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.
An odd choice.
You're allowing a magus to hold the charge of a touch spell and use Spellstrike to deliver it. Why would you not allow that to happen during Spell Combat?
Example:
Magus casts Shocking Grasp and holds the charge. Six rounds later, a goblin appears and steps up to be magus. The magus performs a full-round action to use Spell Combat. The magus decides to make his normal weapon attacks first, so he strikes the goblin with his sword. Since he's holding the charge, and he hit the goblin, Shocking Grasp discharges and he also deals weapon damage. All good so far?
Now, somehow the goblin is still alive, so the magus then casts his spell using his free hand (as part of Spell Combat) he does this defensively and makes his concentration check. So he casts Shocking Grasp again, then delivers his free attack via Spellstrike. He hits, discharging the spell and dealing weapon damage.
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.
Good catch!
Delivering the spell with his claws is only listed under holding the charge, not as the free attack.
This does justify further the second sentence of Spellstrike.
The first part says you can deliver the touch spell with the weapon. That's the bulk of what Spellstrike is for. Just like claws.
The second part says that, in addition to the first part, you can ALSO use Spellstrike to deliver the free attack you get as part of casting the spell, which is something the sorcerer is unable to do with claws.
I think he is saying the sorc can deliver the attack with his claw, not that the claw damage gets counted in also.
No, I was trying to say the latter, and was wrong. I appreciate the vote of confidence, though.
Touch Spells in Combat:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. 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. 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 def lection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
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.
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.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.
@Jo: I disagree with you by your own personal reading and view point, the mage in my example does in fact blow up his spell component pouch! The spell discharges (goes off) if you unintentionally touch something, It only dissipates if you cast another spell. Sense you must use get your components before you cast the spell the charge is still held and thus you affect yourself!
Under you interpretation of the rules, clerics, paladins, rangers, wizards, and anyone else that has touch spells can not be holding anything in either hand in order to benefit from the holding a charge rule.
I'm firmly believe this is not the intended view point by the game designers. They wanted a paladin to be able to hold his shield or sword while casting, they wanted a ranger to hold at least one weapon while using his or her spells. I'm sure they visualized a Magus wielding a sword while holding a charge with his other hand (just check out the pic's in the book).
Another note I might bring up is that while holding the charge you must make an attack roll to touch something (it is a weapon after all), or if the target is willing you [U]can[/U] automatically touch them with out a roll but you don't have to thus the "can".
Things a Any Class Can do with a touch attack.
1)You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.
2)If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely.
3)Some spells allow you to hold multiple charges, however you only get one free touch attack on the round you cast the spell, all other uses of the spells charges are limited by duration of the spell and you ability to make touch attack actions.
What spell strike allows, all of the above, except you make a melee attack instead of a melee touch attack.
If you disagree with the above think about all of the spells that are not not viable with all the different Melee Classes. We have to think about impact of such a rules call on Paladins and Rangers, not to mention Clerics.
"I'm sorry Mr Cleric you lost the held charge of you inflict spell because you are using a shield."
"I'm sorry Mr Paladin you lost the held charge of your spell because you are touching your sword!
"Mr Wizard, holding a staff in your off hand will remove a lot of strength of your class. No you can't have a wand either"
"Mr Wizard, I'm sorry you missed with the spell, now you are holding a charge, if you try to cast another spell with material components I'm afraid that you are going to do damage to yourself, the only safe way to discharge the arcane power is to touch something, so go ahead and waste your next standard action touching the ground.
It seems to have a very negative impact on the system overall.
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
There is no conundrum. The first sentence of the Spellstrike ability specifically says you can use your weapon to deliver the spell.
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.
Correct, you read the second sentence of Spellstrike. Now read the first.
What we also know: A magus can use his weapon to deliver a touch spell he cast from the magus spell list.
We absolutely do not know that the charge is then held if the attack misses.
Sure we do, here's the rules (again): "Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely."
So, did the magus discharge the spell in the round when he cast the spell? No, he didn't, because he missed (or just didn't bother to attack in the first place). Thusly, he can hold the charge.
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.
This brings us to the beef of your argument: "The ability does not work with the rules for holding a charge. Those rules state that the effect is discharged if you touch anything."
You later say that touching the spell component pouch doesn't discharge the spell because the charge dissipates when he casts the spell that he needed to touch the SCP in order to cast. (And I thought AoOs were complicated!) You say a touch involves two properties meeting, like a hand and sword hilt, but somehow not a hand and the magic ring it's wearing, or a hand and the glove over it, or a hand and the gauntlet it's got strapped on, or a hand and the lace cuffs of the wizards robe, or a hand and the wand he just cast a spell from, or a hand and the metamagic rod he used to empower it, or a hand and the buckler strapped to it. These are all things you can call specious without an ounce of (after)thought.
If the magus's sword discharges his spell, wouldn't a cleric's mace do the same?
You may reply that the cleric holds the charge in his -other- hand, the one he used to cast a spell. If that's legal, why isn't it legal for the magus? He had a free hand to cast the spell initially, and Spellstrike specifically says he can use his weapon to deliver it. Specific overwriting general.
But I don't even agree with that. Nowhere do the rules say the 'charge' is stored inside the sword. Nowhere do the rules say the 'charge' is stored in the hand that cast it. Nowhere do the rules say which part of the body the charge is stored in. If the charge is in a hand, even the off hand, that means you can't use Spellstrike to deliver the spell with a weapon wielded in two hands.
The only reasonable interpretation is that the charge is held within the caster, and his clothing and equipment and items held at the time of casting don't count towards discharging the spell. You don't zap your own wand, or gloves, or weapon. You don't zap the familiar perched on your shoulder. If you pick up another weapon, zap. If you pat your buddy on the back, zap. If you pet the cat at your feet, zap.
Is any of this going to change your mind? Really? You've already seen most of these arguments and you've been insulting the people who disagree with you. ("folks who are screaming" and making "wild assumptions" and "pure conjecture", "closed minded folks who think they have all the answers" that "regurgitate pseudo-gospel") You said from the very first post that you will only consider reversing your ruling if presented with official errata or a quote from a developer. Is that really contributing to a discussion in good faith? At some point you should really consider the option that you might in fact be wrong. Sure, it stings a little, but you get used to it. Trust me, no-one is going to dump on you for admitting a mistake, or changing your mind, or even just saying "I don't like this rule, and I'm going to do it differently." I've made plenty of mistakes on these boards, and my players and I are both better off for being corrected.
