|
I'm going to start requiring all my buffers to roll touch attacks to buff willing allies every time now. It'll slow down the game some but at least I can never be accused of not running RAW.
Not only does that not make sense, it shows that you still haven't read the rules on delivering touch spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me this, RE, do you require clerics to roll d20, add their BAB, Strength Modifier and other applicable modifiers when she attempts to use Cure Light Wounds on an ally?Of course not. For melee touch spells, you have this clause:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.So you can skip rolling the attack roll on a melee touch spell. Nowhere does it say you can ever skip the attack roll on a ranged touch spell, even a beneficial one against an ally. Thus, you can't skip rolling the attack roll on reach touch spells.
Nowhere does it say you have to make an attack roll on a willing ally for a ranged touch spell either. I tend to go with the interpretation that favors the player.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Chalk Microbe,
This is the PFS forum. In this discussion, and back in the multiple threads about sunrods and the darkness spell, and whether you would accept PCs with racial boons awarded at conventions, it sounds like you're talking about home table rules about what you will and won't allow as a GM.
Those are fine. The game is healthier with GMs who are comfortable making modifications to the Pathfinder game system rules for their home campaigns.
But this is the wrong forum for that.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm going to start requiring all my buffers to roll touch attacks to buff willing allies every time now. It'll slow down the game some but at least I can never be accused of not running RAW.
Oh yes you can.
A touch attack roll is only necessary when you are attempting to use a (buff) spell with a range of 'touch' to affect more than one person.
If the spell has a different range (all allies within a stated distance, or all allies who can see/hear you - that includes a fair number of the buff spells), or if you are using a touch spell to only affect a single (willing) ally, no melee touch attack is required.
Edit: unless the spell description explicitly calls for one, of course.
|
|
Nowhere does it say you have to make an attack roll on a willing ally for a ranged touch spell either. I tend to go with the interpretation that favors the player.Tell me this, RE, do you require clerics to roll d20, add their BAB, Strength Modifier and other applicable modifiers when she attempts to use Cure Light Wounds on an ally?Of course not. For melee touch spells, you have this clause:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.So you can skip rolling the attack roll on a melee touch spell. Nowhere does it say you can ever skip the attack roll on a ranged touch spell, even a beneficial one against an ally. Thus, you can't skip rolling the attack roll on reach touch spells.
I just don't see the possible precedent for ignoring the attack roll, though. It also doesn't say you need to make a ranged touch attack to hit a dead target explicitly in the rules, but you do (Dex counts as 0 though).
So you would also allow me to automatically hit with a ray of frost or acid splash against an allied creature that is healed by it (like a golem, say)? If I can auto-hit with a ranged touch, can I auto-hit with a ranged non-touch against an ally? Say I'm an arcane archer and I want to hit an ally with an arrow to center a beneficial spell there. As nosig pointed out, what if the ally has huge deflection bonuses, while being size tiny and on the other side of an arrow slit from me? What if there's fog? What if they have entropic shield?
I'm legitimately curious on all of these, by the way, not trying to trip you up--I don't think the "no attack roll" side is RAW or RAI, but I see where there's just enough leeway that I wouldn't question it if a GM allowed it while I was playing.
|
|
I just don't see the possible precedent for ignoring the attack roll, though. It also doesn't say you need to make a ranged touch attack to hit a dead target explicitly in the rules, but you do (Dex counts as 0 though).
So you would also allow me to automatically hit with a ray of frost or acid splash against an allied creature that is healed by it (like a golem, say)? If I can auto-hit with a ranged touch, can I auto-hit with a ranged non-touch against an ally? Say I'm an arcane archer and I want to hit an ally with an arrow to center a beneficial spell there. As nosig pointed out, what if the ally has huge deflection bonuses, while being size tiny and on the other side of an arrow slit from me? What if there's fog? What if they have entropic shield?
I'm legitimately curious on all of these, by the way, not trying to trip you up--I don't think the "no attack roll" side is RAW or RAI, but I see where there's just enough leeway that I wouldn't question it if a GM allowed it while I was playing.
This is my interpretation of the rules and it is how I run things at my tables. If I am proved to be wrong, I will change how I run them of course.
Yes I would let you auto-hit with a spell like ray of frost or acid splash on an ally that is healed by it. Unless there is a more specific rule that says otherwise (for example if the spell description itself says you must succeed on a ranged touch, that would be enough for me to override it and require the ranged touch attack).
No, I would never allow you to auto-hit a willing ally with a ranged, non-touch attack.
