What happens if you attempt to use a touch spell on an invalid target?
Vampiric touch: "Target living creature touched"
A Zombie is not a living creature, so it's not a valid target for Vampiric Touch. What happens if you cast the spell, then touch the zombie with your free touch attack?
A) The spell discharges, with no effect
B) Nothing happens, the spell doesn't discharge, and you hold the charge
C) You are prohibited from attempting the touch attack
What if you're holding the charge of such a spell?
Holding the Charge: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
What if you use an unarmed strike or natural weapon to deliver the held charge? Does the unarmed/weapon damage apply, along with harmlessly discharging the spell? Does the invalid target negate the unarmed/weapon damage? Or are you prevented from even attempting the attack?
I vote the spell discharges with no effect... that's how it has always worked in the games I DM and the games that I have played in.
Same thing happens if you try to cast magic missile at a door (the spell only targets creatures) the spell still goes off and the caster loses the spell or slot, but there is no effect on the door. )at which point the DM generally says something like, "your spell fizzles").
I would think that spell goes off but heals the zombie instead of hurting. (zombie + undead, negative energy heals, vampiric touch att, necromancy spell spell. works like inflict wounds spell)
Vampiric Touch is not negative energy damage, it's untyped.
I suppose this thread is a spin off of the Nth thread about magus and wizard mark, right?
Yep, the discussion wasn't relevant to that thread anymore, and divorcing the actual issue from the Magus seems to make it easier for people to understand.
For instance:
Answer is A.
and no... light doesn't let you target creatures in PF(did in earlier DnD editions) so you can't cast light for spellstrike.
Those two answers are contradictory.
In order for the answer to be A) in the zombie example, the target of the spell would have to not prevent the attack from happening.
This means in the case of Light, the target of the spell also wouldn't prevent the attack from happening.
|
TGMaxMaxer, it is one of those RAW vs RAI argument:
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.
The requirement to get the extra attack is to cast a spell with a range of touch, not to have a valid target for it.
So RAW light is perfectly legitimate, RAI it is clearly against the developers intentions.|
|
@ Cwslyclgh, Since you can't target a door with magic missle at all, they should be told outright that they can't cast it at all...
I disagree. If possible, try not to tell a player that something can't be done. Instead, tell him what would likely happen if he took the action and let the player decide.
For instance, casting a magic missile at a door would result in the missiles streaking in random directions and fizzling harmlessly in air...unless the door is actually a mimic (surprise).
Sometimes players can be quite creative with the things they do with their spells. It is not unusual for players to come up with better solutions than the GM had considered. If you are quick to adjust, it can make for good gameplay.
@ Cwslyclgh, Since you can't target a door with magic missle at all, they should be told outright that they can't cast it at all, it's just mean to burn a spell from a character who knows that the magic they're using won't work even if the player doesn't.
I would certainly tell the player before hand that the spell would not work.... but there is no way I am going to tell a player that he or she CAN'T even try to do something.
The requirement to get the extra attack is to cast a spell with a range of touch, not to have a valid target for it.
So RAW light is perfectly legitimate, RAI it is clearly against the developers intentions.
Spellstrike isn't granting an extra attack, the touch spell does that. Spellstrike just changes what you make the attack with.
The problem is target rules for touch spells don't make any sense. You decide the target when the spell comes into effect, except with touch spells that can be rounds/minutes/hours before you discharge it.
since light can't target a creature just rule that touching with it is not a "touch attack", don't make the light caster even roll an attack roll (heck I probably wouldn't require an attack roll in the vampiric touch vs zombie case either, I would just describe the spell fizzling, and assuming that the caster knew what a zombie was I would tell him before hand that the spell doesn't work on undead or at least tell him to read the spell again and ask if that is what he really wants to do).
|
|
And:
Rereading the Magus spellstrike, I'm gonna have to change my position on Light working. They really need to errata it to spells that grant a special Touch attack, not just any spell with a range of Touch.
"Special touch attacks" don't exist. Any spell with a range of touch count as an armed attack.
It would be strange, but you can get a armed touch attack casting invisibility on an opponent.
since light can't target a creature just rule that touching with it is not a "touch attack", don't make the light caster even roll an attack roll
So you get to touch the creature without an attack roll?