Granted, my interpretation is not popular among the relatively small group of naysayers in this thread
Number of posters in this thread: 18
Number of posters supporting your position: 1Number of posters shooting down your position: 15
Number of posters abstaining: 2
Oh even worse
Mr Wizard: I use my rod of intensify in my right had to effect the touch spell I'm casting in my left.
GM: Thats Legal
Mr Wizard: I roll my touch attack, darn I missed..on no not again
GM: You missed, so you know what that means, sense you are now holding the charge it goes off on your rod.
MR. Wizard: Another rod destroyed, and could the healer come and heal me..
LOL, that would be funny, but not enjoyable, and not what the game designers probably intended..
The problem is with the definition of touching!
What does touching mean in game mechanics?
Its a Roll to hit! Thats what touching is.
I'm under a small time constraint at the moment, but I will try to be as thorough as possible in this post.
1. The spell component pouch argument is, I want to say this in a nicer way, but I can't think of one right now . . . it's a somewhat moronic argument. Obviously the touch spell dissipates. I'm not interested in micro-managing sub-actions of an overall action. This isn't first edition with segments and whatnot. The touch spell dissipates, period. That's the rule.
2. To Banatine, your supposition that I am trolling is somewhat insulting if silly. I am doing no such thing. I have said my piece, and I have hit the faq for this thread. After this post I doubt I'll have much more to offer on this subject. Regardless, my interpretation is hardly "stupid". This is a forum for Rules Answers, and I have simply brought into question something valid; in other words, I'm using this forum in the exact manner it was designed to be used in.
3. Eighteen posters are, in fact, relatively small compared to the entire community of Pathfinder enthusiasts. That being said, the popularity of one interpretation over another has little to do with my ruling, which I am trying to base on an unbiased reading of the rules.
Even so, I notice that someone, somewhere, somewhen did click my first post as a favorite. I imagine there have to be some lurkers somewhere that, at least on a small level, see the sense of what I'm saying.
***
The issue dealing with rods, wands and such is deserving of attention. Bear in mind, please, that I only have a few moments to make this post, and I have none of my books open in front of me right now.
So. I'll start with some (IMO obvious) assumptions. There are certain items that are crafted specifically - let me say that again, crafted specifically - for the purpose of casting spells. An example of such is a Wizard's bonded object. That object would not be subject to the rule of causing the spell to discharge because it specifically allows the Wizard to cast with it, and it is clearly intended to be held. In flavor it is attuned to the Wizard so I see no reason it should inadvertently trigger an unintentional discharge.
Meta-magic rods are specifically designed to accentuate a spell in one manner or another. I see no problem with the allowance of a rod IF it was used in the casting of the touch spell in question.
I see no issue with a wand IF it was used to cast the touch spell.
All other items should be subject to the rules as written, which, to me (and others who are not vocally posting here) means that touch spells should be cast with a certain intelligence. They should not be cast with weapons in the hand unless the caster is prepared for the charge to dissipate.
Dissipate? Why, Jo Bird, what do you mean? Wouldn't it discharge instead of dissipate? Interesting question: for starters, we don't actually know that discharging a spell causes damage. That seems like a guess to me, and probably a good one considering it is used alternate to the word dissipate. But technically, discharge just means letting go. There's no reason that has to be ruled as causing damage. Further, there's no reason to not just let the caster dissipate the spell as a free action anyway. Whether they just 'let it go' or reach out to something innocuous like the ground, they can avoid potentially devastating effects to their personal gear.
***
Let me be clear: the crux of my argument is not that the Magus can't hold charges because of simply the 'holding a charge' rules. No, that argument has been made to further justify the reasoning behind my interpretation.
The crux of my argument is that the Magus is making an attack against a normal AC instead of a touch AC. That essentially changes the playing field.
Touch Spells are allowed to be held BECAUSE they didn't TOUCH anything. Swinging a sword against a regular AC does indeed touch something, often armor, or shield, or natural armor, or whatever. It just fails to deliver a "solid, damaging blow". The spell does not linger because the spell does not necessarily "miss" in the traditional sense of the word as associated with a touch attack.
Now, rather than try to figure out if the Magus hit the touch AC and missed the regular AC to determine if the weapon "touched" some part of the opponent is needlessly complex. Instead, the Magus gets the super awesome ability to put his spell effect into the damage he delivers with a melee attack, or the versatility of casting that spell without using spellstrike. He is still a strong class. But now he is not intrinsically stumbling all over the 'holding a charge' rules, and there is no argument revolving around whether the Magus has a charge that can be used as a touch from his hand, a touch from his sword, or a melee attack from his sword.
***
Note, I have a great respect for game designers and developers. I recognize that they have a never ending stream of headaches, and that plenty of stuff that comes up in rules adjudication could never have been foreseen by them.
The big difference (at least to me) between Pathfinder and 4E is that Pathfinder struggles to not only balance the rules, but to also craft the rules to make consistent, logical sense, even in regards to flavor. That's where 4E fails.
Now, the rules for 'holding a charge' are troublesome. I'm not looking for the easiest answer, I'm looking for the one that makes the most logical sense considering the flavor of the situation. To me, that means that a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Magus should be VERY careful after they've failed to discharge a touch spell. Their hands should be held out in front of them with trepidation, and moved only with precise consideration. Not just, hmmmm, well heck, this sucks, I can't hold my sword and hold a charge and hold a shield?
Remember, this nerfs no one. Not really. Even the antagonists follow these rules.
|
@ Jo Bird
I'm not saying they are right because there are more of them, Im saying they are right because they are the ones posting the rules to support their arguments. You've posted nothing more than the rule in question, with nothing else to support your "Theory". /shrug
Riddle me this then, since you are arguing that this all because the Magus has to make an attack vs normal AC vs touch ac: if the sword attack hits touch AC but not normal AC, does the Magus get to have their touch attack take effect? Thats the ONLY way your interpretation makes it fair for the Magus. Because sure, the sword wont hurt the target, but by your own reasoning it did TOUCH the target, which is all the spell needs to take effect in the first place.
EDIT: More careful reading of your previous post says no. Really? Its "needlessly complex" to check an attack roll against 2 numbers instead of 1 to see if the touch attack hits but the melee attack misses? Ok then! That tells me a lot: You just want to nerf the ability.
