|
12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It'd be nice to get a simple ruling from the Pathfinder Design Team on this as I've had GMs rule one way, which I strongly disagree with based on the Jason Bulmahn post.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: Eric Clingenpeel wrote: So, does this mean I can attack with my weapon as normal with spell combat, then cast my spellstrike spell and attack with my weapon with the free melee weapon attack?
Or do the opposite and with a spell like chill touch that gets multiple touches, cast spellstrike, use free attack, then attack as normal and get the chill touch twice in that round (or more for higher BAB)? Seems like it to me...
Both of those situations are now possible, if I am understanding your question.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing This seems quite clear to me, a Magus can cast chill touch via spell combat, deliver it via the free attack (using spellstrike), and then finish up his attack sequence from spell combat. Since he is still holding the charge, it discharges on all attacks which hit. The only way that would occur, is if he is holding the charge the entire time (preventing him from casting another spell, touching anything besides his weapon, and ceasing when he has delivered all the charges).
Others have disagreed my interpretation of this, and feel that the spell grants you an ability to deliver touch attacks after the first, and you're only holding the charge then.
The question is:
does a multiple touch spell count as a held charge until all charges are discharged?
Please hit FAQ if you'd like to see this officially answered.
Thank you for your time.
The Relevant Rules:
Touch Spells in Combat (Combat Section) wrote:
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.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
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.
Hinges on whether you consider "discharging" to be using up or just hitting once. I think it means using up, otherwise this is completely undefined and you can cast Chill Touch and go about your day as normal, not using it for days, years, or whatever. Certainly there are places where it talks about how Touch Spells can have more than one charge (see below), so by RAW you lose the Chill Touch if you cast another spell.
Overall I don't think it is that great for a Magus. An Intensified Shocking Grasp is better in almost all cases.
Here's the bit on touch range spells:
Touch (Magic Overview: Range) wrote:
You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
I completely agree about your interpretation as using up all charges before counting as (completely) discharging the spell. The issue is each time you touch something, it should also discharge, or it would never discharge at all.
Overall it doesn't really change a magus over to a frostbite, but I'm asking because I think table variation is a bad thing, and I feel this is a very straightforward question, as well as answerable.
This isn't a question about touch spells with a target of multiple targets (like communal protection from evil), but spells with this line "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level."
Aye, and it is important to remember with such touch spells that they are touch attacks by definition. I don't see the argument for saying the one time per level changes that at all, since it doesn't change the range or the fact you are making touch attacks.
David_Bross wrote: but I'm asking because I think table variation is a bad thing GAH! Really? Wow, I find the war on table variation* to be very distressing, as I feel it is one of the most important parts of RPGs. If I wanted a game arbitrated by a computer, I'd, well, play a computer game.
* as waged by "living" campaigns (like PFS and the WotC versions), but also by any organization that runs games in a single world at different "tables," like the World of Darkness's Camarilla.
I think table variation is fine. However, it is good to have a clear and solid foundation so that when a new player comes to a group they don't have to spend months figuring out what all the unstated house rules / rule interpretations are. This avoids a lot of potential conflict.
Table variation as far as different tables playing differently is fine. Less fine is people trying to use the James Jacobs response about chill touch become a Su touch ability that you simply *have* after you've delivered one touch that allows you to continue using this touch attack. I'd like a clarification because I've played with venture officers who have used this interpretation, which is completely unsupported by any rules, because there aren't clear definitions of how a multiple touch attack spell works.
The thing that bothers me is that I've seen this as "answered in FAQ", from previous iterations of this question, with no mention of either Chill Touch, Frostbite, or "spells with mulitple touch attacks" so I tried to make the question as clear as possible.
David_Bross wrote: Table variation as far as different tables playing differently is fine. Less fine is people trying to use the James Jacobs response about chill touch become a Su touch ability that you simply *have* after you've delivered one touch that allows you to continue using this touch attack. First, I've always assumed that's how it worked because the spells would kind of suck otherwise (though I wouldn't call it an SU by any stretch).
However, that is exactly what table variation is and why its good. Each GM can use their own interpretation and do their own thing. They can use James Jacobs word, or not, it's up to them, because they are the GM. And when you run your game, you can say "no, Chill Touch discharges if you cast another spell."
David_Bross wrote: I'd like a clarification because I've played with venture officers who have used this interpretation, which is completely unsupported by any rules, because there aren't clear definitions of how a multiple touch attack spell works. And there it is--you care because of PFS. Sigh.
