| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Wizard and Barbarian are allies.
Wizard uses a lesser rod of reach to cast a Fly spell on the Barbarian who is 15' away.
Our GM ruled that the wizard had to make an attack roll in order for the wizard to touch the barbarian.
Does this mean that the willing ally of the Wizard is for some reason trying to avoid a beneficial buff spell from his party member? Wouldn't it succeed no matter what if the Barbarian is willing?
Does the Barbarian have to add his Dex Modifier to his touch AC? If yes, why and what page is that rule on? If no, why and what page is that rule on?
A touch spell that is coupled with reach metamagic does not become a ranged touch attack; it becomes a spell with a range of close. No touch attack should be needed.
it's altered to be a close range spell, not 'ranged touch'.
you don't have to make attack rolls for close range spells,
although you do need to see the target (unlike ranged touch, where you if you can pinpoint the square, you can just suffer miss chance).
although it's not relevant to this case, touch AC includes DEX by definition.
|
Casting fly on an ally normally requires a melee touch attack. The reason this is handwaved by GMs is the clause regarding melee touch attacks against willing targets: it says these are automatic hits. This does not mean that it does not require the touch attack, however.
If my character, for whatever reason, did not want fly to be cast on him or her, he could attempt to dodge the touch in melee.
Therefore, making it a close ranged spell DOES require the ranged touch attack, from the clause in the Reach metamagic feat: "Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let's start by looking at the relevant rules:
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.
Alright, so we have an if-then situation: If a spell would normally "require [a] melee touch attack" then it will "require [a] ranged touch attack".
So what spells "require melee touch attacks"?
Obviously any spell which says so in its description, such as touch of fatigue ("You must succeed on a touch attack to strike a target") will qualify.
Also, we have this rule from the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook:
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.
Read that carefully. Where's the first mention of an attack roll? That's right, it's in the part about touching an opponent. It doesn't make a blanket statement that touch spells require an attack, and then make an exception that touching an ally is automatically successful on the attack. No, it says "you can automatically touch", not "the attack is automatically successful". There is no attack involved in any way unless you're trying to touch an opponent.
-------------------------------
So, when you cast a Reach Spell'd fly, you have the question "Does this require a ranged touch attack?"
The answer, per the feat description, is "Only if the spell would normally require a melee touch attack."
This of course sets up the next question of "Does fly normally require a melee touch attack?"
The answer, per the above referenced rule on touch spells, is "Only if you're trying to touch an opponent."
So if you try to cast fly on your ally, you do not need an attack. Since Reach Spell only requires a ranged attack if you normally need a melee attack, then if you cast Reach fly on an ally rather than an opponent, no attack roll is needed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Casting fly on an ally normally requires a melee touch attack. The reason this is handwaved by GMs is the clause regarding melee touch attacks against willing targets: it says these are automatic hits. This does not mean that it does not require the touch attack, however.
This is all incorrect. See my above post, you ninja you! ;)
|
|
Just because you can automatically touch one friend in melee does not make it not a touch attack. If a spell normally has a touch requirement, it requires a ranged touch component when it's made a Reach spell.
One of the several problems with your interpretation is the appearance of deflection bonuses, concealment, and cover. I do not think it is as simple as "well, the barbarian WANTS to be touched, so he knows to dodge into it!"
There's a difference between a making an attack and making an attack roll. There are some instances where an attack automatically hits, and you don't need an attack roll. For instance, a coup de grace. Or even a touch of fatigue on a friend, despite the spell description, due to the other section you quoted, can succeed without the roll. A coup de grace is a still a melee attack, even without the roll. A touch spell is still a melee touch attack, even without the roll. Otherwise, reach spell will turn the exact same spell (reach heal, say) into two extraordinarily different spells that interact with numerous game effects in different ways depending on whether you target a friend or a foe. I can get my list from the other thread.
(Off Topic: Thanks to Chalk Microbe for starting this thread with a good impartial OP)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a spell normally has a touch requirement, it requires a ranged touch component when it's made a Reach spell.
"Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
So what you meant to say was "If a spell normally has a touch attack requirement, it requires a ranged touch attack component when it's made a Reach spell."
