|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a character with two claw attacks (draconic bloodline sorcerer) and the produce flame spell-like ability (pyromaniac gnome racial trait). I'm trying to figure out if there's a good way for me to use my produce flame as a melee touch in conjunction with my claw attacks. Seems to me if you're hitting something with your claws while one claw also have the (produced) flame, you should be able to hit for claw damage as well as fire damage. There's a few ways I could see this working out, and I'd love to get your thoughts on what you think is the most reasonable:
1) Make normal attacks (against regular AC) with the claws and produce(d) flame. If successful, one claw (designated beforehand) deals its natural damage plus fire damage, and the other claw deals its natural damage.
2) Make attacks with the claws and flame. If the flame-applied claw hits regular AC, it deals natural damage plus fire damage. If the claw misses regular AC but hits touch-attack AC, deal just fire damage. The second claw deals damage as normal if it hits regular AC.
3) Make attacks with flame and one claw. Flame replaces the first claw attack and hits against touch-attack AC. Other claw attack hits as normal.
Thoughts? Any other ways you think this should be applied?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As to adding fire to existing attacks, I think we can pretty safely say "no". Produce Flame doesn't coat your hands in fire; it makes a ball of fire which you can choose to shove in someone's face, and it tells you exactly how to go about that.
Also, think of it this way: Produce Flame is a 1st-level spell. So is Magic Weapon, which makes a weapon into a +1 weapon. There exists the possibility of making a weapon that deals an extra 1d6 fire damage on a hit; such a weapon would be a minimum of +2 equivalent.
So if you let Produce Flame tack an extra 1d6+1/2 levels fire damage onto your attack, you're effectively giving your attack the flaming property plus extra, all with a first-level spell. Definitely not what was intended. Produce Flame provides its own attacks, and nothing more.
As for #3, there's been some debate. Some (including creative director James Jacobs) have stated that since Produce Flame grants you a special option that's specifically described as a standard action, you can't include it in a full-attack. Relatedly, there are other spells (like Flame Blade) that specifically allow you to wield the magic as a weapon, but Produce Flame has no such language. I could see it as easy house-rule territory, though, so check with your GM.
|
|
As to adding fire to existing attacks, I think we can pretty safely say "no". Produce Flame doesn't coat your hands in fire; it makes a ball of fire which you can choose to shove in someone's face, and it tells you exactly how to go about that.
Also, think of it this way: Produce Flame is a 1st-level spell. So is Magic Weapon, which makes a weapon into a +1 weapon. There exists the possibility of making a weapon that deals an extra 1d6 fire damage on a hit; such a weapon would be a minimum of +2 equivalent.
So if you let Produce Flame tack an extra 1d6+1/2 levels fire damage onto your attack, you're effectively giving your attack the flaming property plus extra, all with a first-level spell. Definitely not what was intended. Produce Flame provides its own attacks, and nothing more.
As for #3, there's been some debate. Some (including creative director James Jacobs) have stated that since Produce Flame grants you a special option that's specifically described as a standard action, you can't include it in a full-attack. Relatedly, there are other spells (like Flame Blade) that specifically allow you to wield the magic as a weapon, but Produce Flame has no such language. I could see it as easy house-rule territory, though, so check with your GM.
That all makes sense and sounds right, but I hesitate to rule something like this out simply because it works really well. Since the flame would be applied to a claw (which you can "touch" someone with) as opposed to a weapon like a sword (which you can't "touch" with), it seems like this still makes sense within the rules and doesn't turn "produce flame" into a 1st level "flaming weapon". Plus, you'd need natural attacks to utilize it, which obviously have their own drawbacks, including not being able to apply the "flaming" enhancement later on as you can with regular weapons. I'd agree that this combo is maybe slightly overpowered at low levels, though not egregiously so given the limited duration and application, but I'm looking for more of a rules-based reading. After all, much of the game is figuring out character builds that work well within the given logic and rules set. Thanks for the input though, and I'd love to hear more.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32
|
Personally, I would rule that produce flame just doesn't work that way. The spell creates a ball of flame that you can throw or push in someone's face. Note that the spell description says "Effect flame in your palm."
When the dragon disciple attacks with his claws, he's attacking with his claws not slapping his opponent across the face.
Not sure how whether Pathfinder has ruled on the attack bit, but, in 3.5, it was ruled that you could use a touch attack spell as part of an attack action, but that if the attack failed to hit normal AC, the touch attack failed to go off.
An example would be using unarmed combat to hit after casting a touch spell. If you missed with your strike, you missed completely. If your unarmed attack hit, you did unarmed damage and the effects of the touch spell.
This, of course, has nothing to do with produce flame.