Your reading of the rules is silly, and cripples the Magus. I have nothing more to say on your house rule. Its obvious that the mountain of evidence against your interpretation will do nothing to sway your opinion, and nothing short of a Paizo Dev coming in (which probably wont happen) will change your mind. For what its worth, I've flagged your original post for FAQ and Im walking away with sanity intact, Im sure much to your delight.
Number of posters in this thread: 18
Number of posters supporting your position: 1
Number of posters shooting down your position: 15
Number of posters abstaining: 2
Number of posters seeking clarification: 11
First, you are right, I shouldn't have began with the insults. However, I will also argue that if are going to post a thread, you should do so with an open mind and be receptive to feed back.
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.So because you're touching the air at the time of the casting, it doesn't count? Or do you believe that people have no concept of air, in a world with spells that can summon air elementals?
Shadowcat, thank you in regards to mentioning that starting with insults was unnecessary. I appreciate that.
I am open to feedback. I accept that more than a dozen people think I'm wrong. I've yet to be convinced that I'm wrong though, and much of that is due to some of the crazy arguments I'm receiving in response to my thoughts.
I'd like to clarify a little for you on why I think the air thing is specious.
Your interpretation of the rule also throws out the idea of touching air as specious, and rightly so as it is goofy. For instance, as you have mentioned, if the 'touch' has to be an active touch then it's arguable that the caster is always touching new molecules in the air. But obviously that's just silly and goofy.
So. Basically, I'm giving you the credit to discount goofiness; I'm just asking for the same in return.
***
Kabump, you're right, I'm wrong, you're pretty, I'm ugly.
***
Rory,
My players are fine with the rules I make. And I'm fine with the ones they make when they are running. And let me tell you, we don't even remotely begin to agree.
Heck, one of my players wants Rapid Shot to work on ranged spells giving him an extra spell every round. So, yeah, we don't agree in the slightest. But we give each another enough respect as GM's to run the game.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Good day, Jo Bird.
Thank you for bring ing up this topic; it came up this past weekend at a convention.
If your interpretation of the rules is correct, and I allow that it's an unlikely but possible reading, then the rule is very badly written, because that's not what it appears to say at all.
Compare to an Eldritch Knight: she casts a touch spell on Round 1, with a sword in her other hand. On Round 3, she touches an enemy who has approached her, and delivers the spell. The sword doesn't cause the spell to discharge.
If her Magus comrade can't do the same thing, then he has lost a combat option. It's possible that the developers intended for that to be the case, but if so, the rules are terribly written.
Peace rest with you.
|
|
Kabump, you're right, I'm wrong, you're pretty, I'm ugly.
Ill agree my tone was not the most conducive to debate, I apologize. However, I still think even with your interpretation there HAS to be some wiggle room. With your current setup, a missed attack is a missed attack and AUTO discharges the spell because it made contact with the armor, but the sword made contact with the armor. It doesn't have to be so. You are the one bringing the missing normal AC but still making contact with the armor (IE hitting touch AC) argument, but you do it in a way that isn't consistent or fair to a magus player.
Lets say I did agree with your interpretation: Why is it so difficult to test a spell strike attack and compare it to a second number to fully follow up on said interpretation? There 3 cases instead of 2: Case 1) melee attack missed both touch and normal ac: attack did not make contact with armor, so the charge is held and melee attack misses. Case 2) Hits touch AC and misses normal AC: Charge is dissipated and melee attack misses, because the attack hit armor but did not deal damage. Case 3) Hit touch AC AND normal AC: Damage and Spell damage as normal. This way at least gives the magus the CHANCE of holding onto that charge. I have to respectfully disagree with you that your ruling doesn't nerf anyone. It nerfs the magus.
Personaly, I kind of like the idea of checking the spell strike vs touch and normal AC: hitting touch AC means the touch spell went off, its still a touch spell after, just being dealt through the sword instead of a normal touch attack. So in my house rule, case 1 = charge held, melee attack missed. Case 2 = touch hit so touch spell goes off but melee attack does not deal damage and Case 3 = normal, melee + spell damage.
Anyway, just throwing that out there. I very much apologize for my snarky and demeaning tone earlier. Wasn't called for.
Thank you, Chris.
If I was a betting man I would say that the 'holding a charge' rule is intended to mean that if you touch anything with ONE of your hands. You have to have one hand free to cast anyway, and the touch spell probably just lingers in the hand that you cast the spell with. I would appreciate faq clarification there, but I'm pretty sure that's how it should work if it's clarified.
That's not how it works as written.
That being said, that's not my real issue with allowing the Magus to maintain a charge on a miss. My issue is specifically with the Magus because the Magus is allowed to make a melee attack instead of a touch attack. That's where I was hoping for strong errata.
If the Magus CAN hold a charge, then where does he hold it? In his off hand? In his weapon, which originally took the charge with it? Why didn't it discharge if he touched someone's shield in the attack? Does holding a charge mean he can make a touch attack? Does holding a charge mean he makes another melee attack? It's just nonsensical in the corner case of the Magus.
Hence my reading of the rules which simplifies the situation by not allowing the Magus to hold a charge.
Kabump, you're right, I'm wrong, you're pretty, I'm ugly.
Ill agree my tone was not the most conducive to debate, I apologize. However, I still think even with your interpretation there HAS to be some wiggle room. With your current setup, a missed attack is a missed attack and AUTO discharges the spell because it made contact with the armor, but the sword made contact with the armor. It doesn't have to be so. You are the one bringing the missing normal AC but still making contact with the armor (IE hitting touch AC) argument, but you do it in a way that isn't consistent or fair to a magus player.
Lets say I did agree with your interpretation: Why is it so difficult to test a spell strike attack and compare it to a second number to fully follow up on said interpretation? There 3 cases instead of 2: Case 1) melee attack missed both touch and normal ac: attack did not make contact with armor, so the charge is held and melee attack misses. Case 2) Hits touch AC and misses normal AC: Charge is dissipated and melee attack misses, because the attack hit armor but did not deal damage. Case 3) Hit touch AC AND normal AC: Damage and Spell damage as normal. This way at least gives the magus the CHANCE of holding onto that charge. I have to respectfully disagree with you that your ruling doesn't nerf anyone. It nerfs the magus.