And since casting a touch spell on an ally does not have a touch attack requirement, then that means it doesn't have a ranged touch attack requirement when it's made a Reach spell.
One of the several problems with your interpretation is the appearance of deflection bonuses, concealment, and cover.
None of which matter because no attack is being made.
OK, here is the full post of some of the craziness we're calling up with this interpretation--note that in some cases, it makes it easier to cast a reach spell on an enemy than a friend:
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.
A touch spell is still a melee touch attack, even without the roll.
Citation needed.
If an invisible cleric casts cure light wounds and automatically uses the spell on himself, does invisibility break?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Mergy - Then cite the rule that a touch spell requires an attack roll by default.
Because only one of two things can be true:
1) Touch spells by definition require attack rolls, and the auto-touch is an exception.
2) Touch spells don't require an attack roll by default, but targeting an opponent adds that factor.
If #1 is true, you'll find that rule somewhere. But it doesn't exist. It just says you automatically touch (not "automaticaly hit", as you said) unless you're trying to touch an opponent.
For comparison, check out the Combat Maneuver rules:
If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll).
For CMs, you're making an attack roll by default, but in certain conditions you treat it like you rolled a 20 (auto-success).
So why aren't the rules for touch spells worded similarly? Because there is not a default assumption of an attack. The rule is not "attack roll, but auto-hit in certain circumstances", the rule is "auto-touch, but need an attack roll in certain circumstances".
Is there an actual basis in the rules for your interpretation? Because I haven't seen one yet. All I've seen is "that doesn't sound right to me".
EDIT: All kinds of ninja'd.
A touch spell is still a melee touch attack, even without the roll.Citation needed.
If an invisible cleric casts cure light wounds and automatically uses the spell on himself, does invisibility break?
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
If a spell normally has a touch requirement, it requires a ranged touch component when it's made a Reach spell."Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
So what you meant to say was "If a spell normally has a touch attack requirement, it requires a ranged touch attack component when it's made a Reach spell."
And since casting a touch spell on an ally does not have a touch attack requirement, then that means it doesn't have a ranged touch attack requirement when it's made a Reach spell.
One of the several problems with your interpretation is the appearance of deflection bonuses, concealment, and cover.None of which matter because no attack is being made.
To offer a bit more rationale for this:
When a character casts a spell with a range of touch, he is given one free touch attack against an opponent. The Spell Description section of the Magic rules states that if the spell has a range of touch and the targets are willing, he can touch (not make a touch attack) up to 6 willing targets in a single round.
The differences in behavior by the caster indicate that different actions are occurring to apply the spell. I would argue that since this all derives from the description of the spell range 'touch' section, it would apply whether we are talking about melee touch or range touch.
@Mergy - Then cite the rule that a touch spell requires an attack roll by default.
Because only one of two things can be true:
1) Touch spells by definition require attack rolls, and the auto-touch is an exception.
2) Touch spells don't require an attack roll by default, but targeting an opponent adds that factor.If #1 is true, you'll find that rule somewhere. But it doesn't exist. It just says you automatically touch (not "automaticaly hit", as you said) unless you're trying to touch an opponent.
For comparison, check out the Combat Maneuver rules:
If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll).For CMs, you're making an attack roll by default, but in certain conditions you treat it like you rolled a 20 (auto-success).
So why aren't the rules for touch spells worded similarly? Because there is not a default assumption of an attack. The rule is not "attack roll, but auto-hit in certain circumstances", the rule is "auto-touch, but need an attack roll in certain circumstances".
Is there an actual basis in the rules for your interpretation? Because I haven't seen one yet. All I've seen is "that doesn't sound right to me".
EDIT: All kinds of ninja'd.
Well, touch of fatigue as you point out says specifically it requires a melee touch attack, but the rule to automatically touch allows you to automatically succeed against a friend (say they needed fatigue for some weird reason). How is that not saying that you automatically hit?
A touch spell is still a melee touch attack, even without the roll.
Except it's not. You get one melee touch attack per round per touch spell cast, period (additional 'attacks' offered by higher BAB or other sources are a different matter).
If you're targeting a group of willing allies, you can touch up to six of them in a single turn as a full-round action.
