|
So, a Paladin tries to cast Cure Light Wounds on a Superstitious Raging Barbarian, and he rolls a 1 and fails to touch. The next round, he is down to about 5HP so decides to use Lay On Hands as a swift action, healing Xd6, and then tries to touch the Barbarian. The question is, what happens? Does the spell discharge on him/her, healing as normal and not getting to the Barbarian, or is the charge held and transfered to the Barbarian.
Next, related question:If the Paladin tries to use a buff on the same barbarian, fails, and then has to heal via LoH, does he get the buff or can he buff the barbarian?
if the paladin is holding a charge from a CLW spell because they missed the first time (stupid frady-cat barbarians), and then uses LOH, the held charge from CLW is still being held because LOH is not an (Sp) ability, so the held charge does not get removed for "casting a new spell". so now we have a situation where you need to make a touch attack on a non-willing target twice. LOH is a standard action, so is a touch attack to deliver a held charge, but the rules for holding a charge say that the charge can be delivered through any touch attack (or natural weapon attack) made, it doesn't have to specifically be a standard action attack.
so if you are being forced to make a touch attack roll to deliver LOH to your friend because he is afraid of magic effects, then the CLW that you are holding the charge on, would also be delivered to him (weather you want it to or not) if you succeed at that touch attack.
I am a little confused about your question. You do not have to make a touch attack against a barbarian with superstition, he just has to make a saving throw to reduce the healing by half. You will likely get some conflicting answers on holding the charge. Some people rule that you choose which hand is holding the charge for a spell. I rule that when you hold a charge it discharges if either of your hands touch anything.
I am a little confused about your question. You do not have to make a touch attack against a barbarian with superstition, he just has to make a saving throw to reduce the healing by half. You will likely get some conflicting answers on holding the charge. Some people rule that you choose which hand is holding the charge for a spell. I rule that when you hold a charge it discharges if either of your hands touch anything.
a held charge is not held in a "hand". when holding the charge, any part of your body can deliver the charge if you touch something. anyone who says that its "held in a hand" is not reading the rules clearly, or is using a houserule. i had to fight my GM (and my party members) tooth and nail to prove this point. nowhere in holding the charge, nor in ANY of the rules on touch spells, does it say that the spell must be delivered with a hand, or that it is held in one. the reason people assume this is because the word "held" makes people immidiatly assume its in your hand. its not. it is "held" within the body as a whole. a monk, for instance, that is holding the charge on a spell, can deliver it with a kick, headbutt, or anything else that qualifies as an unarmed strike.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well, you see, he used Lay on Hands on himself as a swift action because he needed HP, and then wanted to use CLW on the Barbarian, but wasn't sure if the charge went off by touching himself via LoH, since IIRC, touching anything other than the target with your hands discharges the spell.if the paladin is holding a charge from a CLW spell because they missed the first time (stupid frady-cat barbarians), and then uses LOH, the held charge from CLW is still being held because LOH is not an (Sp) ability, so the held charge does not get removed for "casting a new spell". so now we have a situation where you need to make a touch attack on a non-willing target twice. LOH is a standard action, so is a touch attack to deliver a held charge, but the rules for holding a charge say that the charge can be delivered through any touch attack (or natural weapon attack) made, it doesn't have to specifically be a standard action attack.
so if you are being forced to make a touch attack roll to deliver LOH to your friend because he is afraid of magic effects, then the CLW that you are holding the charge on, would also be delivered to him (weather you want it to or not) if you succeed at that touch attack.
I am a little confused about your question. You do not have to make a touch attack against a barbarian with superstition, he just has to make a saving throw to reduce the healing by half. You will likely get some conflicting answers on holding the charge. Some people rule that you choose which hand is holding the charge for a spell. I rule that when you hold a charge it discharges if either of your hands touch anything.
