually mentioned.
While I'm looking for something official, I do appreciate the thoughts that you folks have expressed. I'd like to try to respond to each of them respectively.
While paizo staff are fairly responsive, you are not likely to get 'official' answers here on the boards from staff members. Basically unless its Jason (which is rare now adays) you are just going to at best get a staffer's opinion on the matter and even that will be rare. Most of the time they want us to make up their own minds unless they put it in the faq or errata.
1. Banatine, you are perfectly eloquent.
My point is more that the spell does not go off when it obviously hits a touch AC, but not a regular AC. The very fact that it doesn't go off tells us that spellstrike is working in a very different manner than a regular touch spell. This means that the sword isn't, per se, holding the charge. Rather it is allowing the damage (via ONE melee attack) to be delivered alongside a bona fide melee attack.
The ability makes it clear that the Magus' gets one melee attack.
The sword isnt holding the charge because the spell is just channelged through it. The spell is in the magus' hand untill it goes off at which point it goes through the sword. If the attack misses, it doesnt go off. The only rational thing at that point is to use the rule for the spell, which is that on a miss the spell is held. The spell disappating on a miss flies in the face of the existing rules and requires an exception being made to the rules beyond what is actually written.
2. Rory,
PRD: "Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates."
Most does not equal all, and if ever there was an exception to this otherwise general rule, surely it is evident in the case of the Magus who is, by the definition of spellstrike, allowed one melee attack in place of the otherwise normal delivery of a touch attack. Again, the specific definition of spellstrike outweighs the general case of held charges.
Definites are fairly rare in the rules. This may not be the best worded rule, but I really think you are reaching here in terms of your justification. The rules say the magus gets one FREE attack, (such as the one free touch attempt with a normal touch spell). Not that there can only ever be ONE attack. This operates right in line with the normal touch spell rules.
3. Grick,The statement you quoted is not incorrect. The below is quoted from the spellstrike ability:
"Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of the casting of this spell."
The melee attack occurs as a part of the casting of the spell. It does not occur after the spell is cast, the charge is held, movement is taken, etc. No, it occurs as part of the casting of the spell. While the spell is being cast the melee attack is occurring.
The same thing happens with the touch attack that is part of normal touch spell. The free touch attack is taken as part of casting the spell. The text you quoted completely mirrors the normal touch spell rules except with a weapon attack instead of a normal touch.
4. 4. I still haven't seen a lot of commentary regarding the fact that the spell is pretty much discharged by the fact that you are holding (meaning touching) a weapon in the first place.
"If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
Hence, why the melee attack virtually HAS to happen during the casting of the spell. As the ability is written. Which is good, simple and elegant.
I disagree here. That isnt a simple or elegant interpretation of the rules. If the spell is discharged if you touch the weapon the spellstrike is impossible. You are always touching the weapon after the spell is cast but before the attack is made. So if this is the correct interpretation then spell strike is ALWAYS dischaged into the weapon and can never work. The rules allow you to make an attack as part of casting the spell but they are still distinct actions. The attacking weapon has to be an exception to the touch it and discharge the spell rule or spell strike simply does not work.
Again I think you are stretching Rules As Intended here because of your own view. If that is your preference thats fine, but you shouldn't be trying to stretch the rules to justify what is essentially a house rule for spell strike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm looking for something official, I do appreciate the thoughts that you folks have expressed.
The problem is, if the rules accurately reflect the intention of the design, there will never be an errata. And the Devs don't often stop by saying "Yes, the book is correct."
My point is more that the spell does not go off when it obviously hits a touch AC, but not a regular AC. The very fact that it doesn't go off tells us that spellstrike is working in a very different manner than a regular touch spell.
But it's the same rules as a natural attack. If you're holding the charge and you make a claw attack, it's VS normal AC not touch. Just like Spellstrike.
This means that the sword isn't, per se, holding the charge.
Of course it isn't, the magus is.
the Magus who is, by the definition of spellstrike, allowed one melee attack in place of the otherwise normal delivery of a touch attack.
The definition of Spellstrike is that it allows the magus to deliver the touch spell with a weapon. That's all. There is no time limit, there is no restriction.