The differences in behavior indicate that difference 'actions' are being taken during the casting depending on the willingness of the subject.
If an invisible cleric casts cure light wounds and automatically uses the spell on himself, does invisibility break?For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Why is the cleric his own foe?
If a spell normally has a touch requirement, it requires a ranged touch component when it's made a Reach spell."Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
So what you meant to say was "If a spell normally has a touch attack requirement, it requires a ranged touch attack component when it's made a Reach spell."
And since casting a touch spell on an ally does not have a touch attack requirement, then that means it doesn't have a ranged touch attack requirement when it's made a Reach spell.
One of the several problems with your interpretation is the appearance of deflection bonuses, concealment, and cover.None of which matter because no attack is being made.To offer a bit more rationale for this:
When a character casts a spell with a range of touch, he is given one free touch attack against an opponent. The Spell Description section of the Magic rules states that if the spell has a range of touch and the targets are willing, he can touch (not make a touch attack) up to 6 willing targets in a single round.
The differences in behavior by the caster indicate that different actions are occurring to apply the spell. I would argue that since this all derives from the description of the spell range 'touch' section, it would apply whether we are talking about melee touch or range touch.
Xara--there's actually a separate ranged touch spell section. I do agree completely that if this language was present in the ranged touch spell section, it would be a slam dunk for the other side. By the way, does this mean you think that a ray of frost against an ally healed by cold can auto hit if you want? Because I find that argument much more reasonable than the one I think most of the others are holding here, and I totally would buy that as table variation.
If an invisible cleric casts cure light wounds and automatically uses the spell on himself, does invisibility break?For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.Why is the cleric his own foe?
She isn't. That's why it says for the purposes of this spell rather than "this is the definition of attack". It's saying it's an attack for the purposes of whether it breaks invisibility, so it doesn't.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, touch of fatigue as you point out says specifically it requires a melee touch attack, but the rule to automatically touch allows you to automatically succeed against a friend (say they needed fatigue for some weird reason). How is that not saying that you automatically hit?
Specific trumps general. Generally you can touch an ally without an attack, but touch of fatigue has its own specific rule which causes the auto-touch rule to no longer apply.
And before you or anyone else takes "specific trumps general" and says "Aha! Reach Spell specifically trumps the general auto-touch rule!", no it doesn't. If it did, it would have saved word count by saying "Spells with a range of touch modified by this feat require ranged touch attacks" instead of "Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
Why would they use extra words to make the ranged attack contingent upon a melee attack if what they really meant was to apply it to all touch spells?
When a character casts a spell with a range of touch, he is given one free touch attack against an opponent.
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 get to touch as a free action. It's only an attack if you target an opponent. If you target yourself or an ally, you still get to touch as a free action, but it's not an attack.
This means a cleric can cast cure light wounds, then move 30', then use the spell on himself automatically as a free action.
This means a cleric can cast cure light wounds, then move 30', then touch an ally automatically as a free action.
Neither of them are attacks.
The differences in behavior by the caster indicate that different actions are occurring to apply the spell.
While they are both free actions, you could say the free action to make a touch attack against an opponent is not the same exact free action to automatically touch an ally.
I would argue that since this all derives from the description of the spell range 'touch' section, it would apply whether we are talking about melee touch or range touch.
Why would the rules for spells with a range of "touch" apply to spells that don't have a range of "touch"?
Xara--there's actually a separate ranged touch spell section. I do agree completely that if this language was present in the ranged touch spell section, it would be a slam dunk for the other side. By the way, does this mean you think that a ray of frost against an ally healed by cold can auto hit if you want? Because I find that argument much more reasonable than the one I think most of the others are holding here, and I totally would buy that as table variation.If a spell normally has a touch requirement, it requires a ranged touch component when it's made a Reach spell."Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
So what you meant to say was "If a spell normally has a touch attack requirement, it requires a ranged touch attack component when it's made a Reach spell."
And since casting a touch spell on an ally does not have a touch attack requirement, then that means it doesn't have a ranged touch attack requirement when it's made a Reach spell.