The entropic shield refers to rays and ranged attacks. IMHO a reach spell is neither.
Again, this is my interpretation of the rules and is how I've seen it run by other judges in my area when it's come up (frankly, the only situation to come up has been the reach spell, not these other specific examples you are asking about).
As another thing to think about, reach spell reads:
Benefit: You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long.
So touch becomes close. Touch apells that require touch attacks require ranged touch attacks. Cure light wounds on an ally does not require a touch attack. Do you require someone to make a touch spell attack against enlarge person (A close range spell)?
|
|
Sorry in case that wasn't clear, re-reading the reach spell feat make me think my interpretation is 100% correct. A touch spell affected by reach spell becomes a close range spell UNLESS it requires a touch attack. A willing ally hit by a touch spell does not require a touch attack. Close range spells do not require an attack roll. They may incur a saving throw if you have an unwilling target. It actually seems pretty clear to me at this point.
And dang it, I am almost 4 star lady, give me two more games ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my interpretation of the rules and it is how I run things at my tables. If I am proved to be wrong, I will change how I run them of course.
Yes I would let you auto-hit with a spell like ray of frost or acid splash on an ally that is healed by it.
OK, I think I see where you're coming from, even if I don't agree it's RAW. You're giving me a better perspective of where the other side is coming from, thanks! :)
Just two follow ups--this is even if the ally is super small size, has improved cover on the other side of an arrow slit (+8 cover bonus to AC) and has concealment, right? (if there's no attack roll, then the AC changers like cover wouldn't matter one way or the other).
No, I would never allow you to auto-hit a willing ally with a ranged, non-touch attack.
Why not if you can with a ranged non-touch? Let's say it's on a character whose touch AC is equal to my regular AC--say a monk?
|
|
Actually, thinking about it some more, I believe my previous statement to be an error. The spells acid splash and ray of frost are already ranged and requires a touch attack. So I would not let it auto hit on an ally. My fault for confusing spells that are already ranged from spells that were a range of touch and become ranged from reach spell.
My argument on why a touch spell becoming a close spell not requiring you to roll to hit an ally still stands however.
|
|
Actually, thinking about it some more, I believe my previous statement to be an error. The spells acid splash and ray of frost are already ranged and requires a touch attack. So I would not let it auto hit on an ally. My fault for confusing spells that are already ranged from spells that were a range of touch and become ranged from reach spell.
My argument on why a touch spell becoming a close spell not requiring you to roll to hit an ally still stands however.
Okay, now I'm back to being more confused. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, then:
The 7th level spell reach heal is sometimes shot out of your hand as a ranged touch attack like ray of frost, but only if the target is an enemy. In this case, if the enemy has concealment of any kind, it applies as a miss chance. If the enemy has cover, it makes you more likely to miss. It can be deflected by entropic shield. It can be deflected on your shield if the enemy has the feat Ray Shield (not limited to rays, it works on all ranged touch attacks). If the enemy has total concealment or is invisible, you have a 50% miss chance. Anything that affects ranged touch attacks will affect the spell in this case. If the target has mirror image, you might hit an image. If the target has displacement, you have a 50% miss chance. Etc
When used on a friend (including a friend who, unbeknownst to you but known to that friend is a dhampir and would be harmed by the spell), the spell is not fired as a ranged touch attack. Instead, it's like enlarge person, where it's just targeted. If the friend is invisible or has total concealment, you can't cast reach heal on that friend (because it's a targeted spell now, like enlarge person, and you can't cast enlarge person in those circumstances). Anything that affects targeted spells but not ranged touch attacks will affect the spell in this case. It cannot be deflected by Ray Shield. If the friend has mirror image, you can't ever hit an image. If the friend has displacement, then, just like enlarge person you have no chance to miss that friend, even though you have no idea from where exactly the friend is displaced. Etc.
|
|
I think that, when answering those questions all you have to ask is this:
Before applying the reach meta magic to the spell would you have to make an attack roll? If the answer is yes, then you need to make one afterwards. If the answer is no, then if the spell was a touch spell it now acts like a close range spell. If it was not a touch spell the range is extended by one class. Corner cases like the one you mentioned above should be adjudicated with that in mind.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Katie, that's not how I understand the rule.
I am amenable to correction, but I think the reach metamagic feat changes a spell from a range of touch to a range of close (ranged touch). I don't know of any spell in the game that allows a caster to automatically hit a target with a ranged touch attack.
This might be an entirely new type of spell, that wouldn't surprise me. But without a developer announcing this is a new kind of thing, I'd default to an already-established kind of thing, the ranged touch attack.
