I didn't think this was a point of contention, but some differing opinions came out in this thread.
The question is, for the purposes of accidentally discharging a held touch attack, does water count as 'anything'?
Holding the charge: If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
I think it does (that is to say, entering water with a held charge would discharge the spell), but others do not.
Thoughts?
I'm going to say you can, otherwise sea-based casters would never be able to cast touch spells.
From a strict RAW stance, I think they can they just can't hold the charge. For example, they could cast shocking grasp and touch someone but they couldn't cast shocking grasp and then finish their turn, hoping to use it later. The rules for accidental discharge are found only in the rules for actually holding a charge, not for casting the spell.
Would a merfolk Sorcerer who casts a touch spell while fully underwater immediately discharge the spell because he is touching the water? I wouldn't think so, personally.
From a RAW perspective, I would probably use the same sort of guidelines that is implied by FAQ and commentary on Spellstrike: If you were touching it before you cast, then you would not discharge the spell; in this case, if you were submerged before casting, then remaining in the water would not discharge your spell into the water.
From a house-rule perspective, I tend to err on the side of allowing the caster to sensibly discharge his touch spells (as long as he's not abusing it).
[edit]
Let me add a reductio ad absurdum argument here: "Air" is a thing; it's an element, you can 'touch' it (even if you don't really feel it). So if submerging your hand in water would discharge a touch spell, then why wouldn't 'submerging' your hand in air do the same?
I was speaking more from a sense of practicality. Or should the ability to hold a charge cease to exist if you're playing an underwater campaign?
Depends on how you read the rules?
Well, if you go by that, you're always touching air. Or your glove. Or whatever. I think it means touching anything "since casting", otherwise magic would work outside a vacuum.
Well, if you go by that, you're always touching air. Or your glove. Or whatever. I think it means touching anything "since casting", otherwise magic would work outside a vacuum.
There is a specific FAQ covering glove-like weapons (which suggests RAI that gloves, rings, etc., are also ok).
As for air or bacteria, well I don't consider them substantial enough to count. As I said in the other thread, I don't really have anything to back that up other than I assume the developer intent is only things of significance are 'anything'; that is to say, water is game relevant while the air or bacterium is not.
Re: Xaratherus' positon
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but the spellstrike rulings are all based on objects you are actually holding, no? Water still seems different. I also find the idea of water only counting as anything if you don't cast in the water quite strange. I could see this being RAI, though. Would love to see clarification on this.
Well, hitting a liquid is very different from being in it. You can swim around in water just fine, but if you drop from too high, you'll hit it like concrete. It's all about relativity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cloud of poisonous gas would be "game relevant", but I don't know that it would discharge a held touch spell. :)
Ultimately, I feel like the whole touch spell system could use a revamp. the FAQs on Spellstrike imply that there is a level of conscious control on the part of the caster (you can pick a weapon up off the ground and not discharge the spell, but not a potion vial) that seems to rub the wrong way against the original "touch anything and it discharges" intention.
But house rules and possible system rewrites aside, I still have to go back to the idea of aquatic casters; to basically rule that you can't hold a charge underwater, even if you cast it underwater, could be a pretty big (unfairly unbalancing) detriment in some settings.
Also this. Very much this.[edit]
Let me add a reductio ad absurdum argument here: "Air" is a thing; it's an element, you can 'touch' it (even if you don't really feel it). So if submerging your hand in water would discharge a touch spell, then why wouldn't 'submerging' your hand in air do the same?
Because 'anything' is being used as a game term (although only in this one spot); it is being deployed in a specific way. For instance, 'anything' doesn't include glove-like weapons you are wearing (from the FAQ). In our common understanding, glove like weapons are certainly things you would be touching if you were wearing them.
Well, if you go by that, you're always touching air. Or your glove. Or whatever. I think it means touching anything "since casting", otherwise magic would work outside a vacuum.There is a specific FAQ covering glove-like weapons (which suggests RAI that gloves, rings, etc., are also ok).
As for air or bacteria, well I don't consider them substantial enough to count. As I said in the other thread, I don't really have anything to back that up other than I assume the developer intent is only things of significance are 'anything'; that is to say, water is game relevant while the air or bacterium is not.
Re: Xaratherus' positon
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but the spellstrike rulings are all based on objects you are actually holding, no? Water still seems different. I also find the idea of water only counting as anything if you don't cast in the water quite strange. I could see this being RAI, though. Would love to see clarification on this.
So what about a fog cloud spell? It has as much impact on your movement as water, and the fog while created by magic is actually real, since it is from the conjuration school.
I mostly eliminate that line entirely. They recently FAQ'd that your clothes don't count. But what about the ground? even if you're just walking what about the air?
Seriously that line should make it just about impossible to ever cast a touch spell.
You touch things with your hands (or equivalent appendages); the FAQ only concerned glove-like weapons (although RAI it is clear that handwear of any type should be ok). [Unless you are talking about some other FAQ?]
Also, the issue is not with casting a touch spell it is with holding the charge. These are two distinct things.
The air question has already been raised upthread.
So what about a fog cloud spell? It has as much impact on your movement as water, and the fog while created by magic is actually real, since it is from the conjuration school.
That's a good question. As I mentioned in the other thread, I am totally open to being wrong about the water thing. I don't hold my position strongly. At the time of encountering the situation in game, it seemed pretty 'duh' that water would discharge my held spell. I just don't think there is anything in RAW to explain it one way or another.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, being in water should absolutely NOT count as 'touching something" for most of the reasons mentioned already.
In fact, when play testing The Sunken Pyramid adventure, we had a number of occasions in which PC spell casters and Sahuagin spell casters used such touch spells and I would have never dreamed of declaring that they could not hold their charge because they were touching water.
If you are swimming through the water and you accidentally hit a rock or something, sure, but simply being in water? No.
I agree with Marc. The intent of that line is not to be a "gotcha" moment for losing the spell. It is meant to restrict you from actually touching things other than held weapons and shields for the most part. That is basically what is being said for the magus since it has a similar problem otherwise.
I mostly eliminate that line entirely. They recently FAQ'd that your clothes don't count. But what about the ground? even if you're just walking what about the air?
Seriously that line should make it just about impossible to ever cast a touch spell.
You touch things with your hands (or equivalent appendages); the FAQ only concerned glove-like weapons (although RAI it is clear that handwear of any type should be ok). [Unless you are talking about some other FAQ?]
No offense, but your definition allows 2 people to have sex without either one ever touching each other :P
A monk could full attack someone without ever touching someone. Sounds like a reasonable definition of touch to me :P
Again, touch is a game term.