The statement you quoted is not incorrect. The below is quoted from the spellstrike ability...
Yes, in addition to what Spellstrike does (see above) you can ALSO use Spellstrike to deliver the free touch attack you would normally get as part of casting the spell. That second sentence is clarification. It's in addition to the first sentence, which tells you what Spellstrike does.
The melee attack occurs as a part of the casting of the spell. It does not occur after the spell is cast, the charge is held, movement is taken, etc.
Yes it does.
A sorcerer can cast Chill Touch, move 30' and deliver the spell with his Claws.
A magus can cast Chill Touch, move 30' and deliver the spell with his claws. Or his sword.
While the spell is being cast the melee attack is occurring.
Read about Touch Spells in Combat: "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target."
The second sentence of Spellstrike is making sure that you understand that the free action touch attack that you get as part of casting (even if it comes after your move action) can ALSO be delivered via Spellstrike.
I still haven't seen a lot of commentary regarding the fact that the spell is pretty much discharged by the fact that you are holding (meaning touching) a weapon in the first place.
Because it's ridiculous. You're touching your clothing. You're touching the air. Each cell in your hand is touching other cells in your hand. (You are never not touching yourself)
Hence, why the melee attack virtually HAS to happen during the casting of the spell. As the ability is written. Which is good, simple and elegant.
Not what is written. (see above)
stuff about the magus and touch spells
When playing the game the general rules always apply unless specifically overruled by a specific rule since specific beats general. In order for your interpretation to apply you need a quote saying touch attacks are not held when using spellstrike.
Example:
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
This ability allows for general rules to be overlooked.
+1 to grick's last post.
It seems from what most folks are saying, that all spell strike does is replace the free touch attack with a free melee attack. You still follow all of the other touch attack rules.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
This secton changes the base ruling of a touch attack to allow a free weapon attack to deliver the spell instead of the free touch attack.
Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.
This is just clarifying the previous rules adjustment.
If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.
Again even more clarification of the very first statement.
Now none of the text alters any of the other properties of a touch attack.
Touch Spells and Holding the ChargeIn most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
Spellstrike does not modify any of the above section of Touch spells and holding the charge!
Touch AttacksSome 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). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
However it does modify the above rule for touch attacks by making it the following rule
Attack RollAn attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Automatic Misses and Hits
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
So as if follow the discussion, spellstrike only modifies how the attack is delivered, nothing else by RAW. It changes the Touch Attack to a Regular attack Roll. Otherwise it keeps all other powers and functions of a touch attack!
At least that is how I'm reading everything.
the spellstrike ability can be used in conjunction with spell combat so your magus can have more than one attack it's just that the first one with the highest BAB is the spellstrike so if that hit misses the spell is wasted
If you are saying that only the first attack in a round can be used with Spellstrike, that is incorrect. The magus can use Spellstrike to deliver a touch spell. If he gets four attacks in a round and has a held charge, the first of those attacks to hit will discharge the spell.
otherwise ANY hit in that round of combat made by the magus would count as the spellstrike
This is how it works. The first -hit- will discharge the spell. If he misses, he holds the charge and can keep attacking until he discharges the spell or casts another one.
If your feeling generous you could allow your magus to hold the spell for the next round if he expends an arcane pool point but again it only hits on his first attack
The magus can use Spell Recall to get the spell back, and then he could cast the spell and follow all the other rules as normal. That's not generous, that's his standard 4th-level ability.
A sorcerer can cast Chill Touch, move 30' and deliver the spell with his Claws.
I don't believe this is true. Casting a touch spell grants a free melee touch attack, not a free natural attack. The spell can *of course* be delivered with a natural attack, but I don't believe you get a free attack with one. Is there anything that states otherwise? I'd actually be quite interested if there were.
For the OP: the "one free" attack with a weapon doesn't preclude the spell being delivered with another attack, just as the "one free" touch attack doesn't preclude making another touch attack later if it missed (or even if it didn't in case of Chill Touch). Make sure you mentally separate the first sentence of the spellstrike description (can deliver touch attacks with a weapon), with the next part (can opt to change out the free touch for a free weapon attack to deliver).