Personaly, I kind of like the idea of checking the spell strike vs touch and normal AC: hitting touch AC means the touch spell went off, its still a touch spell after, just being dealt through the sword instead of a normal touch attack. So in my house rule, case 1 = charge held, melee attack missed. Case 2 = touch hit so touch spell goes off but melee attack does not deal damage and Case 3 = normal, melee + spell damage.
Anyway, just throwing that out there. I very much apologize for my snarky and demeaning tone earlier. Wasn't called for.
Kabump,
I completely agree that your thought of checking the spell strike versus touch and normal ac is the best of all compromises. It makes strong logical sense, and I like it a lot. I really do.
I only say that it's needlessly complex because I'm convinced that the developers wouldn't go for it on an official level. I think they try to make a point of keeping everything as simple as possible, which means that they probably aren't interested in anything that adds more steps.
But still, I love the idea of comparing the attack to both numbers, and having the effect go off dependent upon which number it hits.
And thank you.
I'm under a small time constraint at the moment, but I will try to be as thorough as possible in this post.
1. The spell component pouch argument is, I want to say this in a nicer way, but I can't think of one right now . . . it's a somewhat moronic argument. Obviously the touch spell dissipates. I'm not interested in micro-managing sub-actions of an overall action. This isn't first edition with segments and whatnot. The touch spell dissipates, period. That's the rule.
the only reason I bring up the spellcomponet pouch is because I think it is valid, do I think any GM would every do that to a player, no. However I do believe that it is valid. Now it might be resolved if one determines discharge is not the same as the spell doing normal damage.
3. Eighteen posters are, in fact, relatively small compared to the entire community of Pathfinder enthusiasts. That being said, the popularity of one interpretation over another has little to do with my ruling, which I am trying to base on an unbiased reading of the rules.
Jo I have done some checking on the boards, in all of the threads and all of the post concerning spellstrike you are the only one so fart that is using this concept. However I'm still looking for someone to agree with you in a previous posting. I have learned that you provoke an AOO with ranged touch spells even if you make the Concentration check for casting defensivly!
The issue dealing with rods, wands and such is deserving of attention. Bear in mind, please, that I only have a few moments to make this post, and I have none of my books open in front of me right now.So. I'll start with some (IMO obvious) assumptions. There are certain items that are crafted specifically - let me say that again, crafted specifically - for the purpose of casting spells. An example of such is a Wizard's bonded object. That object would not be subject to the rule of causing the spell to discharge because it specifically allows the Wizard...
That's a very kind assumption of you, what about a Magus w/blackblade, it is an item only for the magus class and help assist with spells and such, would that count as a item like a Rod, Staff, Wand, Bonded Item? Once you have one you can't get a familiar, and some argue strongly that means you can't get a bonded item because the blade is bonded to the Magus?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Kabump,
I completely agree that your thought of checking the spell strike versus touch and normal ac is the best of all compromises. It makes strong logical sense, and I like it a lot. I really do.I only say that it's needlessly complex because I'm convinced that the developers wouldn't go for it on an official level. I think they try to make a point of keeping everything as simple as possible, which means that they probably aren't interested in anything that adds more steps.
But still, I love the idea of comparing the attack to both numbers, and having the effect go off dependent upon which number it hits.
And thank you.
Again, thanks for accepting my apology :p
I agree, checking against 2 ACs does feel in spirit of the the rules, but goes against trying to make the game run smoother and simpler. But with your view on things, it seems like the only fair way to deal with this issue of retaining the charge or not. This factor here, coupled with the idea that the devs try to avoid complicating the rules mechanics as much as possible, made me think that its easier to take the simpler case of a miss retains the charge. However, as with you, I really like the mechanic of checking spellstrike vs both touch and normal AC. Its a very fair way to deal with things, and while it complicates the matter, I don't feel its anything TOO complicated. I feel its an elegant way to deal with the magus in your game! I hope you take that matter of resolving the charge issue into your home game until you can hopefully get clarification on the matter. I know I will use this interpretation for any Magus in my games from now on!
Jo, I'm curious how you deal with rings. Rods, staves, wands and the like are specifically created for casting, and so don't interfere with the touch spell. Alright. But how about rings? They are not specifically created for casting, but they are very much touching the hand (and so might be the corner of the sleeve of the wizard's robe, or his gloves).
At a certain point, it becomes suicide for a wizard to take off his rings in the middle of a battle, particularly when he is getting close enough to deliver touch spells. But even putting that aside, and putting aside the action economy fiasco the wizard finds himself in having to take turns to strip off his rings in order to get spell off, there are rings which cannot be taken off for one reason or another.
Does a wizard wearing a cursed ring have no chance of holding a charge? Or how about a ring of sustenance, which must be worn for an unbroken week before it begins to work, and if it removed at any point, then it stops working until it is worn for another week. This is a mainstay of casters everywhere, but it is going to keep all of them from holding touch spells.
How do your rules interact with the gauntlets that come with a cleric's armor? Are they not allowed to wear gauntlets if they want to hold touch spells?
So. I'll start with some (IMO obvious) assumptions. There are certain items that are crafted specifically - let me say that again, crafted specifically - for the purpose of casting spells. An example of such is a Wizard's bonded object. That object would not be subject to the rule of causing the spell to discharge because it specifically allows the Wizard to cast with it, and it is clearly intended to be held. In flavor it is attuned to the Wizard so I see no reason it should inadvertently trigger an unintentional discharge.
Meta-magic rods are specifically designed to accentuate a spell in one manner or another. I see no problem with the allowance of a rod IF it was used in the casting of the touch spell in question.
I see no issue with a wand IF it was used to cast the touch spell.
If your interpretation of touch anything is correct then these magic items would need to be specifically listed as exceptions to that rule. Either you need to rectract that touch anything statement which kills the argument, or you need to find an exception to your assumption, which I can assure you does not exist.
The crux of my argument is that the Magus is making an attack against a normal AC instead of a touch AC. That essentially changes the playing field.
"Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge.... 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."
A magus holding the charge and delivering it with his weapon is EXACTLY the same mechanic as a sorcerer holding the charge and delivering it with his claw.
Both are attacks against normal AC instead of touch AC. Both deal weapon damage in addition to discharging the spell. Both retain the charge if the attack misses.
Magus casts a touch ranged spell -- doing so means he has a hand free, since a hand is free he can hold the spell in that hand.
Magus uses the weapon he is using in his other hand to attack and use spellstrike thereby having a hand free to hold the charge without touching anything else, and a weapon in a hand with which he may attack with spell strike.