Light didn't used to be a touch spell, so it would never have worked in 3.x or earlier
d20 Light - "Range: Touch"
What happens if you attempt to use a touch spell on an invalid target?
Vampiric touch: "Target living creature touched"
A Zombie is not a living creature, so it's not a valid target for Vampiric Touch. What happens if you cast the spell, then touch the zombie with your free touch attack?
A) The spell discharges, with no effect
B) Nothing happens, the spell doesn't discharge, and you hold the charge
C) You are prohibited from attempting the touch attackWhat if you're holding the charge of such a spell?
Holding the Charge: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
What if you use an unarmed strike or natural weapon to deliver the held charge? Does the unarmed/weapon damage apply, along with harmlessly discharging the spell? Does the invalid target negate the unarmed/weapon damage? Or are you prevented from even attempting the attack?
I'm gonna go with:
Spell Failure
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
And:
Holding the Charge
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
Forcing a spell onto an invalid target causes it to fail or discharge and fail. Nothing will happen and the spell is wasted.
Hitting with an unarmed strike or natural weapon means you touched something or someone, the spell discharges and fails and is wasted. There is nothing that stops the damage from the unarmed strike or natural weapon though.
No Grick, there is no "attack" so it doesn't matter if the caster successfully touches the creature or not, thus no attack roll. whether the casters hand makes contact with some part of the opponents body is completely and totally irrelevant.
Now if the caster were attempting to deliver the spell with an unarmed strike or a natural weapon like a claw, that's a different story... but in that case it is not a touch attack.
What happens if you attempt to use a touch spell on an invalid target?
Vampiric touch: "Target living creature touched"
A Zombie is not a living creature, so it's not a valid target for Vampiric Touch. What happens if you cast the spell, then touch the zombie with your free touch attack?
A) The spell discharges, with no effect
B) Nothing happens, the spell doesn't discharge, and you hold the charge
C) You are prohibited from attempting the touch attackWhat if you're holding the charge of such a spell?
Holding the Charge: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
What if you use an unarmed strike or natural weapon to deliver the held charge? Does the unarmed/weapon damage apply, along with harmlessly discharging the spell? Does the invalid target negate the unarmed/weapon damage? Or are you prevented from even attempting the attack?
The real answer is that, the way the rules are written, touch spells with targets and the holding the charge rules do not work together. It is broken--not the "too awesome" broken, mind you, just "doesn't work" broken.
Holding the Charge says the spell discharges on anyone or anything you touch, but that's not possible if the touch spell specifies a target because the spell cannot discharge on an invalid target.
The two rules are contradictory, so the only "RAW" answer is "ask your GM."
If you want my opinion, I would rule B. The spell can't discharge on an invalid target, and I personally would consider the spell's specific target entry to override the general holding the charge rule.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Wait a second... so magic missile can only target creatures, so we have various ideas of what to do if a player wants to cast it at the door or whatever.
Presumably, if the door were actually a mimic or other disguised creature, the spell would function as normal, since you targeted a creature. Then if it really is a door, instead the spell would either fail to be cast in the first place or fizzle and cost the slot, or whatever.
Okay, so what if the door has an illusion on it such that the caster thinks there's a creature there? You may have just turned magic missile into detect illusory creature.
I wonder if that changes anyone's answers of what to do if magic missile or other restrictive spells are cast at invalid targets?
I'm gonna go with:
Spell Failure
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
This isn't relevant because the spell casting didn't fail--it worked, that's how you are holding a charge in the first place. By the time we get to Grick's question, it's too late for Spell Failure to apply.
I'm gonna go with:
Spell Failure
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
Does the target have to be within range when the spell is cast? What range is that?
What if the target becomes invalid between the time you cast the spell and the time you want to make the attack?
No Grick, there is no "attack" so it doesn't matter if the caster successfully touches the creature or not, thus no attack roll. whether the casters hand makes contact with some part of the opponents body is completely and totally irrelevant.