One of the several problems with your interpretation is the appearance of deflection bonuses, concealment, and cover.None of which matter because no attack is being made.To offer a bit more rationale for this:
When a character casts a spell with a range of touch, he is given one free touch attack against an opponent. The Spell Description section of the Magic rules states that if the spell has a range of touch and the targets are willing, he can touch (not make a touch attack) up to 6 willing targets in a single round.
The differences in behavior by the caster indicate that different actions are occurring to apply the spell. I would argue that since this all derives from the description of the spell range 'touch' section, it would apply whether we are talking about melee touch or range touch.
I would argue that it doesn't need to be. The Ranged Touch Attack section is a subset of the overall rules describing touch attacks\touch spells. Unless an alteration is otherwise presented therein (and it's not, save on clarification of provoking AoO), a ranged touch attack would behave the same way as a touch attack.
In other words, the basic rules for a touch spell persist for all touch spells, be they willing touches, touch attacks, or ranged touch attacks, save where the specific sections might override the basic description. And that isn't the case here.
And yes, I would argue that ANY spell with a range of touch could target a willing ally without a roll; that's what is indicated by the description of the 'touch' range.
I think we're both arguing the same basic point, Grick. I made some misstatements referring to 'touch attacks' when I meant 'touch'.
And to clarify, I did not say that the rules for spells with a range of 'touch' applied to anything but touch; I said that those rules should apply whether we're talking about a touch in melee or a touch at range - i.e., only spells with a range of 'touch'.
Well, touch of fatigue as you point out says specifically it requires a melee touch attack, but the rule to automatically touch allows you to automatically succeed against a friend (say they needed fatigue for some weird reason). How is that not saying that you automatically hit?Specific trumps general. Generally you can touch an ally without an attack, but touch of fatigue has its own specific rule which causes the auto-touch rule to no longer apply.
And before you or anyone else takes "specific trumps general" and says "Aha! Reach Spell specifically trumps the general auto-touch rule!", no it doesn't. If it did, it would have saved word count by saying "Spells with a range of touch modified by this feat require ranged touch attacks" instead of "Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."
Why would they use extra words to make the ranged attack contingent upon a melee attack if what they really meant was to apply it to all touch spells?
Because sometimes they don't get their wording written and ready for lawyerlike parsing, perhaps? I mean, remember reach spell was written and published together with the original selective spell, which didn't do what they wanted it to do at all.
Anyway, I assume you agree with my rundown from the second post in the thread then?
She isn't.
So you're saying that if an invisible cleric casts cure light wounds and automatically uses the spell on himself, invisibility does not break?
Then that means using a touch spell is not (always) an attack.
That's why it says for the purposes of this spell rather than "this is the definition of attack". It's saying it's an attack for the purposes of whether it breaks invisibility, so it doesn't.
"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
Includes. If you cast Enlarge Person on the enemy fighter, then it's also an attack.
That's an addition to the normal definition of what an attack is.
So your assertion that "A touch spell is still a melee touch attack" is invalid.
I would argue that it doesn't need to be. The Ranged Touch Attack section is a subset of the overall rules describing touch attacks\touch spells. Unless an alteration is otherwise presented therein (and it's not, save on clarification of provoking AoO), a ranged touch attack would behave the same way as a touch attack.
In other words, the basic rules for a touch spell persist for all touch spells, be they willing touches, touch attacks, or ranged touch attacks, save where the specific sections might override the basic description. And that isn't the case here.
And yes, I would argue that ANY spell with a range of touch could target a willing ally without a roll; that's what is indicated by the description of the 'touch' range.
Xara--I'm cool with your interpretation that you can auto-hit with all benficial ranged touch spells, even if I don't agree. The one that is hugely problematic (for all the reasons I stated in my second post) hinges upon this being a special exception only for reach spells against allies, but not for other beneficial ranged touch spells, so with your interpretation, everything works.
|
|
Let's take a barbarian and an invisible wizard who wants to use reach fly. The barbarian has a ring of protection +5, and because he is so afraid of touch attacks, has been magically shrunk to tiny size to improve his AC. Being a barbarian, he of course has no ranks in Spellcraft.