Nowhere does it say that the spellstrike must be made with the same hand that is holding the spell.
Magus casts a touch ranged spell -- doing so means he has a hand free, since a hand is free he can hold the spell in that hand.
Magus uses the weapon he is using in his other hand to attack and use spellstrike thereby having a hand free to hold the charge without touching anything else, and a weapon in a hand with which he may attack with spell strike.
Nowhere does it say that the spellstrike must be made with the same hand that is holding the spell.
That implies the magus can't use both hands on the weapon. Many magi have been wielding their one-handed weapons with two hands to get increased damage (and power attack) when not using Spell Combat.
Magus casts a touch ranged spell -- doing so means he has a hand free, since a hand is free he can hold the spell in that hand.
Magus uses the weapon he is using in his other hand to attack and use spellstrike thereby having a hand free to hold the charge without touching anything else, and a weapon in a hand with which he may attack with spell strike.
Nowhere does it say that the spellstrike must be made with the same hand that is holding the spell.
That implies the magus can't use both hands on the weapon. Many magi have been wielding their one-handed weapons with two hands to get increased damage (and power attack) when not using Spell Combat.
I may have to look it up, but one complaint against the magus during playtesting was that it was restricted to using weapons in one hand for the most part, and designers said it was intentional, IIRC.
I am pretty much surfing the internet on borrowed time today so I may not have time to really search the playtest threads until tomorrow.
As I said when I made my earlier post today, I was pressed for time and didn't have my books around. As such, I was forced to make a post based on assumptions, and nothing more. I was very clear that I was doing nothing more than making assumptions in that post.
So here, I'll simplify it for you: the harshest reading of the rules as written says that you can not hold a charge if you cast the spell through a wand, or a stave, or used a rod. You are, indeed, touching them.
That doesn't stop you from casting the spell. It stops you from holding a charge in the following round.
You can not hold a charge if you are holding a weapon. You're touching it.
You can not hold a charge if you are wearing gloves.
You can not hold a charge if you are using a shield.
You can not hold a charge if you are wearing rings. (I think that's almost as silly as air, but whatever. The harshest reading says you can't.)
You can not hold a charge if you are touching anything. I don't know why you guys are upset at me for what the PRD says. You can choose how harshly you want to interpret that rule. I know that, for me, it includes swords in people's hands, and I know that there's not a one of you who can tell me that interpretation is wrong by the RAW.
In my personal games I do not interpret it so harshly as to include certain items, like rings, or, you know, air. But that's my personal game. You interpret it as you will. Unfortunately, only clarification will tell you for certain that you can, by RAW, hold a sword and hold a charge and hold whatever else you insist you have to be holding to not be nerfed.
Holding a charge is an advantage that you get . . . IF you don't touch something while you're doing it. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.
ps... the touch spell dissipates if you cast a spell. If you happen to be holding your spell component pouch without casting a spell, then yes, you have problems with losing your charge.
It's up to the individual GM, by all I can figure, as to whether 'discharge' means that the spell does damage, or not. It probably means that the spell does damage by my estimation.
I may have to look it up, but one complaint against the magus during playtesting was that it was restricted to using weapons in one hand for the most part, and designers said it was intentional, IIRC.
This doesn't address the question of Spellstrike, but might be what you're thinking of.
In a thread about Spell Combat:
No two handed weapons for the magus. Just like with two weapon fighting, using a two handed weapon is not going to work. This was a very intentional design choice.
And then later...
But a Magus could still wield his one-handed weapon with two hands in a round when he doesn't want to use Spell Combat, couldn't he?Of course.
I may have to look it up, but one complaint against the magus during playtesting was that it was restricted to using weapons in one hand for the most part, and designers said it was intentional, IIRC.This doesn't address the question of Spellstrike, but might be what you're thinking of.
In a thread about Spell Combat:
No two handed weapons for the magus. Just like with two weapon fighting, using a two handed weapon is not going to work. This was a very intentional design choice.And then later...
But a Magus could still wield his one-handed weapon with two hands in a round when he doesn't want to use Spell Combat, couldn't he?Of course.
That was it. Thanks.
As far as the act of holding the sword automatically discharging the spell where RAW does it say that you are holding the charge in that hand? Since Spellstrike requires a free hand, for a we know it could be a technique in which you cast the spell and hold the charge in your off hand, and touch the blade of your sword as it contacts the foe.
As I said when I made my earlier post today, I was pressed for time and didn't have my books around. As such, I was forced to make a post based on assumptions, and nothing more. I was very clear that I was doing nothing more than making assumptions in that post.
So here, I'll simplify it for you: the harshest reading of the rules as written says that you can not hold a charge if you cast the spell through a wand, or a stave, or used a rod. You are, indeed, touching them.
That doesn't stop you from casting the spell. It stops you from holding a charge in the following round.
You can not hold a charge if you are holding a weapon. You're touching it.
You can not hold a charge if you are wearing gloves.
You can not hold a charge if you are using a shield.
You can not hold a charge if you are wearing rings. (I think that's almost as silly as air, but whatever. The harshest reading says you can't.)
You can not hold a charge if you are touching anything. I don't know why you guys are upset at me for what the PRD says. You can choose how harshly you want to interpret that rule. I know that, for me, it includes swords in people's hands, and I know that there's not a one of you who can tell me that interpretation is wrong by the RAW.
In my personal games I do not interpret it so harshly as to include certain items, like rings, or, you know, air. But that's my personal game. You interpret it as you will. Unfortunately, only clarification will tell you for certain that you can, by RAW, hold a sword and hold a charge and hold whatever else you insist you have to be holding to not be nerfed.
Holding a charge is an advantage that you get . . . IF you don't touch something while you're doing it. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.
ps... the touch spell dissipates if you cast a spell. If you happen to be holding your spell component pouch without casting a spell, then yes, you have problems with losing your charge.
It's up to the individual GM, by all I can...
Here is the thing though. By strict use of RAW a lot of things, such as rings would get rid of the spell. I think the issue with the disagreement is that our RAI of what gets rid of a held touch spell differs.
It does say "anything", but it is obvious that was a badly chosen word. It should be errata'd to be more precise. I never had the issue come up in my games, but I this thread has made me realize I need to define it for myself.I would change "anything" to "any creature or non attended object not held by the caster."
