Keeping in mind the penalties to AC that grapple imposes, it makes it very likely you would be able to perform the touch attack, but by RAW, no a touch spell does not automatically hit just because you are grappling.
If you grapple someone else, you are also grappled. You take all the penalties you are imposing on your target, including the -4 Dexterity and the inability to make attacks of opportunity. You can still cast spells, it just requires a concentration check to do so. I'd probably rule that the spell discharges to your opponent automatically since you are already touching them.
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition. If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
I don't have the book with me right now, so I'm not sure on the exact wording, but aren't there rules for "accidentally" discharging a held touch spell if you touch something/anything?
Well, it was clarified that a creature with a held charge does not discharge it against their worn gauntlets.
Does this question really have to be so complicated, though?
"I have a wizard that grapples an opponent successfully, then succeeds a concentration check to cast a quickened shocking grasp. Does it hit automatically?"
I think that question hits the core issue without the white-haired distraction.
|
"I have a wizard that grapples an opponent successfully, then succeeds a concentration check to cast a quickened shocking grasp. Does it hit automatically?"
I can see where people are going in that they are in physical contact. However, allowing this would be like allowing a fighter in the grapple to auto damage with spiked gauntlets.
|
Once you have a creature grappled with the hair you still have to use a Standard action in further rounds to continue the grapple. So unless its a quickened spell you can't cast on your grappled foe. The hair ability doesn't break the economy of actions, its exactly the same as the grab universal ability.
With your other hand, cast a touch spell. You're 'in contact' with your familiar, so now your familiar is the toucher. The familiar is grappled, you aren't, spell automatically hits. Right?
No, it doesn't automatically hit. Nothing in the rules says it does.
Now, if you want to follow logic and houserule it, I don't think anyone would argue--but by the RAW, no, grappling someone does not mean touch attacks hit.
But you must also take into account RAW for touch spells. If you touch anything, it discharges the spell. I'm sure most people would agree that if you are grappling someone, you are indeed touching them. This wouldn't even apply unless you cast a quickened spell, or you grapple someone while holding a charge. You still have to spend a standard action each round to maintain the grapple. I would rule a grapple a touch in any of my games absent any official FAQ or forum clarification to the contrary.
|
|
But you must also take into account RAW for touch spells. If you touch anything, it discharges the spell. I'm sure most people would agree that if you are grappling someone, you are indeed touching them. This wouldn't even apply unless you cast a quickened spell, or you grapple someone while holding a charge. You still have to spend a standard action each round to maintain the grapple. I would rule a grapple a touch in any of my games absent any official FAQ or forum clarification to the contrary.
I know, but it's not simply touching. Touching your armour doesn't discharge the spell onto you, and attempting to touch your target and hitting their armour instead doesn't discharge the spell. A better word would have been 'handle' maybe. Just because you are grappling someone doesn't mean that you are touching them correctly to discharge the spell. And what of the person who is grappled and doesn't want to lose the charge of a spell that they are holding?
I can already see the derivative questions coming from this.
"My cleric is grappled by a monster and heavily damaged. He successfully casts [i]cure light wounds, which is a Touch spell. Does it automatically discharge on the monster because it is touching me, or do I still have the opportunity to use it on myself?"
I think the easiest way to evision this is just imagine somehow that you are grappled in a way that prevents your hands from being in constant contact with the enemy. Think full nelson (maybe?).
|
|
Let me try this again:
Does anyone else think it's weird that if cast a touch spell and then attack with some body part, that the touch spell goes off, but if you grapple someone with that same body part and then cast a touch spell, that you have to 'hit' again?
If the wizard wanted to make a grapple check to release the spell (as opposed to doing damage with a weapon), that would be fine.
I know, but it's not simply touching. Touching your armour doesn't discharge the spell onto you, and attempting to touch your target and hitting their armour instead doesn't discharge the spell. A better word would have been 'handle' maybe. Just because you are grappling someone doesn't mean that you are touching them correctly to discharge the spell. And what of the person who is grappled and doesn't want to lose the charge of a spell that they are holding?
Touching your opponent's armor actually does discharge the spell, so does touching their clothes, and touching their shield for that matter. Touch spells affect the target through their armor. Otherwise someone with a full helm and full plate could never be affected by a touch spell. Touch attacks ignore armor and shield bonuses. The combat chapter is abundantly clear on what happens if you touch someone while holding a charge. It doesn't say "you have to touch in a specific way...", or "unless you aren't performing a touch attack...". It specifically says "If you touch anything or anyone...". Touching your armor/gauntlets doesn't discharge the spell into you. The FAQ answered that question. I have a hard time accepting that you are able to grapple someone without touching them. I would count the witch's hair as touching the target. As for the cure light wounds scenario, if you are touching two things at the same time (yourself and the creature grappling you), I'd probably rule that you choose where the spell gets discharged. I actually kind of agree with the idea that you could be grappled in a full nelson and not able to discharge a spell. However I would probably call that being pinned.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Logic doesn't matter here. The rules in this regard are concerned with balance. Touch spells are "balanced" by the attack roll. If you can ignore the attack roll, the spell is unbalanced. It's as simple as that.
That said, I would never object to a GM who chose to run it that way--it would just shift power levels a little (something the White Haired Witch desperately needs anyway--I love that archetype and really wish it weren't awful).
quickened?
also if its a spell that has somatic components then you take a negative for grappling don't you? I cannot get the SRD to load and am not at home so I don't remember the line completely but isn't there something about a penalty if you grapple without both hands?
|
|
Touching your opponent's armor actually does discharge the spell, so does touching their clothes, and touching their shield for that matter. Touch spells affect the target through their armor. Otherwise someone with a full helm and full plate could never be affected by a touch spell. Touch attacks ignore armor and shield bonuses.
Yeah, I wish that post had discharged my quota of stupidity for the day, but it turns out I had plenty left. Touch AC does indeed discount armour. Sigh.