I find it hard to believe that the invisible wizard could just automatically hit him with any reach touch spell. The barbarian's ring would be improving his AC, and the fact that he's so small would be improving his AC. Moreover, the barbarian wouldn't even know it's a beneficial spell due to his lack of ranks in Spellcraft.
Help me understand why reach spells are perfectly accurate hitting a tiny-sized ally through a pinhole.
She isn't.So you're saying that if an invisible cleric casts cure light wounds and automatically uses the spell on himself, invisibility does not break?
Then that means using a touch spell is not (always) an attack.
That's why it says for the purposes of this spell rather than "this is the definition of attack". It's saying it's an attack for the purposes of whether it breaks invisibility, so it doesn't."The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
Includes. If you cast Enlarge Person on the enemy fighter, then it's also an attack.
That's an addition to the normal definition of what an attack is.
So your assertion that "A touch spell is still a melee touch attack" is invalid.
OK, after reading it a few times, I can now finally see the possibility in the English text for what you are saying, that it means "in addition", an includes. But please be charitable as I have to your reading--it is also completely legitimate that the includes is an exclusive list of what it includes.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Because sometimes they don't get their wording written and ready for lawyerlike parsing, perhaps? I mean, remember reach spell was written and published together with the original selective spell, which didn't do what they wanted it to do at all.
Sure, it's entirely possible it was written differently than it was intended. Heck, it took years for the Sunder typo to get fixed.
But in the meantime, until we have something in print from Paizo (even a post from a developer) suggesting it was intended differently than it was written, we (meaning PFS and anyone else going "by the book") must go with what was written.
And what's written is that the only determining factor for adding a ranged attack roll is whether or not the original spell had a melee attack roll. And what's also written is that a touch spell has to be targeting an enemy (or say so in its text) in order to have a melee attack roll.
Anyway, I assume you agree with my rundown from the second post in the thread then?
Not sure what post/rundown you're referring to, sorry.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let's take a barbarian and an invisible wizard who wants to use reach fly. The barbarian has a ring of protection +5, and because he is so afraid of touch attacks, has been magically shrunk to tiny size to improve his AC. Being a barbarian, he of course has no ranks in Spellcraft.
I find it hard to believe that the invisible wizard could just automatically hit him with any reach touch spell. The barbarian's ring would be improving his AC, and the fact that he's so small would be improving his AC. Moreover, the barbarian wouldn't even know it's a beneficial spell due to his lack of ranks in Spellcraft.
Help me understand why reach spells are perfectly accurate hitting a tiny-sized ally through a pinhole.
Picture the exact same scenario, but without Reach Spell, with the wizard being adjacent to the li'l guy. The wizard can then auto-touch him, per the oft-cited passage from the Core Rulebook.
Reach Spell did not create the weird situation. It simply failed to alter it from how it already was.
Because sometimes they don't get their wording written and ready for lawyerlike parsing, perhaps? I mean, remember reach spell was written and published together with the original selective spell, which didn't do what they wanted it to do at all.Sure, it's entirely possible it was written differently than it was intended. Heck, it took years for the Sunder typo to get fixed.
But in the meantime, until we have something in print from Paizo (even a post from a developer) suggesting it was intended differently than it was written, we (meaning PFS and anyone else going "by the book") must go with what was written.
And what's written is that the only determining factor for adding a ranged attack roll is whether or not the original spell had a melee attack roll. And what's also written is that a touch spell has to be targeting an enemy (or say so in its text) in order to have a melee attack roll.
I still maintain that a melee attack is different than a melee attack roll.
Not sure what post/rundown you're referring to, sorry.
Here it is again--
OK, here is the full post of some of the craziness we're calling up with this interpretation--note that in some cases, it makes it easier to cast a reach spell on an enemy than a friend:
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.
OK, after reading it a few times, I can now finally see the possibility in the English text for what you are saying, that it means "in addition", an includes. But please be charitable as I have to your reading--it is also completely legitimate that the includes is an exclusive list of what it includes.
"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
vs
"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack is defined as any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
I don't see the second one as legitimate at all. It means stabbing someone with a sword isn't an attack for the purposes of breaking invisibility.
Help me understand why reach spells are perfectly accurate hitting a tiny-sized ally through a pinhole.