A sorcerer can cast Chill Touch, move 30' and deliver the spell with his Claws.I don't believe this is true. Casting a touch spell grants a free melee touch attack, not a free natural attack. The spell can *of course* be delivered with a natural attack, but I don't believe you get a free attack with one. Is there anything that states otherwise? I'd actually be quite interested if there were.
For the OP: the "one free" attack with a weapon doesn't preclude the spell being delivered with another attack, just as the "one free" touch attack doesn't preclude making another touch attack later if it missed (or even if it didn't in case of Chill Touch). Make sure you mentally separate the first sentence of the spellstrike description (can deliver touch attacks with a weapon), with the next part (can opt to change out the free touch for a free weapon attack to deliver).
I think he is saying the sorc can deliver the attack with his claw, not that the claw damage gets counted in also.
|
There seems to be a bit of confusion here between 'holding the charge' and the 'free' melee touch / weapon attack. You only get the 'free' attack part when you cast the spell, but that doesn't mean you can't keep holding the charge if you chose not to take that free attack for whatever reason, or simply miss with it.
For example, a Magus heading into a dungeon could cast shocking grasp, but not attack anything. Now he's holding the charge on the spell. As long as he's not the guy opening doors and the like, the first time he actually hits anything in melee combat he can discharge his shocking grasp spell via Spellstrike - note that he gets no 'free' attack to do so (that ship sailed back when he first cast the spell), but he does get to discharge his held spell.
Then there are the multi-touch spells like chill touch. Note that it has an instantaneous duration. That doesn't mean you have to make (or are even allowed to make) your level's worth of touch attacks in an instant. It means that you cast the spell, the effects of which are to make your hand glow blue, and to deliver the listed damage and effects to the first [level] number of things you touch... however long it may take you to touch that many things.
So, a Magus casts chill touch in combat when he's withing melee range of a bad guy. He gets to use Spellstrike to take the free melee touch attack he'd normally get as a weapon attack instead. Let's say he hits, and the spell discharges... once. He's (for argument's sake) a level 5 Magus, so he still has four more 'touches' left in the spell, so keeps swinging away, round after round, until he's scored four more hits and the spell's effect is completely done.
The ability does not work with the rules for holding a charge. Those rules state that the effect is discharged if you touch anything. Anything includes your sword itself. I think interpreting "anything" to be air is obviously specious. However, interpreting "anything" to be a literal damage dealing weapon in your hand is fair game.
Now, you folks who are screaming that holding charges is obviously allowed due to it being written down -- I argue that you are precisely the ones violating a rule to support your rules call. Why? Because it doesn't work when you're holding a sword. No where in the rules does it say that charges don't discharge because of holding a sword. You're just making a big presumption there. Whereas my interpretation *seems* to accommodate the rules fairly, and without "I wish I could build my character this way" bias.
If the argument is that the touch charge ends up 'inside' your sword then a similar problem occurs. Anything your sword touched would be affected by the spell effect. In that sense you would be able to make a touch attack with your sword, which you specifically can not do.
Instead, the ability says that the melee attack allowable occurs as "a part of the casting of the spell." To me, this means that the attack of the sword is literally a part of the casting of the spell. Thus, the sword sort of funnels the spell effect through it, but doesn't maintain any charge on a 'miss' because a touch attack is not allowed in the first place.
Doing it that way does not impact the holding charge rule of not touching anything. Not doing it that way not only impacts that rule by RAW but also creates a conundrum of whether or not another melee attack is allowed -- despite the ability quite clearly saying otherwise, or whether or not the weapon is allowed to make a touch attack later, or how the charge can go off unintentionally.
See what I mean?
I have no vested interest in this rule. I just truly think that my reading of it is correct. As far as wanting an official ruling, well, I was actually hoping that a developer had made a comment on it in a past post I couldn't find. I don't actually expect one to weigh in on this thread.
But anyone saying that it's simpler to allow held charges is just wrong. Simplifying things means . . . simplifying them. Lacking the ability to hold charges is clearly more simple. One spell, one strike, period, done. That's not what I would call more complex.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here between 'holding the charge' and the 'free' melee touch / weapon attack. You only get the 'free' attack part when you cast the spell, but that doesn't mean you can't keep holding the charge if you chose not to take that free attack for whatever reason, or simply miss with it.