It's completely relevant. Check this out:
Invisible caster with produce flame, elemental touch, and deliquescent gloves moves up to a critter and casts light. He doesn't need an attack roll, so he automatically touches, dealing 3d6 damage, and since it wasn't an attack, invisibility doesn't break.
Making the touch automatically successful is crazy broken.
No Grick, there is no "attack" so it doesn't matter if the caster successfully touches the creature or not, thus no attack roll. whether the casters hand makes contact with some part of the opponents body is completely and totally irrelevant.
So if I accidently touch someone with a touch spell that does damage, I never score a critical hit cause I never make an attack roll. Is that correct?
No Jiggy, that doesn't change my answer :)
Aside from which I would still have the magic missile manifest, streak out and hit the door, or illusionary ogre, or what ever... it would just have no effect at all. (a hidden caster controlling the illusionary ogre could possibly make the illusion react appropriately though, in such a case I'd likley give the MM caster a spellcraft roll to realize that something was wrong).
No Grick, there is no "attack" so it doesn't matter if the caster successfully touches the creature or not, thus no attack roll. whether the casters hand makes contact with some part of the opponents body is completely and totally irrelevant.So if I accidently touch someone with a touch spell that does damage, I never score a critical hit cause I never make an attack roll. Is that correct?
we are not talking about accidentally touching somebody with a touch spell that does damage (an unintentional attack is still an attack), we are talking about intentionally targeting an invalid target to game the system.
Does the target have to be within range when the spell is cast? What range is that?
What if the target becomes invalid between the time you cast the spell and the time you want to make the attack?
You do not have to select the target until you finish casting the spell. If you don't discharge a touch spell (because you no longer have a target), you hold the charge.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would just describe the spell fizzling
No Jiggy, that doesn't change my answer :)
I would still have the magic missile manifest, streak out and hit the door, or illusionary ogre, or what ever...
First saying you would describe the spell fizzling, and then saying that you'd have the effect still manifest as normal (possibly convincingly enough to fool the caster) sounds like changing your answer to me.
we are not talking about accidentally touching somebody with a touch spell that does damage (an unintentional attack is still an attack), we are talking about intentionally targeting an invalid target to game the system.
Whoops! My bad. I'm mixing up two different points.
Yeah, the spell discharges, fails, fizzles, and is lost.
You do not have to select the target until you finish casting the spell.
Say I cast Shocking Grasp, intending to target the kobold over there. Spell cast, valid target, ready to go. I take a move action towards the kobold, and fall in a pit. I can't make it out of the pit with the rest of my movement. Can I use my free touch attack on one of the alligators that are in the pit with me?
I would just describe the spell fizzlingFirst saying you would describe the spell fizzling, and then saying that you'd have the effect still manifest as normal (possibly convincingly enough to fool the caster) sounds like changing your answer to me.No Jiggy, that doesn't change my answer :)
I would still have the magic missile manifest, streak out and hit the door, or illusionary ogre, or what ever...
not at all... describing the spell streaking out and hitting the door, only to vanish in a puff of sparkles or even just fade a way with no visible effect on the door IS 'describing the spell fizzling', the second answer just goes into more detail about what describing a spell fizzling entails.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
not at all... describing the spell streaking out and hitting the door, only to vanish in a puff of sparkles or even just fade a way with no visible effect on the door IS 'describing the spell fizzling', the second answer just goes into more detail about what describing a spell fizzling entails.I would just describe the spell fizzlingFirst saying you would describe the spell fizzling, and then saying that you'd have the effect still manifest as normal (possibly convincingly enough to fool the caster) sounds like changing your answer to me.No Jiggy, that doesn't change my answer :)
I would still have the magic missile manifest, streak out and hit the door, or illusionary ogre, or what ever...
Ah, okay. So you're cool with magic missile auto-revealing mimics and (barring a convincing bluff by a controlling caster) illusory creatures? And with vampiric touch revealing a huecuva's true nature? (Huecuva are undead who appear living during the day.)
yes, though I have not seen it ever come up outside of brain exercises on a message board.
That said I would not tell them why the spell worked or didn't work (as the case maybe)... though they might be able to make a skill check to figure it out.
Player. "I cast vampiric touch on that creepy guy in the corner..."