Because it's not hitting, it's effecting. There's no attack. You can see him, you can effect him, you can target him. You can target him with haste, you can target him with reach cure light wounds, you can target him with dispel magic.
OK, after reading it a few times, I can now finally see the possibility in the English text for what you are saying, that it means "in addition", an includes. But please be charitable as I have to your reading--it is also completely legitimate that the includes is an exclusive list of what it includes."The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
vs
"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack is defined as any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
I don't see the second one as legitimate at all. It means stabbing someone with a sword isn't an attack for the purposes of breaking invisibility.
If that person considered that to be a beneficial action (maybe it was a flaming dagger that healed more damage to the allied iron golem than it dealt), then sure, why not?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@RE - Ah, that. I'd refer you to my latest reply to Mergy: take the same weird-ass situation, take out Reach Spell and make the caster and target adjacent to each other, and all the weird s~#% is still there. Per the CRB, I can auto-touch an ally with my CLW spell, even through miss chances and deflection bonuses and whatnot (unless otherwise specified, of course).
Reach Spell didn't really change anything, so that situation is not a valid argument for why the feat means something other than what it says.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If that person considered that to be a beneficial action (maybe it was a flaming dagger that healed more damage to the allied iron golem than it dealt), then sure, why not?
Because what you had taken as an exhaustive list only mentioned spells, not anything else (beneficial or otherwise). So even stabbing an enemy against their will would not have been an "attack" under that interpretation, because it wasn't a spell. Hence, the "attacks plus also this other stuff" interpretation.
@RE - Ah, that. I'd refer you to my latest reply to Mergy: take the same weird-ass situation, take out Reach Spell and make the caster and target adjacent to each other, and all the weird s&~* is still there. Per the CRB, I can auto-touch an ally with my CLW spell, even through miss chances and deflection bonuses and whatnot (unless otherwise specified, of course).
Reach Spell didn't really change anything, so that situation is not a valid argument for why the feat means something other than what it says.
Not so, actually. There's a fundamental difference between a touch range spell that auto-hits and a targeted close range spell. For instance, in total darkness, you can touch an ally automatically even if you can't see if they're next to you. With reach, if I'm right, you get a 50% miss chance on the ranged touch attack against your friend. If you're right, you can't affect the friend at all, just like with enlarge person or magic missile in the dark. There's also other things that affect targeted spells and not ranged touch attacks that would make it harder to hit a friend in some instances, something like spell turning (RAW spell turning works on magic missile and enlarge person but not scorching ray). So if it's a friend, spell turning applies. If not a friend, spell turning doesn't apply.
If that person considered that to be a beneficial action (maybe it was a flaming dagger that healed more damage to the allied iron golem than it dealt), then sure, why not?Because what you had taken as an exhaustive list only mentioned spells, not anything else (beneficial or otherwise). So even stabbing an enemy against their will would not have been an "attack" under that interpretation, because it wasn't a spell. Hence, the "attacks plus also this other stuff" interpretation.
Ah, quite so--I misread it and concede on that point. However, I still believe that it is defining which spells count as an attack. A beneficial ray that you shot at an ally would not be, for instance, even if you needed a ranged touch attack roll to tag them. Similarly, tossing an item to an ally, requiring a ranged touch attack roll against the square, would not break invis.
|
|
You could also choose to treat your ally as an enemy in the dark so that you have a 50% chance to hit, rather than making them impossible to target.
It really doesn't make sense that you can automatically hit someone with a ranged touch spell just because they like you. There are factors that don't come into play when simply touching an adjacent ally.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It really doesn't make sense that you can automatically hit someone with a ranged touch spell just because they like you. There are factors that don't come into play when simply touching an adjacent ally.
Such as? All I can think of off the top of my head is entropic shield. Cover is the same. Blur would be the same. Deflection bonuses would be the same.
What exactly is changing that makes the adjacent auto-touch perfectly reasonable but the ranged equivalent totally ludicrous?
It really doesn't make sense that you can automatically hit someone with a ranged touch spell just because they like you. There are factors that don't come into play when simply touching an adjacent ally.Such as? All I can think of off the top of my head is entropic shield. Cover is the same. Blur would be the same. Deflection bonuses would be the same.