You can make a (non listed type of action) touch attack on the round you aren't casting, or use it as part of your regular melee attack routines by attacking someone's real (not touch) armor class.
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.
Produce flame can be either melee or tossed. I don't see what would prevent someone from trying to claw someone else with a flaming claw.
The notion for using "holding the charge" to punch someone with a spell have been around since a early 3.0 dragon magazine. In pathfinder it is in the Holding The Charge section in Combat - Cast A Spell - Touch Spells in Combat.
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.
Note is not the exact same thing as the way produce flame works, so if your GM decides to disallow using these rules with Produce Flame, he would "technically" be right. Even though it certainly looks like any multiple touches attack spell OUGHT to work this way.
1) Make normal attacks (against regular AC) with the claws and produce(d) flame. If successful, one claw (designated beforehand) deals its natural damage plus fire damage, and the other claw deals its natural damage.
The Produce Flame {GM allowing] rides along with the claw. In previous d20 incarnations the actual attack is what gets the crit, should one be scored, with the spell being treated as "extra dice of damage" {not modified by the critical hit]. I'm not sure if anything has changed on that angle.
Please note that produce flame is not a touch spell.
In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That doesn't make it a touch spell.
The combat chapter defines a "touch spell" as a spell with a range of "touch". Produce Flame does not meet this requirement.
The aforementioned rules on "Holding the Charge" are part of the rules for "touch spells", as defined in the same section. Thus, they don't apply to Produce Flame.
EDIT: That said, I would personally houserule that the ball of flame created by this spell could be wielded like a weapon (light for purposes of TWF if you wanted to really ratchet up the badassery).
Please note that produce flame is not a touch spell.
Already mentioned the rules for Holding the Charge and produce flame were not the exact same, even though the mechanics are parallel.
|
|
I guess for me the bottom line is that if you have a hand, and that hand has claws as well as a ball of fire in its palm, if you hit someone with the claws, you could hardly avoid hitting them with the fire as well, unless you were magically holding back the fire via some sort of "hold charge" or similar, as discussed above. It sounds like there are people on both sides of this though, with good arguments to each, so I guess it will come down to a GM to GM basis as to how/when fire damage can/cannot be applied.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess for me the bottom line is that if you have a hand, and that hand has claws as well as a ball of fire in its palm, if you hit someone with the claws, you could hardly avoid hitting them with the fire as well, unless you were magically holding back the fire via some sort of "hold charge" or similar, as discussed above. It sounds like there are people on both sides of this though, with good arguments to each, so I guess it will come down to a GM to GM basis as to how/when fire damage can/cannot be applied.
But you haven't even gotten to the fun part yet! >:D
If the flame is in your palm, can it be dropped? Does attacking with that limb (whether it be with claws, unarmed strike, gripping a weapon, whatever) cause the flame to fall out of your hand? Or is the flame stuck there until it runs out, preventing you from even attempting to use the hand for something else?
|
|
I guess for me the bottom line is that if you have a hand, and that hand has claws as well as a ball of fire in its palm, if you hit someone with the claws, you could hardly avoid hitting them with the fire as well, unless you were magically holding back the fire via some sort of "hold charge" or similar, as discussed above. It sounds like there are people on both sides of this though, with good arguments to each, so I guess it will come down to a GM to GM basis as to how/when fire damage can/cannot be applied.But you haven't even gotten to the fun part yet! >:D
If the flame is in your palm, can it be dropped? Does attacking with that limb (whether it be with claws, unarmed strike, gripping a weapon, whatever) cause the flame to fall out of your hand? Or is the flame stuck there until it runs out, preventing you from even attempting to use the hand for something else?
It might be a problem if I didn't have my go-go-gadget flame-putter-outer
The combat chapter defines a "touch spell" as a spell with a range of "touch". Produce Flame does not meet this requirement.
Its dual use technology. The idea that it can't be used as a touch spell because it can be used as a touch spell or thrown is ludicrous. Its like saying you don't have a screwdriver when you're carrying a multitool.
No, produce flame does not work with natural attacks.
It's not a touch spell, so there's no charge to hold and therefore no discharge upon a successful natural attack.
It's just a spell which is not a touch spell but which gives you the ability to make touch attacks. Thus, any rules for touch attacks will apply for the attack you gain via produce flame, but the rules for touch *spells* will not apply, as it is not a touch spell.
You're holding flames in your hands - your body is not holding a charge of a spell.
In addition to the technical correctness of my approach, it also makes sense flavor-wise. There's no reason a Raptor-form Wildshape Druid's bite should do extra fire damage when he uses produce flame. The other ruling - where it's treated as a touch spell - would have the "charge" go off when you bite an opponent, even though the spell's flavor is that you're holding flames in your hands. "Holding flames in your hands" doesn't mean "any time anyone touches your body, fire damage discharges through you to them," it means "if you want, you can shove fire in someone's face."