As an example--> Magic weapon is a touch spell, but if a cleric cast the spell while he is holding a mace the spell would be used up by his mace instead of being cast on his ally's mace. Now one might want to argue that a caster can ignore it affecting his weapon during the round it is cast, but nothing relating to a one round amnesty is found in the rules.
Magus casts a touch ranged spell -- doing so means he has a hand free, since a hand is free he can hold the spell in that hand.
Magus uses the weapon he is using in his other hand to attack and use spellstrike thereby having a hand free to hold the charge without touching anything else, and a weapon in a hand with which he may attack with spell strike.
Nowhere does it say that the spellstrike must be made with the same hand that is holding the spell.
That implies the magus can't use both hands on the weapon. Many magi have been wielding their one-handed weapons with two hands to get increased damage (and power attack) when not using Spell Combat.
Sure it does -- they can do so just fine -- and discharge the spell while at it. Nothing in spellstrike states the normal rules for holding a charge have disappeared -- only that you can use a weapon (and normal attack) to deliver the touch range spell.
Please note that not all spells with the touch range will be discharged from holding the weapon with both hands, and some that would be discharged for that round aren't discharge in their totality (easy example would be Calcific Touch).
As far as the act of holding the sword automatically discharging the spell where RAW does it say that you are holding the charge in that hand? Since Spellstrike requires a free hand, for a we know it could be a technique in which you cast the spell and hold the charge in your off hand, and touch the blade of your sword as it contacts the foe.
Nothing says you have to touch the blade at all in order to deliver the touch spell through it.
I would change "anything" to "any creature or non attended object not held by the caster."
The end of that sentence is unnecessary. A non-attended object is by definition not held by anyone. Anything held by the caster is by definition attended.
Just "any creature or unattended object" will do.
Hmm, I just read a thread on touch attacks holding charge. It references a 3.5 faq that stats that the act of making contact with the target completes the spell, your not actully holding the charge you are trying to complete the spell. I'm on my phone so I can't copy and paste the link. But if 3.5 is in any way useful as a clue to what the designers intent is then It may be useful.
3.5 FAQ for touch attacks and holding charge
Hmm, I just read a thread on touch attacks holding charge. It references a 3.5 faq that stats that the act of making contact with the target completes the spell, your not actully holding the charge you are trying to complete the spell. I'm on my phone so I can't copy and paste the link. But if 3.5 is in any way useful as a clue to what the designers intent is then It may be useful.
3.5 FAQ for touch attacks and holding charge
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/holdingTheChargeForTouchSpells&page=1#21
The above is a link to the post, I mentioned.
|
Jo Bird, you are saying that a caster can not hold any item in his hands while holding a touch spell charge? What about the wizards staff, wand, or rod. What about the clerics divine focus, or better yet why not the cleric's weapon and shield? Why is this a question for the magus when the cleric has been doing touch spells with a weapon in hand for decades.
If the touch spells energy is not discharged into the items a wizard or cleric are almost always holding in their hands then why would it discharge into the weapon of a Magus?
Because...<take deep breath>... "wizards and clerics are Gods, and nothing can be allowed to interfere with their plans (witness the threads crying foul if an NPC targets the spellbook), while the Magus is a Johnny-Come-Lately Red-Headed Stepchild of a class, that by virtue of being new, is obviously broken, and will only ever be taken by munchkin anime fans trying to break the game, so they have to be watched like a hawk, and have their every move micromanaged, before being pounced on!"
Is that the gist of it?
Wizard: "I hold the Staff of Ultimate Power under my left armpit, draw the Metamagic Rod of Game-Balance Breaking, cast my Shocking Grasp spell, sheathe the rod, Next round drink a potion of Fly, and fly over, with my familiar perched on my arm, to deliver the spell to the target."
GM: "Yeah, whatever."
Cleric: "I cast the spell, with my gauntleted hand, the one holding my light shield, while defending myself using my heavy mace in my main hand. I then try to touch the target with this hand (the gauntletted hand, with the gloves of Dex over the top, with the ring of protection over the top of that), and if I fail, I'll keep trying."
GM: "Fair enough"
Magus: "I attempt to use Spellstrike as written."
GM: "HAH! CHEAT! I SAW YOU! YOU WERE HOLDING A SWORD! YOU FAAAAAAIL!"
|
|
Lets say I did agree with your interpretation: Why is it so difficult to test a spell strike attack and compare it to a second number to fully follow up on said interpretation? There 3 cases instead of 2: Case 1) melee attack missed both touch and normal ac: attack did not make contact with armor, so the charge is held and melee attack misses. Case 2) Hits touch AC and misses normal AC: Charge is dissipated and melee attack misses, because the attack hit armor but did not deal damage. Case 3) Hit touch AC AND normal AC: Damage and Spell damage as normal. This way at least gives the magus the CHANCE of holding onto that charge. I have to respectfully disagree with you that your ruling doesn't nerf anyone. It nerfs the magus.
Personaly, I kind of like the idea of checking the spell strike vs touch and normal AC: hitting touch AC means the touch spell went off, its still a touch spell after, just being dealt through the sword instead of a normal touch attack. So in my house rule, case 1 = charge held, melee attack missed. Case 2 = touch hit so touch spell goes off but melee attack does not deal damage and Case 3 = normal, melee + spell damage.
I agree. And that's how Shocking Grasp always worked from 1st Edition onwards; miss both Touch AC and Full AC, no damage; Hit Touch AC, but not Full AC, deal spell damage only; Hit both Touch AC and Full AC, deal both sets of damage.
They didn't have such codified terms as Touch AC, back in the day, but the concept was exactly the same ('AC 10, modified by Dex bonus', 'AC, ignoring armor and shield', etc).
Comparing whether a number falls somewhere between two numbers is not remotely difficult; it's kindergarten maths.
|
|
That being said, that's not my real issue with allowing the Magus to maintain a charge on a miss. My issue is specifically with the Magus because the Magus is allowed to make a melee attack instead of a touch attack. That's where I was hoping for strong errata.
Yeeeeeaah.
He's making a melee attack instead of a touch attack.
How dare he?
He's rolling shocking grasp versus AC 20+ instead of the AC 7 he should be targetting.
The cheesy, cheating, munchkin.
Let's get him.
Teach him a lesson.
We'll show him he can't pull that kind of broken crap round here.