What exactly is changing that makes the adjacent auto-touch perfectly reasonable but the ranged equivalent totally ludicrous?
Jiggy, I've already said it a few times, but although I don't think it's RAW, I'm more OK with the idea of allowing friendly targets to be auto-hit with ranged touch spells. The problem is that you're (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but at least Grick is if not you) not talking about an auto-hit ranged touch spell but instead sometimes transforming the spell into a targeted spell like enlarge person depending on whether the recipient is a friend or an enemy. This leads to a huge Pandora's box of weirdness.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Have you looked at RE's spell turning example? It's at least a little bit ludicrous. :)
He's actually got it backwards.
The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.
(Bolding mine.)
Seems that RE has transposed those words in his mind (and added a "d" to the end of "range").Even so, that does leave Reach Spell as producing a difference between an unmodified CLW and a Reach CLW (the latter turned and the former not).
Okay, so amid all the cascades of weirdness that the touch rules cause, there are two cases (entropic shield and spell turning) where Reach Spell makes things weirder.
Compared to how touch spells already work, that hardly seems like sufficient cause to suspect a difference between what was published and what was intended.
But even if the intent was different than what got published, we're talking about rules/PFS here. A suspicion that the author MIGHT have intended things to work differently than what they wrote does not change the fact that, as written, Reach Spell does not add an attack where none existed before and that a touch spell on an ally does not involve an attack.
The "But things might get weird!" argument is a fantastic reason to houserule something, but that has no bearing on how the rules currently work.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, I've already said it a few times, but although I don't think it's RAW, I'm more OK with the idea of allowing friendly targets to be auto-hit with ranged touch spells. The problem is that you're (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but at least Grick is if not you) not talking about an auto-hit ranged touch spell but instead sometimes transforming the spell into a targeted spell like enlarge person depending on whether the recipient is a friend or an enemy. This leads to a huge Pandora's box of weirdness.
What's any of this got to do with how Reach Spell and touch spells currently work?
Have you looked at RE's spell turning example? It's at least a little bit ludicrous. :)He's actually got it backwards.
The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.(Bolding mine.)
Seems that RE has transposed those words in his mind (and added a "d" to the end of "range").
Actually, spell turning also doesn't stop scorching ray, for instance.
Jiggy, I've already said it a few times, but although I don't think it's RAW, I'm more OK with the idea of allowing friendly targets to be auto-hit with ranged touch spells. The problem is that you're (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but at least Grick is if not you) not talking about an auto-hit ranged touch spell but instead sometimes transforming the spell into a targeted spell like enlarge person depending on whether the recipient is a friend or an enemy. This leads to a huge Pandora's box of weirdness.What's any of this got to do with how Reach Spell and touch spells currently work?
I'd really prefer the wording "the way I believe it to currently work" but I admit I don't expect it on the rules forum. Anyway, to put it succinctly (correct me if I'm wrong), this is exactly what is being claimed here--that reach heal is a close range targeted spell like enlarge person against friends and is a close range ranged touch attack spell like scorching ray against enemies.
I can see now that close readings are the most persuasive thing in the rules forum. So as an added bit, let's take another look with a close reading, tabling the melee touch attack vs melee touch attack roll thing for the purpose of this post:
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.
It doesn't say "when spells modified by this feat require melee touch attacks, instead use a ranged touch attack". Instead, by use of the word "that", which is a qualifier which picks out certain elements of a set, the text chose to phrase it in a way that some spells are the ones that require melee touch attacks, and these spells now require ranged touch attacks. So it's an always thing from spell to spell, not a sometimes thing triggered based on friendliness.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FYI - the only Core ability I can think of that is a beneficial ranged touch (and thus might have had the rules for) is Heavenly Fire, the Celestial bloodline sorcerer ability that hurts evil creatures and heals good creatures. It always requires a ranged touch attack, but actually calls out "foes" as the targets.