Now, you're right: a touch attack doesn't require the caster to make an attack to hit a friendly target. But that seems to be a particular rule about touch attacks, the same as any other rule for contact between player characters. Your character doesn't need to make a roll to hand me an object. But you do need to make a roll to throw an object to me at range.
|
|
I think that, when answering those questions all you have to ask is this:
Before applying the reach meta magic to the spell would you have to make an attack roll? If the answer is yes, then you need to make one afterwards. If the answer is no, then if the spell was a touch spell it now acts like a close range spell. If it was not a touch spell the range is extended by one class. Corner cases like the one you mentioned above should be adjudicated with that in mind.
I was able to grok that by the time I made my last post, and following that premise, that's exactly what I was trying to do when adjudicating in that post. Is it also how you would call? As an aside, those don't seem like 'corner' cases that are all that rare to me. I've seen them all happen except Ray Shield. Heck, I think at the point when people are casting a reach touch spell on an ally, it's rather common that one or more of those (cover, concealment, etc) does apply.
The problem is that a spell is either a targeted auto-hit like enlarge person or a ranged touch attack roll like ray of frost and those are very different sorts of spells. Creating an either/or hybrid that acts like one type or the other depending on who is in your crosshairs is unprecedented and reacts strangely.
For what it's worth, it says in the rules that you need to make a ranged touch attack if it requires a melee touch attack--not that you need to make a ranged touch attack roll if it requires a melee touch attack roll. This is an important distinction because sometimes something can be an attack without requiring an attack roll (coup de grace is one of those times, and touching a willing friend is another time, and also the subject of our current confusion).
|
|
Just got home from running some PFS and saw this thread again. I swear this will be my last post.
Katie, that's not how I understand the rule.
I am amenable to correction, but I think the reach metamagic feat changes a spell from a range of touch to a range of close (ranged touch). I don't know of any spell in the game that allows a caster to automatically hit a target with a ranged touch attack.
This might be an entirely new type of spell, that wouldn't surprise me. But without a developer announcing this is a new kind of thing, I'd default to an already-established kind of thing, the ranged touch attack.
Now, you're right: a touch attack doesn't require the caster to make an attack to hit a friendly target. But that seems to be a particular rule about touch attacks, the same as any other rule for contact between player characters. Your character doesn't need to make a roll to hand me an object. But you do need to make a roll to throw an object to me at range.
From the prd:
Reach Spell (Metamagic)
Your spells go farther than normal.
Benefit: You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long. A reach spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level for each increase in range category. For example, a spell with a range of touch increased to long range uses up a spell slot three levels higher. Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.
Spells that do not have a range of touch, close, or medium do not benefit from this feat.
So going by this, a spell with range "touch" can be modified to range "close". If it required a touch attack before, it still requires it. If it didn't, then it's just range "close" which (for example, like enlarge person) does not require an attack roll.
As to Rogue Eidolon's point, again from the prd:
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.
I don't read "automatically touch one friend" as an attack, whether or not you need to make a roll.
Good idea, Eric. Here is a thread on the subject in the appropriate forum.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Another rules argument happening in this thread... It seems to attract it like flies...
I think a new thread would be a much better place for your discussion, possibly in the rules forum (or there may already be threads on it)
This scenario will be the one time that, when someone starts a duplicate thread asking about how to run things in this scenario, my irritation at duplicate threads won't automatically kick in.
|
|
Another rules argument happening in this thread... It seems to attract it like flies...
I think a new thread would be a much better place for your discussion, possibly in the rules forum (or there may already be threads on it)
Sorry for my part in the derail--and again thanks to Katie for explaining the other side out to me a lot better. I think in retrospect I was just shaken a bit by the post from Jiggy, one of the posters I respect the most on these subforums, sticking out his tongue at me. It made me want to double check myself more than usual.
|
|
Wait, you take the :P smiley as an "I'm sticking my tongue out at you, so nyeh!" type of thing? I'd always read/used it a chuckling, all's well type of thing. Whoops. <Insert appropriate "sorry for the mix-up" smiley here.>
Yes, that's how I took it. It did come after essentially a terse "you're wrong", so you can see where I might get that idea. I usually use a wink to mean the chuckling type thing ;)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Wait, you take the :P smiley as an "I'm sticking my tongue out at you, so nyeh!" type of thing? I'd always read/used it a chuckling, all's well type of thing. Whoops. <Insert appropriate "sorry for the mix-up" smiley here.>Yes, that's how I took it. It did come after essentially a terse "you're wrong", so you can see where I might get that idea. I usually use a wink to mean the chuckling type thing ;)
Sorry about that. I typically use :P as a rare subset of ;) when the subject is lighthearted but I'm not actually making a joke.