Mplindustries, I don't care about PFS. However, I don't like the idea of an argument starting at a table because someone new to the group has a different interpretation of the rules and both views are fully supported by RAW. Vague rules can cause a lot of trouble -- like you see with Paladins. That's why it is good to aim to solid and clear rules, using errata and an updated glossary as necessary. 100% solid and clear rules might not be achievable, but it is a worthwhile endeavour. It can even help the creative process when designing new content.
That way a group can more easily have a list of the house rules they use and player migration has less friction.
Drachasor wrote: Mplindustries, I don't care about PFS. However, I don't like the idea of an argument starting at a table because someone new to the group has a different interpretation of the rules and both views are fully supported by RAW. Vague rules can cause a lot of trouble -- like you see with Paladins. That's why it is good to aim to solid and clear rules, using errata and an updated glossary as necessary. 100% solid and clear rules might not be achievable, but it is a worthwhile endeavour. It can even help the creative process when designing new content.
That way a group can more easily have a list of the house rules they use and player migration has less friction.
I'm with you on the quest for well-written rules. Perfection is always a worthy goal even if it is not achievable.
However, I dislike the attitude that goes along with these sorts of things--that the game designers have to basically rewrite the game to prevent arguing. The idea that you're preventing an argument between two people at the table is absurd anyway. The argument should never happen because the GM should decide. Done. Deciding these sorts of disputes is practically the entire purpose of the GM anyway.
And a good GM should know about the sort of things the PCs can do before the game starts, so he can likely head off issues like this before hand anyway.
You're saying, "I want the rules to be clear" and that's awesome. But you're also saying, "I want the rules to be clear so I don't have to put any trust in the GM" and that bothers me.
I see it as a player comes in with a character that the DM has approved and halfway through the session the game is derailed because the player has some combo that he thinks works, is RAW compatible, and his previous group though worked, but the new DM doesn't. Maybe he even spent quite a few resources on this combo.
It would be nice to avoid that sort of thing as much as is reasonably possible with clear rules. It's quite unpleasant.
Saying everyone should go with what the DM says is nice in theory (assuming a number of things), but it isn't realistic, imho. It's especially a sensitive area when a new person shows up. Also, it is bad to assume a good GM, as they are far rarer than good rules.
Drachasor wrote: I see it as a player comes in with a character that the DM has approved and halfway through the session the game is derailed because the player has some combo that he thinks works, is RAW compatible, and his previous group though worked, but the new DM doesn't. Maybe he even spent quite a few resources on this combo.
It would be nice to avoid that sort of thing as much as is reasonably possible with clear rules. It's quite unpleasant.
Saying everyone should go with what the DM says is nice in theory (assuming a number of things), but it isn't realistic, imho. It's especially a sensitive area when a new person shows up. Also, it is bad to assume a good GM, as they are far rarer than good rules.
This exactly. If you build your character under the assumption of doing X, you should be able to do X assuming that is supported under the rules. If you get questioned about your actions, yet feel your assessment of said rules is correct, and supported by both the general community, and the limited information available, you request a clarification by the design staff because it makes this a non-issue.
David_Bross wrote: This exactly. If you build your character under the assumption of doing X, you should be able to do X assuming that is supported under the rules. If you get questioned about your actions, yet feel your assessment of said rules is correct, and supported by both the general community, and the limited information available, you request a clarification by the design staff because it makes this a non-issue. No, it doesn't. If the GM doesn't like X, then X doesn't work regardless of what the design team said. That's the issue--you're acting like the written rules override the GM and they never do, nor should they.
If you go to a game with a build reliant on X, and you didn't discuss X with the GM before hand, that's your own fault. The GM should know what the characters are like before the game starts--he should be good enough with the rules to understand the implications. And if he disagrees with you, you are wrong, at least until you run the game.
MLP, I'm speaking about PFS organized play environment, where you'll likely play with a different GM almost every session. I do GM quite a bit in that environment, and I interpret the rules the best I can based on the language in the PRD, FAQs, and forums responses from developers. You can't discuss a build with a GM before.
The written rules are the written rules for a reason, to give us a framework to play within. If you don't care for this, why bother posting in the Rules Forums at all?
David_Bross wrote: MLP, I'm speaking about PFS organized play environment, where you'll likely play with a different GM almost every session. I do GM quite a bit in that environment, and I interpret the rules the best I can based on the language in the PRD, FAQs, and forums responses from developers. You can't discuss a build with a GM before. Yeah, that's been kind of my point--I hate the idea of that kind of environment and think it has led to the death of table variation, which I consider to be a very important thing.