Heavenly Fire (Sp): Starting at 1st level, you can unleash a ray of heavenly fire as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. Against evil creatures, this ray deals 1d4 points of damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. This damage is divine and not subject to energy resistance or immunity. This ray heals good creatures of 1d4 points of damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. A good creature cannot benefit from your heavenly fire more than once per day. Neutral creatures are neither harmed nor healed by this effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
I don't see anyway that a touch spell + reach is not a ranged attack. The reach heal is a perfect example: cast it on an enemy (undead presumably) and it's a ray; cast it on a friend and it's not a ray? Cast it on an enemy *pretending* to be a friend, who doesn't want to be hit by it and it's... ???
FWIW, I consider touch spells auto-hit on friends as in rolling a natural 20 is a hit. Concealment should apply in some cases, and blink always. Particularly if the ally with concealment is not able to coordinate to be hit by the touch (both invis, invis and unconscious, both in the dark, etc.).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
FWIW, I consider touch spells auto-hit on friends as in rolling a natural 20 is a hit.
Fine, but that's not in the rules. This is the Rules forum. The rules don't say a touch on an ally is like rolling a natural 20 or that there's an attack that is considered a hit if the target is an ally. The rules say you can touch an ally, or make an attack against an enemy.
If you think that's not what the rules say, make your case here.
If you think there's a better way to do it, make your case in the Suggestions/Houserules/Homebrew forum.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Note: This post has probably already been ninja'd like crazy.
I'd really prefer the wording "the way I believe it to currently work"
I was referring to the topic, not just my stance. That is, the text to which I was replying did not seem to be relevant to the topic of "how Reach Spell and touch spells work".
Anyway, to put it succinctly (correct me if I'm wrong), this is exactly what is being claimed here--that reach heal is a close range targeted spell like enlarge person against friends and is a close range ranged touch attack spell like scorching ray against enemies.
You keep coming back to what looks like some kind of dichotomy between attack spells (poke 'em or shoot 'em) and "targeted" spells. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but it's as though you believe that every spell in the game falls into one of those two categories, and you think you're arguing against a claim that Reach Spell can move a spell from one category to the other, and that seems to be what's making you think it must be wrong.
If so, then you need to break out of that mindset. There are touch attack spells which have a "Target" line (like chill touch), there are attack spells which have no "Target" line but reference a "target" in the spell description (like scorching ray), and even fireball can occasionally require an attack roll. There is no dichotomy. A spell does not have to have an attack roll just because it's not "targeted", and an effect doesn't have to explicitly make a spell "targeted" just because there's no attack roll.
Describing my position the way you did in the above quote is like asking whether cure light wounds is a touch spell or a targeted spell. Well, it's both. It has a range of touch, therefore it's a touch spell. It also has a target line, and therefore is a targeted spell. So saying "But Reach spell would turn it into a targeted spell" doesn't even make sense, because it was already a targeted spell. And from the other direction, the spell doesn't even say it ever requires an attack; you have to get that from the rules for touch spells, which only adds in an attack if the target is an enemy.
---------------------------------------------
So from what rules basis do you argue that a spell like cure light wounds, if modified by Reach Spell, requires an attack? You can't say it's because the spell requires it, because it doesn't say anything about an attack. You can't say it's because all close (or medium or long) ranged spells require an attack; that's obviously not true. You can't say it's because all non-targeted, ranged spells require an attack because it *is* a targeted spell (not to mention there's no rule I'm aware of that says all non-targeted spells automatically require an attack).
The only rules-based case for requiring an attack with a Reach CLW is from Reach Spell's clause about converting melee attacks to ranged ones. And this, in turn, means that Reach CLW only needs an attack if normal CLW would. And since CLW says nothing about an attack, the only thing that would cause it to use an attack is if it enacts the part of the touch spell rules that force an attack if the target is an enemy.
Thus, Reach CLW is a targeted spell that requires a ranged touch attack if the target is an enemy.
We've all repeated each other a couple of times, so let's get something clear: we're here to discuss how Reach Spell does work, not how it should work or what the author might have meant differently or what would be a smoother way to write it. And for the topic of "How does Reach Spell work?", the oft-repeated arguments of "But it makes things weird" and "But it makes it a targeted spell" are completely irrelevent.
Phew. Sorry for the wall of text. Hope that made sense.