For example, a Magus heading into a dungeon could cast shocking grasp, but not attack anything. Now he's holding the charge on the spell. As long as he's not the guy opening doors and the like, the first time he actually hits anything in melee combat he can discharge his shocking grasp spell via Spellstrike - note that he gets no 'free' attack to do so (that ship sailed back when he first cast the spell), but he does get to discharge his held spell.
Then there are the multi-touch spells like chill touch. Note that it has an instantaneous duration. That doesn't mean you have to make (or are even allowed to make) your level's worth of touch attacks in an instant. It means that you cast the spell, the effects of which are to make your hand glow blue, and to deliver the listed damage and effects to the first [level] number of things you touch... however long it may take you to touch that many things.
So, a Magus casts chill touch in combat when he's withing melee range of a bad guy. He gets to use Spellstrike to take the free melee touch attack he'd normally get as a weapon attack instead. Let's say he hits, and the spell discharges... once. He's (for argument's sake) a level 5 Magus, so he still has four more 'touches' left in the spell, so keeps swinging away, round after round, until he's scored four more hits and the spell's effect is completely done.
This is actually wrong. Once the touches start, they have to be completed in one round or the spell-casting is finished.
"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."
Also, if touching "anything" discharged the spell, the previously mentioned point would apply. Touching your clothing, touching your pack, touching the wand in your hand that you used to cast the spell or the arcane-bonded item you have, would discharge the spell before you could use it. It makes a bit more sense to think that the spell knows your current state as you cast it, and so anything that you are currently touching does not count as a touched target. A touch attack brings something new in to the mix, discharging it.
It's like holding electrical charge in your body, and that analogy is directly prompted by the name of the ability. Try playing with it sometime if you can find somewhere/someone that has a Van de Graaff generator or a Violet Wand or something of the sort. You don't even discharge through the ground if you're insulated, which boots could do. You don't see a "discharge" until something new comes into the mix. In this case, the sword is in your hand while you're casting, so it's already conducting as part of you.
The ability does not work with the rules for holding a charge. Those rules state that the effect is discharged if you touch anything. Anything includes your sword itself. I think interpreting "anything" to be air is obviously specious. However, interpreting "anything" to be a literal damage dealing weapon in your hand is fair game.
RAW the spell is discharged as soon as it is cast before you even attack anyone since you are touching your sword when you cast the spell.
The rules don't state the sword discharges the spell if you hold the spell for one round.
The book can not be written in legalese and be a reasonable size so we must go by what we know.
What we know:
We do know the intent is not for the sword to discharge the spell upon casting, because doing so negates the ability before it is even used.
In order for your interpretation to work a time limit would have to be applied to the touch spell discharging into the weapon, but there is not one.
The rules don't support your interpretation without a time limit built in. I can only suggest hitting the FAQ button if you think we are incorrect since I don't know anyone else that uses your interpretation, and it would mean the majority of the community is doing it wrong.
What I can say is that with the way the rules are written most of us won't agree with you.
concerro,
What we know:
A Magus can make one(1) free melee attack. IF that attack is successful then the Magus can add the damage of the weapon to the spell effect.
That's what we know.
This is actually wrong. Once the touches start, they have to be completed in one round or the spell-casting is finished."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...
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.
concerro,
What we know:
A Magus can make one(1) free melee attack. IF that attack is successful then the Magus can add the damage of the weapon to the spell effect.
That's what we know.
We also know that if the sword discharges the spell before it is used the damage of the spell can not add to the damage of the weapon since the spell will already be gone.
In short your last post just agreed with my first "we know".
How so?
Either the spell is eaten by the sword before it can be used or it is not.
If it eaten/discharged the damage/effect of the sword and weapon never combine.
If it is not eaten/discharged then they can combine per your quote in this post which one again takes us back to my last post.
@ Jarl: I'm not seeing a contradiction between my quote/statement and yours. In Chill Touch, I'm not seeing anything that directly says it can be discharged over multiple rounds. I'm not seeing anything that directly says it doesn't, though, so I looked at my rule, which says it has to discharge over the course of one round. Perhaps it's implied or I'm misreading, though, so I'll yield partially.
concerro,
My point is that the 'holding a charge' rules never need apply doing it the way I'm suggesting it is written.