David_Bross wrote: The written rules are the written rules for a reason, to give us a framework to play within. If you don't care for this, why bother posting in the Rules Forums at all? I do care for it, and I find it fun to discuss and debate them--it's like a puzzle sometimes.
That said, I enjoy finding and providing RAW answers so much on the forum because I like to show off how terrible RAW is and hopefully make people realize that the best reason to know the rules is so they understand how to change them to their liking.
Going back to the original post, I think he is right on how spell (in this case for the Magus) works. If you are a level 3 Magus and via spell combat and spell strike decide to cast chill touch, according to the spell you get one touch attack per level (in this case 3). SO if he declares spell combat (with the -2 penalty) and spell strike, he can cast chill touch and deliver it with an attack (1 charged used) he follows up with his normal attack, since he still has 2 charges available and using the same weapon, when he attacks (assume he hits) he will do damage and another charge of the spell is used leaving one. Next round he attacks normally (no spell combat or spell strike) if he hits the final charge (of the three he had) is used and resolved as normal.
That is how I see the multiple attacks working, but then again it is my view on how I interpreted the RAW/RAI concept.
Thanks Night Shayde, I agree and am hoping we can get enough people to hit FAQ to get an official response.
The only comment I'd have is there is no reason the Magus couldn't deliver the spell through his weapon via a spell-strike on his 2nd turn, even casting another spell via spell combat (after all charges from the first are discharged) and delivering that also via spell strike from the free weapon attack. This is due to the first line of spell-strike allowing a magus to deliver any touch spell via their weapon through a normal attack.
PRD wrote: At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
In the above situation, maybe you can declare spell combat and spell strike, since you can attack and then cast or cast and then attack, maybe one round d two you declare spell combat/strike (with the -2 penalty) make a 'normal' attack and use the last charge, then cast a spell and use it via spell strike (if you wish). I think this could work because you have used your last charge prior to actually casting a spell (since doing so will normally discharge your held charge spell).
Did I make sense to you? Hehehe I see what I want to say in my mind, just not sure if I expressed it well enough.
It's better than you think; makes for good crowd control. Anyway, yes, I believe it counts as holding a charge for the purposes of other spells.
Yes, counting as holding the charge is the only thing that makes any sense, otherwise chaos ensues. Good crowd control Ninja?
Anyone else care to FAQ this? :)
David_Bross wrote: Yes, counting as holding the charge is the only thing that makes any sense, otherwise chaos ensues. Good crowd control Ninja? "I whip YOU, I whip YOU, and I whip YOU. EVERYONE is fatigued!"
now you're just trying to be the paracountess....
Multi-use spells and spell storing would be awesome:
+1d6 + 5 dmg for 5 hits at level 5? That would be awesome.
That doesn't work. It would cast the spell, it isn't capable of holding the charge in any context.
Thats debatable, I have not seen any ruling anywhere that says that, do you have a source? Technically, then, any touch spell cannot be stored and used in a spell storing weapon then? I don't think thats the intent.
Perhaps Paizo intends it to be your way, but I think RAW there's some room for this interpretation as well as your interpretation.
If anything can cast a spell, I would think it's implied that it can hold a charge. Spell Storing kinda implies the same thing by it's name, no?
So which will it be? No touch spells for spell storing, or can I put multi-use spells into a spell storing weapon?
I don't think thats right, you *cast* the spell into the item, including any way of doing so (including a touch). It now has that spell. When said weapon hits something, it casts (and automatically delivers) said spell. Thats my interpretation.
My point is that your item is completely incapable of holding any charges, it just casts a spell whenever it can. Once the spell is cast the item is empty.
Bump for what? A question?
For the spell storing here's my rebuttal. There's no RAW, and I don't think there's even enough to debate RAI. It could go either way, depending on one's individual interpretation.
You've mentioned:
1. Item's can't hold charges (Nothing says they can't. Wands and staves hold charges in a different sense, and constructs (AKA neither dead or alive soulless beings) can cast spells and hold charges too).
2. When you cast a spell into a spell storing item, you include any way of doing so (Wouldn't that include the ability to hold a charge?)
3. When said weapon hits, it casts and automatically delivers said spell
What I'm trying to say:
1. There's nothing that says items can't hold charges. Many items are magical by nature, and some use the word "charge" in their description, like wands and staves (perhaps it intends a different sense of sense of the word "charge"?). Constructs, although they have no soul, and are considered never to have been living, nor dead, can cast spells and hold charges. If a magical mass of metal can hold charges, why can't my sword?