If I'd wanted to slam you, I'd have used this:
t(-_-t)
Though even that one is often meant as a joke. ;)
Confused yet? :P
XD
|
|
I'm prepping this for Friday, and just noticed that the howlers in the upper tier claim to be advanced, but don't seem to have had the template applied correctly. They appear to have only had +2 added to their characteristics, and even with that they are noted with lower skill checks than the base howlers from Bestiary 2. Is this intended, or an editing slip? I'm wondering if I should fix this for the upper tier, or run with the stats as presented.
If they were advanced with the advanced simple template, they wouldn't have been included in the adventure at all (at least based on the other Season 4s I've seen) and we would have been left to apply the template ourselves, so the fact that they are included I took to mean that they are advanced in the way that the author/editor wants us to use them (confusingly, there are more ways to advance something than the advanced simple template).
|
|
They're advanced through hit dice. They're correct, and definitely more than a speedbump if they manage to surround a party.
I had them surround the party three times, but their tepid attack bonus and damage at the high tier usually made them weak challenges (other than the unfortunate near-max-damage crit against the samurai no one healed in run 4, but that party had AC issues--AC 16, 16, 20 at 6-7, with only the 8 Con cleric at 22 AC) or nonexistent challenges against pregen Seelah with barkskin. At least they do their quill defense damage on each melee hit. It's often made up the bulk of their damage. One thing that helps the howlers is remembering to apply the storm effects to arrows shot outside, forcing more melee attacks against their quills.
|
|
Well maybe my players suck more than yours. :D
They also came out of it looking like porcupines.
Somehow only the fourth run wound up with more quills in the PCs than the party was plucking out each round. I blame it on ridiculous reflex rolls and high AC, from paladins, which I think were present in all but the fourth game--nope just checked, the 2nd game's high AC and save guy was an inquisitor instead. It helped that two of the runs were playing the 4-player version (though the two weakest by APL, vastly playing up, were playing the 6-player with 5 players).
|
|
Ok, another question: "The Gates Ajar", found in the library, appears on the Chronicle. The text for the library states that any character who tries to open a volume and fails the will save loses access to the book on their Chronicle. Does that mean that only PCs who try and succeed get the book? Or do the PCs who don't try to read it during the scenario get to have it after the fact without having to make the save? I'm very confused by this one.
Try and succeed--otherwise you wouldn't be a "Scholar of the Gates Ajar".
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'm prepping this for Friday, and just noticed that the howlers in the upper tier claim to be advanced, but don't seem to have had the template applied correctly. They appear to have only had +2 added to their characteristics, and even with that they are noted with lower skill checks than the base howlers from Bestiary 2. Is this intended, or an editing slip? I'm wondering if I should fix this for the upper tier, or run with the stats as presented.
As others have said, they're advanced through HD, I believe Mark posted about that on the first page or so of this thread.
|
I think the part that confuses people comes from the idea that advancing a creature/NPC by applying HD uses the "base" (lower-tier) version and adds to it. That is not always the case.
As an example, in one version of Merisiel (pregen), her level 1 version has Weapon Finesse as the 1st level feat. Her level four version does not have that feat, but took Finesse Rogue as her rogue talent at level 2. Obviously, the level four version is not a direct "level up" of the level one version.
The same thing could be applied here. Perhaps the Howlers were born "advanced" and therefore followed an atypical advancement pattern for their type. We should not be afraid to question oddities in a stat block, but don't assume that the mechanics are erroneous. The author/developer might have a reason for the stat block as is. Sometimes, advancing a creature/NPC can add a feature they feel is unbalancing. That is when you seem restrictive tactics or flat adjustments in the stat block.
|
|
Belatedly, I have added a file with the monster stats that were not included in the scenario itself (normal howlers, gargoyles, babau, advanced yeth hounds, summoned fiendish giant spider, summoned dretch, summoned fiendish dire bat). I also included my take on the applicable monster knowledge checks.
Google Shared Resources "4-EX Unincluded (guess I should have said 'Excluded') Monster Stat Blocks & Knowledge Checks"
You could just open the Bestiary to get this info, but then you'd have to carry another book and the players could look over and easily see what page you have open. Any feedback would be appreciated.