Me "describes spell fizzling and having no effect."
Player "wait why didn't it work!"
Me "I don't know, what knowledge skills do you have... oh and what's your AC again?"
Ok, so maybe I was too hasty to declare "ask your GM" as the correct answer.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the target entry of some touch spells is the specific rule that beats the general Holding the Charge rules.
B would be the correct answer, then, because the spell cannot discharge on an invalid target.
You do not have to select the target until you finish casting the spell.Say I cast Shocking Grasp, intending to target the kobold over there. Spell cast, valid target, ready to go. I take a move action towards the kobold, and fall in a pit. I can't make it out of the pit with the rest of my movement. Can I use my free touch attack on one of the alligators that are in the pit with me?
Yes, because your target is "creature touched".
You don't specify, "I'm casting shocking grasp on the kobold". You cast shocking grasp, and move intending to touch the kobold. Fall into the pit. Now, attempt to touch the alligator with your free action. If you succeed, the alligator becomes the target of the spell, or "creature touched".
You don't specify, "I'm casting shocking grasp on the kobold".
But you said if the spell doesn't have a valid target, the casting fails. In this case, the casting happened and was finished before you moved.
So it sounds like now you're saying the answer is C) an invalid target prevents you from attempting the attack. Is this correct?
If the spell was Vampiric Touch instead of Shocking Grasp, and the alligators were undead, you would not be able to attempt to touch them as a free action.
You can cast shocking grasp even if you have no target. Example: You're in a dark corridor near a corner. You hear a noise that seems to be someone in armor coming towards the corner out of your line of sight. You cast a silent metamagiced shocking grasp in anticipation.
What comes around the corner may or may not be a valid target for shocking grasp. If it's a creature or an object, you're good to go. If it's just an illusion of a creature and you fail your save, you may still attack it. When you do, the spell won't discharge because you haven't actually touched anything (and you'll get another save for interacting with the illusion).
Replace shocking grasp with chill touch. Has anything changed ? How about vampiric touch ? Those undead alligators may not actually be undead, it might just be an illusion. Or they may be live alligators mundanely disguised to be undead. You can still make the attack, but it may not have any effect.
My take is that once you've cast your touch spell and are holding the charge, touching anything material of significance discharges the spell. Certain spells may be discharged by touching non-material things such as incorporeal creatures on a case-by-case basis. What effect that spell has is determined by what was touched (i.e. is what was touched a valid target for the spell).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't specify, "I'm casting shocking grasp on the kobold".But you said if the spell doesn't have a valid target, the casting fails. In this case, the casting happened and was finished before you moved.
So it sounds like now you're saying the answer is C) an invalid target prevents you from attempting the attack. Is this correct?
If the spell was Vampiric Touch instead of Shocking Grasp, and the alligators were undead, you would not be able to attempt to touch them as a free action.
Most spells must have a target or fail. Touch spells are different because if they don't have a target in the round that they are cast, they become held with a charge.
If you cast Magic Missile and your opponent leaves the room (readied action), when you go to pick your target and there are none, the spell fails. Technically, you could pick yourself as a target, but you don't and the spell fails. You aren't forced to pick a target after casting.
"You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must speficically choose that target."
A touch spell will not fail in the same situation. It will go "on hold".
In the case of Vampiric Touch on an undead creature; if it's the same round you cast Vampiric Touch and you touched an undead creature, the spell would not go off nor would you lose it. The target "living creature touched" has not been met. And, since it's the same round you cast the spell, the spell is not "held" yet.
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.
If, on your next turn, you touch the undead creature while holding the charge of Vampiric Touch, the spell discharges on an illegal target and fails.
In the case of Vampiric Touch on an undead creature; if it's the same round you cast Vampiric Touch and you touched an undead creature, the spell would not go off nor would you lose it.
That's option B) then.
I wasn't trying to badger you, I just couldn't tell which way you were going.
No problem, I'm still learning the rules and this helps me be prepared for situations like this that may occur.
Note that it's option B for the same round you cast the touch spell, but becomes option A on the player's next turn (or next round) if and when the touch spell becomes "held" under Holding a Charge.