2. I believe the method for casting and delivering a touch attack spell is as follows: Cast spell, hold charge, attempt to deliver charge, successful hit, and then deal with spell resistance and such. A weapon would have no difference there. It casts the spell, holds the charge (Even if for but a moment), attempts to deliver charge (It's embedded in his skin, it's going to work 100% of the time), successful hit, then all of the other stuff.
As a side note off of that, you mentioned that when you cast a spell into a spell storing item, you include any way of doing so. Isn't that supporting what I'm trying to say?
Rulings that I can see happening:
1. All of the charges are used at once, each one dealing damage to the enemy (It's a stretch, but I can see it).
2. One charge is used initially, and then with each weapon strike a charge is used until all of the charges are gone.
3. One charge is used, and then like vampiric touch gives "you" (not the weapon, even though it's the caster) temporary HP, using frostbite would give "you" more melee touch attacks available.
4. One charge is used, and then the rest dissipate
5. No charges are used, since a weapon cannot hold any charges, which invalidates the possibility of using melee touch attacks.
As for the original intent for the post, you should be right.
I said that the item is incapable of "Holding a charge" via the holding a charge rules of touch spells, I wasn't saying anything about items not being capable of having charges.
I think you're misinterpreting 5, as spell storing weapon (or armor) simply deliver the spell, without needing to make a touch attack roll.
Anyways my bump was to address the fact that I've played with PFS GMs, even VOs, who disagree with my interpretation, and if official volunteers endorsed by PFS don't feel that the argument I've laid out is good enough, I ask for additional clarification.
This has nothing to do with your spell-storing aside, which I feel is moot since spell storing weapons and armor both deliver the spell. I suppose a strict RAW argument could be constructed that since the item casts the spell, it needs to make a touch attack of some kind, but I've never been at a single table where this has been done, and this is the intent part I think we might be agreeing on.
David_Bross wrote "
The only comment I'd have is there is no reason the Magus couldn't deliver the spell through his weapon via a spell-strike on his 2nd turn, even casting another spell via spell combat (after all charges from the first are discharged) and delivering that also via spell strike from the free weapon attack. This is due to the first line of spell-strike allowing a magus to deliver any touch spell via their weapon through a normal attack."
Casting a new spell via spell combat in round two is certainly possible as long as you wait till all of your normal, full round melee attacks are finished from that 2nd round (including the held charge usage, which isn't counted as a free touch attack at this point and with all attacks including spell combat penalty). Then, as part of spell combat+spellstrike, you could cast a touch spell and get a last, free attack to deliver that new spell.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r42
Touch Spells: If a spell allows multiple touches, are you considered to be holding the charge until all charges are expended?
Yes.
So this is correct then?
Going back to the original post, I think he is right on how spell (in this case for the Magus) works. If you are a level 3 Magus and via spell combat and spell strike decide to cast chill touch, according to the spell you get one touch attack per level (in this case 3). SO if he declares spell combat (with the -2 penalty) and spell strike, he can cast chill touch and deliver it with an attack (1 charged used) he follows up with his normal attack, since he still has 2 charges available and using the same weapon, when he attacks (assume he hits) he will do damage and another charge of the spell is used leaving one. Next round he attacks normally (no spell combat or spell strike) if he hits the final charge (of the three he had) is used and resolved as normal.
If he hits he'd probably use spellstrike to deliver that second round. He also could use spell combat rd 2 choosing to cast after discharging charge 3. Finally if he was level 8. He could hit 3 times rd 1 and twice rd 2 before using spell combat causing the remaining 3 charges to harmlessly go away, then cast that new spell in round 2.
The basic distinction is this: Spells like Dimension Door or Teleport are spells that allow you to "touch multiple targets". Chill Touch and Frostbite are spells that allow you to "touch multiple times". "Touch multiple targets" falls under the "you can touch up to 6 willing allies as a full-round action" rule because you're getting 6 people to stand all close together and you high-five all of them in sequence. In this case, you must use your touch in the round you cast and cannot hold it. "Touch multiple times" as with CT or FB means you get a charge that can be held just as if you cast any other offensive touch spell (ie. Shocking Grasp), but it doesn't necessarily discharge after a single use as is standard for offensive touch spells. It's a single touch used against a single target, but it can be used multiple times before it's fully spent.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