That being said, that's not my real issue with allowing the Magus to maintain a charge on a miss. My issue is specifically with the Magus because the Magus is allowed to make a melee attack instead of a touch attack. That's where I was hoping for strong errata.Yeeeeeaah.
He's making a melee attack instead of a touch attack.
How dare he?
He's rolling shocking grasp versus AC 20+ instead of the AC 7 he should be targetting.
The cheesy, cheating, munchkin.Let's get him.
Teach him a lesson.
We'll show him he can't pull that kind of broken crap round here.
Finally, someone who gets me. A voice of reason in the darkness. You are my lighthouse Snorter. You stay lit for me.
|
|
Finally, someone who gets me. A voice of reason in the darkness. You are my lighthouse Snorter. You stay lit for me.
Are you serious?
I post three posts in quick succession, two of which state, or strongly imply, that your agenda is not to clarify the terms of 'charge-holding', but to apply a house-rule in an arbitary, one-sided way, in an attempt to gut one class of its whole raison d'etre, its signature ability, the ability the iconic is seen to be using in various artistic renditions.
And your response to being called out, is to say; "Finally, someone who gets me."
It seems like this thread is done.
Thank you for wasting our time.
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.An odd choice.
You're allowing a magus to hold the charge of a touch spell and use Spellstrike to deliver it. Why would you not allow that to happen during Spell Combat?
Example:
Magus casts Shocking Grasp and holds the charge. Six rounds later, a goblin appears and steps up to be magus. The magus performs a full-round action to use Spell Combat. The magus decides to make his normal weapon attacks first, so he strikes the goblin with his sword. Since he's holding the charge, and he hit the goblin, Shocking Grasp discharges and he also deals weapon damage. All good so far?
Now, somehow the goblin is still alive, so the magus then casts his spell using his free hand (as part of Spell Combat) he does this defensively and makes his concentration check. So he casts Shocking Grasp again, then delivers his free attack via Spellstrike. He hits, discharging the spell and dealing weapon damage.
I would allow it in that instance since he is casting a spell. What I'm not allowing is the extra attack from spell combat in conjunction with spell strike with a spell that has already been cast and is holding the charge.
I would allow it in that instance since he is casting a spell. What I'm not allowing is the extra attack from spell combat in conjunction with spell strike with a spell that has already been cast and is holding the charge.
Which extra attack from Spell Combat? The off-hand casting the spell? Or the main hand performing full iterative attacks?
When someone casts a touch spell, they get a free attack. So if they take a standard action to cast the spell, they still get a free attack to deliver it, and the magus can use Spellstrike to deliver it with his weapon instead of his finger.
When a magus uses Spell Combat, he is making a full attack with his main hand, and casting a spell with his off-hand. If he has a charge held when he makes the main-hand iterative attacks, the first one to hit will discharge the spell, just like if he held the charge and performed a standard full attack.
I think what you might be saying is that you would not allow a magus to use Spell Combat and instead of casting a spell with his off hand, make a regular attack? He can't do that. He can only cast a spell. If that spell is a Fireball, then it's just like casting a normal fireball. If that spell is a touch spell, then he gets a free attack, because anyone who casts a touch spell gets a free attack. And, since he has the Spellstrike ability, he can deliver that spell with his weapon.
That same level 2 Magus in my example above could instead have attacked the goblin, discharging his held shocking grasp, then instead of casting shocking grasp again and making another attack, he could cast Magic Missile. If he casts magic missile he does not get to make another attack with his weapon. The only reason he was able to make a 2nd attack with his weapon is because he cast a touch spell.
Finally, someone who gets me. A voice of reason in the darkness. You are my lighthouse Snorter. You stay lit for me.Are you serious?
I post three posts in quick succession, two of which state, or strongly imply, that your agenda is not to clarify the terms of 'charge-holding', but to apply a house-rule in an arbitary, one-sided way, in an attempt to gut one class of its whole raison d'etre, its signature ability, the ability the iconic is seen to be using in various artistic renditions.
And your response to being called out, is to say; "Finally, someone who gets me."
It seems like this thread is done.
Thank you for wasting our time.
Snorter,
No, I don't actually think you 'get' me. I just don't have enough respect for the points you've raised to respond to them in any other manner. In other words, I think it's so obvious that I'm not saying what you're implying that I'm effectively rolling my eyes at your ricockulous, judgmental, and un-constructive mouth breathing.
As I said in another post, I hit the faq. So did a lot of folks. That's all I can do. Otherwise, I have said my piece.
If anyone is counting, i think that a magus can hold the charge of a spell in his sword.
If anyone is counting, i think that a magus can hold the charge of a spell in his sword.
Specifically in his sword? So, at the time of casting, a magus must decide to hold the charge normally, or put it in his sword, in which case he cannot choose to make a touch attack later to discharge the spell?
Or does he decide where to hold it not when the spell is cast, but when the charge becomes held? What if he attempts to use Spellstrike with the free attack granted as part of casting, and misses. He would normally hold the charge, can he then choose to hold the charge normally, rather than in his sword, even though he already tried to deliver the spell with the sword (before he held the charge)?
What if he's wielding two weapons, he must pick one to put the charge in? What if he's holding the charge in one sword, then it gets sundered, he can't deliver his held charge with his other weapon?
That all seems contrary to the text of Spellstrike which says he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding. Spellstrike doesn't say he must choose how to deliver the spell at the time of casting, just that it must have been cast. (by the magus, from the magus spell list, and with a range of "touch")
Does an orc sorcerer have to choose to hold the charge in his tusks? Or can he choose to make a bite attack while holding the charge and deliver the spell that way? (The combat rules about this don't mention choosing where to hold the charge, only that a held charge can be delivered with a natural weapon)
It seems extra complicated to create rules about where when and how the charge is stored.
Let us use a touch of research and see if we can answer some of the questions regarding touch spells and holding charges. For this argument I will be using comparison from D20 SRD and Pathfinder to show a probabable design intent for the system. Jo Bird only asked for good resources in order to make a decision, thus I will provide good resources.
“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).
“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.
Identical Rules from 3.5 to Pathfinder
Touch Attacks:[I/] 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 def lection bonus (if any) all apply normally.[I]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.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell 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. 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.Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. 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 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.
Pretty Much the same, just a little bit clearer in pathfinder.
The reason of course for the comparasions is that the faqs from 3.5 should enlighten us. As Pathfinder is a newer version of 3.5.