I am also curious if I should have included the community use statement?
|
Doug, If I understand correctly, it should have the Community Use Statement if it includes non-open content, such as NPC names, place names, etc. that are not covered by the OGL. If it only has stat blocks, it just needs the OGL. If it has both OGC and Paizo specific non-OGC, then I believe it needs both. I haven't wrapped my head around this for a while, tho.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Ran this again this weekend. We all had a lot of fun. It was the first time the group actually took Tilly with them.
They searched the wagon before going in, and I had them find a rag doll buried in the mud. They cleaned it off hoping they could find Tilly and give it to her. When they found her crying in the closet, and they gave her the doll, it was a great way for her to have something to hug to show how scared she was, while not letting them touch her.
They ended up finding the cistern secret door and swam to the dungeon. Since they were all wet, I had Tilly grab one of the robes... just happened to be the Robe of Bones. They couldn't identify it, so I had Tilly pick a patch and say, "What's this?" If I'd been thinking further ahead, I'd have had her grab the ogre plague zombie instead of the skeleton. :D
She ended up shanking the alchemist when everyone else was in the dark. He happened to have had alchemical allocation infusions and a darkvision potion (that they all shared... It was so much fun having them swig and spit the same potion because no one else was prepared) They did that while the demon killed the cleric and almost killed the rogue, but they eventually got it down to 2 hps before it teleported away for the second time.
Once they finished, they found the doll with her head torn off lying next to the real Tilly... They all agreed it was a great touch and really made them hate her all the more. :D
|
|
So, I'm running this for the first time this weekend, and as I'm prepping it I'm wondering:
How does a Rogue 1/Sorcerer 8 have access to 4th-level spells?
She also has too many skill points, an extra feat, and way too many HP for average (although Toughness helps explain that). Was she statted up as a straight Sorcerer at one point?
|
|
Level 8 is when a sorcerer gets access to 4th level spells, so her single 4th level spell is fine.
6 - Acrobatics
9 - Bluff
9 - Disguise
1 - Linguistics
3 - Perception
2 - Spellcraft
3 - Stealth
Rogue gives 9 ranks, and her eight sorcerer levels give 24. That adds up fine.
Her feats are fine. She has five from leveling, Eschew Materials from sorcerer, and Deceitful from her Infernal bloodline.
Sorcerer 30 (maxed first hit die + 7 x 3.5) +16 constitution +8 favoured class
Rogue 4 +2 constitution
Toughness 9
= 69, which is right at her unbuffed hp total.
With false life, taking the average roll of 5.5 + 8, we have her total hp of 82.
She's also a pushover. I WISH she was a straight sorcerer.
|
|
Level 8 is when a sorcerer gets access to 4th level spells, so her single 4th level spell is fine.
** spoiler omitted **
Her feats are fine. She has five from leveling, Eschew Materials from sorcerer, and Deceitful from her Infernal bloodline.
** spoiler omitted **
She's also a pushover. I WISH she was a straight sorcerer.
While she is a ridiculous pushover in terms of offense, if I hadn't made a mistake and forgot that her shield should have negated their magic missile spells, she would have wiped one party I ran through this. They had 0 ways to summon something flying larger than size small, 0 physical ranged attacks other than arrows, and 0 magical attacks other than magic missile (the babaus killed the guy with the other ones). They did have a fly at one point during the scenario, but they weren't able to bring it to bear--the melee could have defeated her and her little dog too if he could get to her. As it was, the group eventually ran out healing before I ran out of magic missile spam.
|
|
She's also a pushover. I WISH she was a straight sorcerer.
Why would that make a difference? Another level of sorcerer does not gain her any additional spell levels and I hardly see how stoneskin and strength of the abyss is a challenge-changer. IMO, she is a very circumstantial enemy that depends on a lot of things going her way. Changing one level of class progression won't have much of an impact. Perhaps if she was draconic or elemental and gained a blaster effect at 9th, it might be different.
|
|
She's also a pushover. I WISH she was a straight sorcerer.Why would that make a difference? Another level of sorcerer does not gain her any additional spell levels and I hardly see how stoneskin and strength of the abyss is a challenge-changer. IMO, she is a very circumstantial enemy that depends on a lot of things going her way. Changing one level of class progression won't have much of an impact. Perhaps if she was draconic or elemental and gained a blaster effect at 9th, it might be different.
I would love another 4th level spell for her to cast. Sometimes summoning right off the bat isn't the answer, and if she could start things off with a black tentacles or confusion and THEN start summoning, the battle might not just be a matter of 'fire arrows at the spellcaster'.