We know that the Magus is allowed a free melee attack with the ability. We know that IF the attack is successful then the spell effect will accompany the melee damage.
We absolutely do not know that the charge is then held if the attack misses. But once we assume that the charge is held then we have to use the 'holding a charge' rules, which very specifically tells us that we can not, precisely because we are holding a weapon.
I appreciate your point of view, I honestly do. You're probably right about just hitting the faq. It's becoming clear that we are not going to just find a meeting of minds on this one.
@ Jarl: I'm not seeing a contradiction between my quote/statement and yours. In Chill Touch, I'm not seeing anything that directly says it can be discharged over multiple rounds. I'm not seeing anything that directly says it doesn't, though, so I looked at my rule, which says it has to discharge over the course of one round. Perhaps it's implied or I'm misreading, though, so I'll yield partially.
Well, for starters, your quote applies to willing targets as opposed to unwilling targets as you would expect for a damaging spell like Chill Touch.
To everyone who is insisting that you couldn't cast the spell to begin with because you are touching your sword -- I'd like to point you to the below.
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.
Please realize that the 'Holding the Charge' rule is instituted "IF you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell."
As you reexamine how this ability works just think through it carefully.
1. You cast the spell. As a part of the casting of the spell you get one(1) free melee attack.
2. Your attack hits, no problem.
3. Your attack misses.
4. Missed attack? Heck! That qualifies me for the "Holding the Charge' rule! Sweet! (Cause the rule is instituted only IF I don't discharge the spell on the round I cast it.)
5. Wait, oh, uh-oh. Too bad I'm touching my sword. The spell is immediately discharged.
Nowhere in that sequence of events do we have a rules violation. In fact, that's pretty much the RAW of it.
You folks are welcome to rule otherwise in your own games, but stop and give the matter a teensy bit of thought before suggesting that my interpretation is way out in left field. Because it's just not.
Frankly, you guys are the ones making wild assumptions, not me. Specifically, you're assuming that the damage dealing weapon in your hand does not count as something being touched. You have zero support from the RAW for that conclusion.
@Jo.
So using your view on this matter.
Mage: I cast shocking grasp, and take my free touch attack.
GM: Roll your concentration check.
Mage: 18
GM: You made it
Mage: I touch attack him, I Rolled a 5
GM:You missed, but you keep your charge.
Mage:cool
GM:He attacks you, and misses
Mage:Cool, ok I cast magic missile
GM:I'm so sorry, you failed to say you released the charge, so as you reach to get your spell component from your pouch your shocking grasp discharges, destroying all your components and dealing full damage to you.
Is that about right?
mcgreeno,
Uhm, no. That's not about right.
See above:
"If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates."
|
Frankly, you guys are the ones making wild assumptions, not me. Specifically, you're assuming that the damage dealing weapon in your hand does not count as something being touched. You have zero support from the RAW for that conclusion.
1) Remind me not to play a Magus in your game, as you are seriously nerfing the class.
2) When its 15+ people all with documented support against your ideas and none backing you, its pretty obvious who is making the wild assumptions. There have been documented, quoted sources from the rules, where as you have NOTHING quoted to support your arguments. Sorry. No one is telling you that you CANT run your games like this, only that its not RAW. Basically, if cant quote rules to support it, your injecting your opinion into things. Nothing wrong with that for your home game, not at all. Just don't go trying to spout off about thats RAW when you cant even quote sources to support your argument.
@ Jo: Except to cast a spell, you must retrieve the material components first. Still, it's not unreasonable to assume that a spell doesn't dissipate into a sword for "Holding the Charge" if it also doesn't dissipate into your clothing, which it doesn't. If it did, then the rule wouldn't have been included in the first place. Take a look at the analogy I used earlier, likening "Holding the Charge" to the equivalent with electricity IRL.
@ Jarl: I stand corrected.