SO Let us begin with the FAQs
As for the Guantlets, Rings, Glove discharging debate 3.5 has the following answer.
If a spellcaster is wearing gauntlets, could the character cast a spell with a touch range and perform an unarmed strike in addition to the spell’s effects? Could a spellcaster wearing spiked gauntlets do an armed strike in addition to the spell’s effects?No, you cannot deliver a touch spell through a weapon attack. You can, however, still make a melee touch attack to deliver a spell with touch range while wearing gauntlets.
so it seems that it is reasonable to conclude that rings gauntlets and gloves do not hinder the attempt touch some one, and from that it probably does not count as discharging the spell.
When a duskblade (PH2 20) uses arcane channeling to deliver a spell but misses with the weapon attack, is the spell discharged or can he try to deliver the spell again on
his next turn?This follows the normal rule for touch spells; that is, a melee touch spell that misses its target is not discharged...
Now I don't know the write up for the duskblade but it seems to have a similar power to spell strike, so the above rule may prove useful.
[B]Can a duskblade (PH2 20) using arcane channeling channel ranged touch spells through his weapon attack or is the ability limited to melee touch spells only?“Touch” spell refers to spells that require a melee touch attack to deliver. The duskblade can’t use arcane channeling to deliver a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.
How does the duskblade’s arcane channeling class feature (PH2 20) work with spells that allow multiple touch attacks, such as chill touch?For a spell that allows you to make multiple touch attacks against separate creatures (such as chill touch), you only channel one touch of the spell through your weapon attack, regardless of the number of touches allowed by the spell. If the spell’s duration is instantaneous (as chill touch), its effect is expended by a single weapon attack, even if the spell would normally allow multiple simultaneous touches. If the spell allowed you to make multiple simultaneous touch attacks against the same target, treat it as if you had targeted the enemy struck by your weapon with all the eligible attacks.
Good to know the intent!
"Touch Spells: The duration for a touch spell doesn't begin until the caster touches a subject and delivers the spell to a recipient. Attempting to touch a recipient requires a melee touch attack and that is part of the action used to cast the spell during the round when the spell is completed. If the recipient is willing to be touched, it's usually best to just assume the caster touches the recipient.If the caster does not touch a recipient then (either because she doesn't try to or the melee touch attack fails), she must use an action (usually the attack or full attack action) to touch a recipient during a later round. This is called "holding the charge." A caster holding a charge is considered armed and can use an attack of opportunity to make a melee touch attack and deliver the spell.
Whenever the caster touches anything, the held charge is discharged, even if what the caster touches isn't a valid target for the spell (in that case, the spell is wasted). The charge also is lost (and wasted) if the caster casts another spell. Otherwise, a caster can hold a charge indefinitely. DMs should feel free to set some reasonable limit to how long a character can hold a charge, perhaps 1 hour or until the caster has to go to sleep (or trance in the case of elves).
A very few touch spells (water breathing, for example) can be partially discharged. If so, this will be mentioned in the spell's target entry and its descriptive text, or both.
As a full-round action you can touch up to six friends willing creatures, object that willing creatures hold, or objects just lying round by themselves), provided that all the recipients are within the caster's reach. (The caster can extend her reach a little by taking a 5-foot step during the process.) To use this option, you must first cast the spell and hold the charge. Because the recipients are willing, no melee touch attack is required. You must decide how to distribute the spell's effect before touching anything."
the above comes from a post on these boards, I have not found this faq yet but the poster is Beastman and the Link is Here;http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfi nderRPG/rules/holdingTheChargeForTouchSpells&page=1#21
Touch Defined
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 as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
Discharge Kinda Defined
Discharge: Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged.
So using the above 3.5 FAQS I conclude that yes the Magus Keeps a charge, however he does not get to keep multiple charges. Rings, Gloves, Wands, Guantlets (Which are a Weapon) Staves, Daggers, Crossbows, Shields etc are not considered touched if they are held while the spell is being cast. The discharge only goes off on things that were not being carried or held by the caster upon the casting. Of course that could be wrong lol. However with the above research I believe that thou it may not be RAW it is RAI.
Magus: "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."
Read this. Then read it again.
Spellstrike does not allow you to deliver touch spells through your weapon. Spellstrike only triggers when you cast a spell with a range of touch. The free touch you get as part of that casting, can be a weapon attack instead. If the spell has more than one charge, if your attack misses, or you choose not to deliver the touch spell right away, spellstrike doesn't let you hit someone over the head with the spell later. Once you are done casting the spell, you have to follow all the normal rules for delivering touch spells. Spellstrike no longer applies.
I can understand why you'd read it otherwise. It might even be reasonable. But that's not what Spellstrike actually does.
I removed a post. No name-calling.
"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."Spellstrike does not allow you to deliver touch spells through your weapon.
That's exactly what it says it does.
IF the spell was cast by the magus, and IF the spell has a range of "touch", and IF the spell is from the magus spell list, THEN:
He can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
It does not say this only happens for the free attack granted for casting the spell. It does not say this only happens in the round the spell is cast. There is no timing mentioned in the ability at all.
If you cast the spell, don't attack, then hold the charge, you have still fulfilled the requirements for Spellstrike. You're a magus, you cast a spell with a range of touch, and it was from the magus spell list. Thus, you can deliver the spell through a weapon.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Thank you, Chris.
If I was a betting man I would say that the 'holding a charge' rule is intended to mean that if you touch anything with ONE of your hands. You have to have one hand free to cast anyway, and the touch spell probably just lingers in the hand that you cast the spell with. I would appreciate faq clarification there, but I'm pretty sure that's how it should work if it's clarified.
That's not how it works as written.
That being said, that's not my real issue with allowing the Magus to maintain a charge on a miss. My issue is specifically with the Magus because the Magus is allowed to make a melee attack instead of a touch attack. That's where I was hoping for strong errata.
If the Magus CAN hold a charge, then where does he hold it? In his off hand? In his weapon, which originally took the charge with it? Why didn't it discharge if he touched someone's shield in the attack? Does holding a charge mean he can make a touch attack? Does holding a charge mean he makes another melee attack? It's just nonsensical in the corner case of the Magus.
Hence my reading of the rules which simplifies the situation by not allowing the Magus to hold a charge.
You can make regular attacks with unarmaed or natural attacks per RAW this just lets you do it with a weapon and your body not the limb holds the charge.