Note: This post has probably already been ninja'd like crazy.
Jiggy, this isn't something where I've done research and am trying to gotcha, it's a legitimate request from someone who doesn't have the time to do more searching than I just did (I looked through a bunch of spells, but not nearly all of them)--prove to me that the dichotomy doesn't exist by finding me some close range, medium range, or long range spells that have a target line and requires a ranged touch attack against that target. If there's somehow a bunch of these that I've been missing all this time, it will go a long way towards convincing me that your side has more ground to stand on. It's part of the language of the game, an interesting and weird part that sometimes requires exceptions like in spell turning that melee touch spells have a target line and ranged touch spells do not, and I believe that is both the explanation for why that line in reach had to be included as well as the appropriate interpretation of the line. The feat is telling us that melee touch spells become ranged touch spells, not auto-hit targeted spells as you might otherwise infer from extending range touch to range close.
well I think it's valid FAQ material at the least, hopefully to also clear up the broader paradigm as well.
Just to jump in here real quick, for those who think it would require a "ranged touch attack", you just allowed the spell to Critial Hit on a 20.
So now, my ranged Cure Serious Wounds can crit an ally healing double?
Obviously Cure * Wounds can not normally crit on a touch (so it's not a auto 20 hit touch attack on friends), so why would it change for Reach?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to jump in here real quick, for those who think it would require a "ranged touch attack", you just allowed the spell to Critial Hit on a 20.
So now, my ranged Cure Serious Wounds can crit an ally healing double?
Obviously Cure * Wounds can not normally crit on a touch (so it's not a auto 20 hit touch attack on friends), so why would it change for Reach?
If you chose not to take the automatic hit but instead roll it out, why couldn't you crit with a cure light wounds? You can certainly crit with inflict light wounds (and if the enemy, unknown to you, is a dhampir, that crit will heal him).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
melee touch spells have a target line and ranged touch spells do not, and I believe that is both the explanation for why that line in reach had to be included as well as the appropriate interpretation of the line.
What does it matter whether most spells of a given range have a target line or not? What does it have to do with anything? And most importantly, how does anything about the target line cause Reach Spell's meaning to change from "spells with melee attacks use ranged attacks instead" to "every touch spell suddenly requires an attack whether it used to need one or not"?
The only reason I even mentioned the "dichotomy" thing was because you seemed to be using it to not only say that applying Reach to a touch spell would let it switch between "targeted" and "attack", but also that this somehow proves that Reach Spell can't work that way. And that just doesn't make sense. An unmodified cure light wounds against an undead creature is already simultaneously an "attack" spell and a "targeted" spell. Isn't that more of an offense to the "one or the other" mindset than anything Reach Spell is doing?
CLW (unmodified) is always a targeted spell, and sometimes an attack. My interpretation of Reach Spell means that doesn't change, while your interpretation means CLW is suddenly ALWAYS both targeted and an attack. Shouldn't the "dichotomy" be pushing you toward the former rather than the latter?
The feat is telling us that melee touch spells become ranged touch spells
Again, that's not what the feat says. The feat's melee/ranged attack substitution clause says absolutely nothing about touch spells (despite it taking fewer words to do so than its actual phrasing requires). Its provision for substituting in a ranged touch attack is that the affected spell would otherwise require a melee touch attack. If the condition "spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks" is not met, then the substitution does not occur.
---------------------------------------------
Ultimately, it comes down to this:
Premise: "Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks" means that there's only a ranged attack if it's replacing a melee attack that would normally be needed.
Premise: "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll" means that a touch spell on an ally does not require a melee touch attack.
Conclusion: A touch spell on an ally, modified by Reach Spell, does not require a ranged touch attack.
Refute a premise, refute that the conclusion follows from the premises, or accept the conclusion. That's all there is to it. Anything else is "I think it should be different" and is irrelevant to a rules discussion.
EDIT: Btw, I flagged the OP for FAQing. Hope you will too. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you chose not to take the automatic hit but instead roll it out, why couldn't you crit with a cure light wounds? You can certainly crit with inflict light wounds (and if the enemy, unknown to you, is a dhampir, that crit will heal him).Just to jump in here real quick, for those who think it would require a "ranged touch attack", you just allowed the spell to Critial Hit on a 20.
So now, my ranged Cure Serious Wounds can crit an ally healing double?
Obviously Cure * Wounds can not normally crit on a touch (so it's not a auto 20 hit touch attack on friends), so why would it change for Reach?
It's a bit of a derail, but the rules state that a spell must deal damage in order to be able to crit. There are no crit-heals in Pathfinder.
prove to me that the dichotomy doesn't exist by finding me some close range, medium range, or long range spells that have a target line and requires a ranged touch attack against that target.
I'm not sure why this would change your mind, or how it has anything to do with Jiggy's premise, but:
Battering Blast
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: one creature or unattended object
"You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike your target."
Deafening Song Bolt
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: up to 3 creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
"Each bolt requires a ranged touch attack to hit..."
Defoliate
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: see text
"You may also target a single plant creature with this spell. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target."
*note: Spell listing on d20pfsrd seems to be incomplete. Check source book for verification.
Force Hook Charge
Range: close (25 feet + 5 feet/2 levels)
Targets: one creature or object within range and you
"Make a ranged touch attack against the target..."
Good talk guys. Thanks!