Frankly, you guys are the ones making wild assumptions, not me. Specifically, you're assuming that the damage dealing weapon in your hand does not count as something being touched. You have zero support from the RAW for that conclusion.1) Remind me not to play a Magus in your game, as you are seriously nerfing the class.
2) When its 15+ people all with documented support against your ideas and none backing you, its pretty obvious who is making the wild assumptions. There have been documented, quoted sources from the rules, where as you have NOTHING quoted to support your arguments. Sorry. No one is telling you that you CANT run your games like this, only that its not RAW.
Or if it is RAW, the RAW are extremely stupid (spells discharging into your clothing, etc.).
If he can't quote the Rules as Written, his interpretation can't possible be RAW. Plain and simple.
He did quote his rule. Most of us just believe that he's misinterpreting it because we believe his interpretation to be ridiculous.
"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."
Emphasis added. Under his interpretation, I think it's not unreasonable to think that a touch spell discharges if you're wearing clothing or touching the ground.
Kabump,
I did quote rules. Several times, in fact. I even bolded them in some cases. My entire argument is built on a rather strong reading of the rules, not pure conjecture about whether or not you're touching a sword you're actively wielding. If you've somehow managed to read this whole thread without noting my quotes then I don't think I can have a healthy dialogue with you.
If your mentality suggests that the majority of folks are always right in any given situation then I wish you the best of luck. I don't share that philosophy.
Asuna,
I think it's valid to say that 'touching' means with your hands, as the definition typically implies. It's a real stretch to assume that touching is inclusive of your feet inside your boots.
As far as spell casting goes, using components is a part of the procedure to cast a spell, and casting another spell causes the touch spell to dissipate.
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.
I think it's valid to say that 'touching' means with your hands, as the definition typically implies. It's a real stretch to assume that touching is inclusive of your feet inside your boots.
As far as spell casting goes, using components is a part of the procedure to cast a spell, and casting another spell causes the touch spell to dissipate.
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.
I agree that using components is part of the procedure to cast a spell. To use components, though, you have to retrieve them. To retrieve them, you have to touch them (touch with your hands, generally). By your definition of touch with your hands, and since this is a (deliberate) touching of the item, the spell would discharge into the touched item. In some cases, that could be interpreted as discharging by activating, dealing whatever damage is appropriate to the item in question. I'm arguing order of operations here. We both agree the spell discharges. The question is when.
I also don't think "touch" is so narrow as to refer only to the hands. If I knee somebody in the crotch, I've certainly touched them. If I tap or nudge something with my foot, I've touched it. I don't see that as any different from touching something with my hand, except for the possibility of bare flesh being part of the contact. If bare flesh is required, then that raises two questions: does anything touching bare flesh cause discharge? If not, then does a Wizard wearing gloves have to remove his gloves to deliver a touch spell?
...does a Wizard wearing gloves have to remove his gloves to deliver a touch spell?
Apparently, the wizard must be nude, in a complete vacuum and under the effects of a fly spell. Of course, that is only using a strong reading of the rules as written.
Feel free to use rule 0 and un-Richard Cranium spellstrike. I know I will as I would likely punch my GM in the nads if he used the rules as above..not purposely mind you. Natural reactions are hard to stop. ;)
If the spell discharged into the Magus's weapon, then the magus wouldn't be able to use spellstrike. Ever. Nor would wizards be able to use wands, bonded objects, or metamagic rods while casting touch spells. Heck, you even brought up the argument of touching air (which you said was ridiculous, but you never quite said why).
I'd also point out that touch is used as a verb, as in to do something. It is the first thing you actively touch, once you have cast the spell. You don't discharge it into the ground, you don't discharge it into your weapon, you don't discharge it into the air. That simple.
If everyone else believes something is obvious, and you're the only one who disagrees. And all their way of doing things makes it work and yours doesn't. Well then, I think it should be obvious where the problem lies.
Jo Bird does raise a good point, though. The majority isn't always right. It just has the loudest voice. Else the world would still be flat, the sun would still go around the Earth, and the moon would still be made of cheese. :D
I do agree with your point of touch refers to an active verb, though, not a passive one. And certainly not a present progressive. I hate to sound like a broken record, but electricity. It discharges under very specific conditions if you've built up a charge.
