A Touch from a Lich is Twice as Nice


Rules Questions


If this lich cast Vampiric Touch, would he do 1d8+5+paralysis+5d6 damage or just 5d6 damage?

In short, can one touch attack have two results?

Shadow Lodge

Yes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And since he's a lich ... Might as well cover his hands in contact poison for even more fun.

Former VP of Finance

2 people marked this as a favorite.
skrahen wrote:
And since he's a lich ... Might as well cover his hands in contact poison for even more fun.

...I'm stealing this idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

people stop giving Chris Self ideas, huh. It scares me.


Well, that will make the Contagious Touch of the Blighter from Red Hand of Doom very interesting, then, won't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

His new avatar scares me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
His new avatar scares me.

As long as I am not the only one.

Former VP of Finance

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
His new avatar scares me.

In that case: It's effective!


All right for the paralysis, but RAW I'm not sure about the negative energy damage. That damage is due to a specific natural weapon, and I see no clear rule about being able to use a natural weapon (be it a touch or not) while delivering a touch spell. Surely it makes sense that both things function, since this natural weapon is also a touch, but RAW, I don't know.


Astral Wanderer wrote:
All right for the paralysis, but RAW I'm not sure about the negative energy damage. That damage is due to a specific natural weapon, and I see no clear rule about being able to use a natural weapon (be it a touch or not) while delivering a touch spell. Surely it makes sense that both things function, since this natural weapon is also a touch, but RAW, I don't know.

If they are all delivered by touch attacks then they would all work. Touch spells are not restricted to hands. They only require you to touch someone.

lich wrote:

Melee Attack: A lich has a touch attack that it can use once per round as a natural weapon. A lich fighting without weapons uses its natural weapons (if it has any) in addition to its touch attack (which is treated as a primary natural weapon that replaces one claw or slam attack, if the creature has any). A lich armed with a weapon uses its weapons normally, and can use its touch attack as a secondary natural weapon.

Damage: A lich's touch attack uses negative energy to deal 1d8 points of damage to living creatures + 1 point of damage per 2 Hit Dice possessed by the lich. As negative energy, this damage can be used to heal undead creatures. A lich can take a full-round action to infuse itself with this energy, healing damage as if it had used its touch attack against itself.


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
His new avatar scares me.
As long as I am not the only one.

The sign may say, "Master of Coin," but the avvy says, "Steve Martin the sicko dentist was transformed into a dinosaur, but he's still a wacko dentist." Oh, Momma!


Astral Wanderer wrote:
All right for the paralysis, but RAW I'm not sure about the negative energy damage. That damage is due to a specific natural weapon, and I see no clear rule about being able to use a natural weapon (be it a touch or not) while delivering a touch spell. Surely it makes sense that both things function, since this natural weapon is also a touch, but RAW, I don't know.

Natural attacks can be used to deliver touch spell charges being held:

Quote:
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.

It works only while holding the charge - the free attack gained when the touch spell is cast only delivers the touch effect. There is an exception to this: Magus* spellstrike feature - and I think that it would be sensible to design monstrous feat that works in a similar way to it for natural attacks.

*uh, how is possessive case from magus made? magus's? magus'? magi? magi's? (makes a negative mark on Paizo record for pickig name magus... another).

Liberty's Edge

English rules of grammaer, possessive magus would be magus's.


ShadowcatX wrote:
English rules of grammar, possessive magus would be magus's.

Problem is that magus is not English word but Latinized Persian or something like that.

And even if we completely anglicize that word - wasn't there some exception how to make possessive case when the word ends with s?


Drejk wrote:
wasn't there some exception how to make possessive case when the word ends with s?

Only for plurals than end in "s". Magus isn't plural (that would be Magi), so it gets an 's possessive.


Fozbek wrote:
Drejk wrote:
wasn't there some exception how to make possessive case when the word ends with s?
Only for plurals than end in "s". Magus isn't plural (that would be Magi), so it gets an 's possessive.

Ah, its for plurals only? Ok, I should remember that, at least until I forget.

Liberty's Edge

Drejk wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
English rules of grammar, possessive magus would be magus's.

Problem is that magus is not English word but Latinized Persian or something like that.

And even if we completely anglicize that word - wasn't there some exception how to make possessive case when the word ends with s?

Magus is an english word. It is transliterated (I believe, it could be translated, but I doubt it) from another language, but many words are. That doesn't matter.


wraithstrike wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
All right for the paralysis, but RAW I'm not sure about the negative energy damage. That damage is due to a specific natural weapon, and I see no clear rule about being able to use a natural weapon (be it a touch or not) while delivering a touch spell. Surely it makes sense that both things function, since this natural weapon is also a touch, but RAW, I don't know.

If they are all delivered by touch attacks then they would all work. Touch spells are not restricted to hands. They only require you to touch someone.

lich wrote:

Melee Attack: A lich has a touch attack that it can use once per round as a natural weapon. A lich fighting without weapons uses its natural weapons (if it has any) in addition to its touch attack (which is treated as a primary natural weapon that replaces one claw or slam attack, if the creature has any). A lich armed with a weapon uses its weapons normally, and can use its touch attack as a secondary natural weapon.

Damage: A lich's touch attack uses negative energy to deal 1d8 points of damage to living creatures + 1 point of damage per 2 Hit Dice possessed by the lich. As negative energy, this damage can be used to heal undead creatures. A lich can take a full-round action to infuse itself with this energy, healing damage as if it had used its touch attack against itself.

The Lich could always grapple as per the Pathfinder Core Rulebook on pgs. 199 - 201.

Former VP of Finance

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
His new avatar scares me.
As long as I am not the only one.
The sign may say, "Master of Coin," but the avvy says, "Steve Martin the sicko dentist was transformed into a dinosaur, but he's still a wacko dentist." Oh, Momma!

Yeah, that kobold seriously wants to do bad things to you. That's why I love him so.

Edit: Sorry for the threadjack!

Dark Archive

ShadowcatX wrote:
English rules of grammaer, possessive magus would be magus's.

While you are technically correct, most people have dropped the s's possessive, so writing magus' is equally correct and acceptable in Modern English.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A Touch from a Lich is Twice as Nice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.