I'd probably house rule that produce flame could work with arm-based natural attacks like claws, pincers, etc. as you might be able to shove the fire in someone's face as part of attacking them, but in PFS I would not let it work as I think the rules indicate that it does not work.
|
|
No, produce flame does not work with natural attacks.
It's not a touch spell, so there's no charge to hold and therefore no discharge upon a successful natural attack.
It's just a spell which is not a touch spell but which gives you the ability to make touch attacks. Thus, any rules for touch attacks will apply for the attack you gain via produce flame, but the rules for touch *spells* will not apply, as it is not a touch spell.
You're holding flames in your hands - your body is not holding a charge of a spell.
In addition to the technical correctness of my approach, it also makes sense flavor-wise. There's no reason a Raptor-form Wildshape Druid's bite should do extra fire damage when he uses produce flame. The other ruling - where it's treated as a touch spell - would have the "charge" go off when you bite an opponent, even though the spell's flavor is that you're holding flames in your hands. "Holding flames in your hands" doesn't mean "any time anyone touches your body, fire damage discharges through you to them," it means "if you want, you can shove fire in someone's face."
I'd probably house rule that produce flame could work with arm-based natural attacks like claws, pincers, etc. as you might be able to shove the fire in someone's face as part of attacking them, but in PFS I would not let it work as I think the rules indicate that it does not work.
The original question was whether or not it would work with claws, which are essentially your hand, not whether all touch attacks would be eligible.
The original question was whether or not it would work with claws, which are essentially your hand, not whether all touch attacks would be eligible.
Rules-wise, it's clear that it either works with all natural attacks (this would be the case if it behaves like a touch spell) or it does not work with any natural attacks at all (this would be the case if it doesn't count as a touch spell - since there are no rules for using natural attacks in combination with the touch attack you gain from produce flame unless it counts as a touch spell).
I mentioned that I might let it work with claws as a house-rule, but house rulings are not what the OP is asking for (just noticed that's you - I presume that's not what you're looking for since this is the rules forum). For a non-house-ruling, it can be used with either all natural attacks or none, and I think both the rules and the flavor support the latter interpretation.
In PFS, I would not allow it to work because I do not use house rules in PFS games I run (neither should any other PFS GMs).
I think the RAI is to have the spell on a hand (or in this case claw). It says
an attack with a natural weapon
Implying that the spell is tied to one of the natural attacks, most probably one of your claws.
I side with the crowd that says it's a weapon, not a touch attack. Same goes for Flame Blade; you can't do a Flaming Blade-y claw attack on someone.
I side with the crowd that says it's a weapon, not a touch attack. Same goes for Flame Blade; you can't do a Flaming Blade-y claw attack on someone.
But its not a weapon. If it were a weapon you could make iterative attacks with it, either thrown or melee: and the James says you can't. There's no raw for/against this, because the type of action used to make an atack with a thrown ball of flame isn't specified.
It either works like other touch attack spells or becomes its own quasi catagory.
So what we would have then is a spell that you can use to make melee touch attacks against foes, but is not a touch spell.
A spell who comes with one use per level usages where each use takes out 1 minute, but is not a "charge"
I can't see any reason to toss this spell into "there are no rules for this spell" limbo when it fits perfectly into the rules for other touch spells except on the most trifling details.
In terms of in-world logic it seems pretty clear to me that a claw full of fire would cause fire damage. Since the RAW are ambiguous I'd say one of your claws can deliver Produce Flame.
If you want to stick with clear rules-as-written a Druid could just use Frostbite instead, which is 1d6 + lvl with no cap (although nonlethal), fatigues with no save, works once per level and applies to any natural attack. That spell is silly.
|
|
In terms of in-world logic it seems pretty clear to me that a claw full of fire would cause fire damage. Since the RAW are ambiguous I'd say one of your claws can deliver Produce Flame.
If you want to stick with clear rules-as-written a Druid could just use Frostbite instead, which is 1d6 + lvl with no cap (although nonlethal), fatigues with no save, works once per level and applies to any natural attack. That spell is silly.
Actually, looking at Frostbite makes me think even more than the Produce Flame should work as I was asking, since they're almost identical. Sure, Frostbite is non-lethal damage, but there's no level cap (as there is with Produce Flame) and you also get to apply fatigued with no save, so pretty even in terms of power. They also both have the same effective limitation of 1 attack per level. They're also first-level Druid spells that apply elemental damage via a touch attack. I'd even consider using Frostbite instead, except A) my character isn't a Druid, and B) she has some buffs specific to fire spells.
Thanks for pointing out this spell parallel.