Jo Bird does raise a good point, though. The majority isn't always right. It just has the loudest voice. Else the world would still be flat, the sun would still go around the Earth, and the moon would still be made of cheese. :D
Ahem...
Jo Bird does raise a good point, though. The majority isn't always right. It just has the loudest voice. Else the world would still be flat, the sun would still go around the Earth, and the moon would still be made of cheese. :D
I once again stand corrected.
What's not in short supply are closed minded folks who think they have all the answers. As evidenced by a bulk of posters inclined to regurgitate pseudo-gospel as if it's unequivocal RAW fact.
Blatant defensive attitudes regarding a new interpretation of an ability is not an admirable trait. I don't liken a silly rule in Pathfinder to be akin to discovering the new world, but I do think it's worthy of discussion as opposed to ridicule.
Granted, my interpretation is not popular among the relatively small group of naysayers in this thread, but my interpretation is hard to shoot down without resorting to specious logic, random assumptions, or leaning heavily on what you *think* the rules as intended are. Or worse yet, what someone told you they were a while back.
Asuna, none of the above was directed at you. I will disagree about the casting of a new spell discharging the touch spell. It says that it causes it to dissipate, quite different. It does so without causing damage, thus the spell component pouch is safe. So, considering the dissipating charge versus the discharging charge, well, I don't think the order of events is relevant.
***
1. To go briefly into the idea of why touching air is specious: because you're always touching air, and that's ridiculous; certainly more of a scientific concept than one suited to fantasy. You're constantly touching new air, and thus constantly losing charges anyway. So I call it specious without an ounce of afterthought.
2. To go briefly into why I believe touching is limited to hands as opposed to other parts of the body: the only place where it's mentioned that attacks can come from other parts (besides hands) of a humanoid's body is in a Monk's unarmed strike ability. There it stipulates that the Monk can use "fist, elbows, knees, and feet." And note, a Monk does not make those attacks as touch attacks. Otherwise, attacks (at least from a normal race) come from the primary hand, or the off hand. I maintain that since this is revolving around a touch attack spell then the body part needed to discharge the effect must be able to make an attack with the spell. That's pretty simple logic.
In the land with touch attack spells, and folks with no arms, the one armed man is king.
3. I figured someone would eventually bring up the idea of "touch" as a verb. This was not unexpected, and I welcome that argument as I think it is strong. In fact, I think it's the strongest argument against my interpretation. That being said, touch can be used in this context when describing two properties meeting; in this case where the hand meets the sword hilt, i.e. where the hand touches the sword hilt.
Grammatically, my interpretation stands.
Logically, my interpretation works.
RAW supports my interpretation.
The ridiculous scenarios you folks imagined are not supported by my interpretation.
Do I claim that my interpretation is the only fair way to rule the situation? No. Do I claim that it is a fair way to rule it, and 100% within the boundaries of the RAW? You bet.
Addressing only the spell component pouch scenario part.
I will disagree about the casting of a new spell discharging the touch spell. It says that it causes it to dissipate, quite different. It does so without causing damage, thus the spell component pouch is safe. So, considering the dissipating charge versus the discharging charge, well, I don't think the order of events is relevant.
Part of why I say the order of events is actually relevant is because until you have met all the necessary requirements, you haven't cast the spell. That includes saying the words, making the appropriate gestures, and having the arcane focus and material components in hand. To get those last two items in hand, you would have to retrieve them. The act of retrieving them (which happens before you've finished casting the spell, which means before the touch spell is dissipated) is a deliberate touch with the hands, meaning the spell discharges before it can dissipate. Preparing material components is a free action, but it is still an action that requires a touch. That touch discharges the spell, meaning the spell discharges. That's part of why I say the order of events does matter.
I would request a response by Jo Bird to the issue of wands, rods, staves and bonded items.
I would like official word myself. Until I get it, I'm for allowing magus to hold the charge in their blade. But I do not give them the extra spellstrike attack if they use it in conjunction with spell combat. Spell combat and spellstrike work when casting a spell. If you are holding the charge, you are not casting.
I also allow a blade to hold multiple hits of a spell that allows more than one use like chill touch or calcific touch. But if they cast another spell, the old spell dissipates.