Chill Touch and Spellstrike RAW question...

[Darksol the Painbringer]

So wait, the intents of a special reason are so clearly defined and don't need the RAW to align with it, whereas the intents of being able to make a free touch attack as part of casting a spell is and requires the RAW to do so?

I'm done here. If you're going to be hypocritical about your viewpoint, then there's no reason to debate it. It's no more different than arguing with a munchkin.

[Shimesen]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So wait, the intents of a special reason are so clearly defined and don't need the RAW to align with it, whereas the intents of being able to make a free touch attack as part of casting a spell is and requires the RAW to do so?

I'm done here. If you're going to be hypocritical about your viewpoint, then there's no reason to debate it. It's no more different than arguing with a munchkin.

the "special reason" for adding attacks in a full-attack action HAVE been FAQ'ed already. this has not. the "special reason" in that text explicitly refers to iterative attacks and additional attacks for off-hands. you are trying to argue why an apple is red by saying a potato is brown. and their both fruit (when in reality a potato is a not a fruit and it being brown has nothing to do with why an apple is red).

but hey, if you want to give up instead of just pressing the FAQ button. fine by me.

all i did was point out that your argument and the rules you were siting didn't apply to this scenario. sorry if that upset you...

[Drakkiel]

Every time a FAQ is placed on an "issue" like this a troll is born and another troll gains more power...please stop them...don't FAQ threads like this one

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Shimesen wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So wait, the intents of a special reason are so clearly defined and don't need the RAW to align with it, whereas the intents of being able to make a free touch attack as part of casting a spell is and requires the RAW to do so?

I'm done here. If you're going to be hypocritical about your viewpoint, then there's no reason to debate it. It's no more different than arguing with a munchkin.

the "special reason" for adding attacks in a full-attack action HAVE been FAQ'ed already. this has not. the "special reason" in that text explicitly refers to iterative attacks and additional attacks for off-hands. you are trying to argue why an apple is red by saying a potato is brown. and their both fruit (when in reality a potato is a not a fruit and it being brown has nothing to do with why an apple is red).

but hey, if you want to give up instead of just pressing the FAQ button. fine by me.

all i did was point out that your argument and the rules you were siting didn't apply to this scenario. sorry if that upset you...

Show me where "special reasons" explicitly refers to this, and only this, and you'll have a point. Chances are, you won't, because it is a catch-all phrase, which by the same stupid RAW your Chill Touch munchkinry abides by, covers.

[Shimesen]

ironically i cant seem to find it atm, but i know its there somewhere seeing as how i was part of that debate... but alas, its late and i need to be up for work in the morning....tomorrow for sure, i will find it.

if, however, you are correct, then by your logic a caster who uses two spells via quicken spell and delivers 2 ranged or touch attacks with them would be considered to have taken a full attack action and thus NOT be granted his move action for that round, which is simply not the case. this should be enough to prove my point, but i will certainly look for that actual ruling tomorrow.

[Drakkiel]

If your arguement was sound then anyone that casts a touch spell could just roll infinitely until they meet or exceed the touch AC of the creature they were attack because the rules say that if you miss then you hold the charge

You are saying that it says you can make touch attacks as free actions when you cast...not just the single free touch that EVERYONE KNOWS IT MEANS...so if that's the case then since free actions can only be limited by the GM then if I miss with my free touch attack when I cast Inflict Light Wounds I can just roll again and again and again and again and again and again until it hit the touch AC

[Shimesen]

After thought: your logic would also convert a single attack after a move action into a full round action if after the player attacks he is granted an AoO for some reason, making it impossible to have used a move action beforehand...see where I'm going with this...

[Shimesen]

Drakkiel wrote:

If your arguement was sound then anyone that casts a touch spell could just roll infinitely until they meet or exceed the touch AC of the creature they were attack because the rules say that if you miss then you hold the charge

You are saying that it says you can make touch attacks as free actions when you cast...not just the single free touch that EVERYONE KNOWS IT MEANS...so if that's the case then since free actions can only be limited by the GM then if I miss with my free touch attack when I cast Inflict Light Wounds I can just roll again and again and again and again and again and again until it hit the touch AC

Not true. The rules specify in almost all touch spells a "single" touch attack. This however is NOT true for chill touch. If I get 5 touches with chill touch and miss 3 I'm holding 3 charges but was still able to make 5 attempts because of the way that particular spell is written.

[Drakkiel]

Shimesen wrote:

ironically i cant seem to find it atm, but i know its there somewhere seeing as how i was part of that debate... but alas, its late and i need to be up for work in the morning....tomorrow for sure, i will find it.

if, however, you are correct, then by your logic a caster who uses two spells via quicken spell and delivers 2 ranged or touch attacks with them would be considered to have taken a full attack action and thus NOT be granted his move action for that round, which is simply not the case. this should be enough to prove my point, but i will certainly look for that actual ruling tomorrow.

No he is correct...he is wrong if we mix your blatant misrepresentation of logic with the rules...thankfully he did not

If someone cast a swift spell...they get ONE free touch attack per the rules of casting touch spells...if after that he casts another touch spell then he gets again ONE free touch attack per the rules of casting touch spells

If I cast a swift touch spell and miss with my attack...now I'm left holding the charge and can attempt to touch again using a normal attack...NOW is when I would follow the rules for standard and multiple attacks

This wil never be FAQ'd...this in no way needs to be FAQ'd...if it even gets read by the design team it will be thrown out after its used to give them all great laughs (one of them..I think SKR...has even been quoted in doing just that)

I name you troll...and I hope that if you ever have a real question about the game that you post it using a different name because after this I hope to the gods of pathfinder that you will be ignored by your current name

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Shimesen wrote:

After thought: your logic would also convert a single attack after a move action into a full round action if after the player attacks he is granted an AoO for some reason, making it impossible to have used a move action beforehand...see where I'm going with this...

That is exactly what I talk about when I refer to your stupid RAW arguments. It creates situations that are absolutely impossible given the game's current mechanics, and the fact you're applying the RAI + RAW in one instance, but not the other, only proves the signs of being a munchkin.

Good day sir.

[Elbedor]

Are we really debating this issue again? I think it is quite obvious at this point that the OP is either instigating argument, being willfully ignorant of the rules, or oblivious to their intent.

Besides, free actions have never been limitless and they have always been up to GM discretion.

And for the record, as GM I will very happily entertain player input. But I draw the line at badgering and harassment. I do not need to quote rules to back up every decision I make. And if you don't like it, you are free to exercise a special House Rule I include in all my games. It's a free action I call "Going Away", and it is available to anyone.

[Kazaan]

Alright... First, principal data:

1) When you cast a touch spell, you get to deliver it as a free action in the round you cast it.

Combat: Cast a Spell wrote:

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 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.

2) Attacking with a Touch spell in combat is an "armed" unarmed attack which falls under the Standard Attack action.

Combat: Attack wrote:

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Put the two together and you find that when you cast a Touch spell, you get a (singular) free attempt to deliver it; but an attempt to deliver a touch spell is normally either an Attack action or any instance of a melee attack that uses either Unarmed Strike or a Natural Weapon. In other words, you get to make one attack action restricted to delivering a touch spell as a free action rather than a standard action. You are not allowed to do this unlimited times so, while you are allowed functionally unlimited free actions, this is a specific allowance for a single-time use of what is normally a Standard action as a Free action instead. You can go on to apply Spellstrike to change some parameters, but that is inconsequential as it doesn't change the number of free touch attempts you are allowed as part of casting the spell.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a few posts and locking. If you want to rephrase or adjust your rules question, I recommend looking at this thread.