Superstitious says not only that you must save v. all magic, but that you can not be a willing target of magic, so he would have to evade the spell, needing a touch attack. But it occurs to me that the question should probably be more clear. How about this:
hmm..i see your conundrum then...because as the caster of a CLW spell, you are also a valid target of the spell....so i would have to say that since you are a willing target for the LOH and the LOH automatically succeeds its touch attempt for that, that that touch attempt would also discharge the held CLW into the same target, you.
so you attempted to use CLW on barbarian, but missed. you are now holding the charge. you get hit. next turn you want to use LoH on YOURSELF. and have made yourself a willing target. the LOH auto-hits on you. the auto-hit ALSO discharges the CLW into you because you are a valid target for the spell.
|
|
hmm..i see your conundrum then...because as the caster of a CLW spell, you are also a valid target of the spell....so i would have to say that since you are a willing target for the LOH and the LOH automatically succeeds its touch attempt for that, that that touch attempt would also discharge the held CLW into the same target, you.
so you attempted to use CLW on barbarian, but missed. you are now holding the charge. you get hit. next turn you want to use LoH on YOURSELF. and have made yourself a willing target. the LOH auto-hits on you. the auto-hit ALSO discharges the CLW into you because you are a valid target for the spell.
Yep, it also leads to some other questions, like if you use something like "Gentle Repose" through Sacred Servant archetype, miss, and LoH, do you stagger yourself and can you un-stagger yourself via Mercy? Me and a friend were discussing this the other day, an I figured it might be wise to see what the forums have to say.
hmm..i see your conundrum then...because as the caster of a CLW spell, you are also a valid target of the spell....so i would have to say that since you are a willing target for the LOH and the LOH automatically succeeds its touch attempt for that, that that touch attempt would also discharge the held CLW into the same target, you.
so you attempted to use CLW on barbarian, but missed. you are now holding the charge. you get hit. next turn you want to use LoH on YOURSELF. and have made yourself a willing target. the LOH auto-hits on you. the auto-hit ALSO discharges the CLW into you because you are a valid target for the spell.
Yep, it also leads to some other questions, like if you use something like "Gentle Repose" through Sacred Servant archetype, miss, and LoH, do you stagger yourself and can you un-stagger yourself via Mercy? Me and a friend were discussing this the other day, an I figured it might be wise to see what the forums have to say.
no, because there is a difference between a cure spell like CLW and other touch spells. offensive spells like shocking grasp do not have willing allies or yourself listed as a target. cure spells do. normally, a cure spells requires no touch attack to deliver because the target is willing, but in the case of a superstitious ally, the spell becomes just like an offensive spell in order to deliver.
you cannot touch yourself with a spell like shocking grasp without making a touch attack because you are NOT a willing target, and the spell does not allow a target to be willing. so if holding the charge on a shocking grasp and then using LoH on yourself, the touch from LoH does not meet the needed requirement of a touch attack roll because you are not making one for LoH.
|
|
no, because there is a difference between a cure spell like CLW and other touch spells. offensive spells like shocking grasp do not have willing allies or yourself listed as a target. cure spells do. normally, a cure spells requires no touch attack to deliver because the target is willing, but in the case of a superstitious ally, the spell becomes just like an offensive spell in order to deliver.
you cannot touch yourself with a spell like shocking grasp without making a touch attack because you are NOT a willing target, and the spell does not allow a target to be willing. so if holding the charge on a shocking grasp and then using LoH on yourself, the touch from LoH does not meet the needed requirement of a touch attack roll because you are not making one for LoH.
This is one way of looking at it, yes. Another way of looking at it is that if you use Lay on Hands and Shocking Grasp is that you are voluntarily touching yourself with Shocking Grasp so are making yourself a willing target to it in order to get the effects of the Lay on Hands.
This is one way of looking at it, yes. Another way of looking at it is that if you use Lay on Hands and Shocking Grasp is that you are voluntarily touching yourself with Shocking Grasp so are making yourself a willing target to it in order to get the effects of the Lay on Hands.no, because there is a difference between a cure spell like CLW and other touch spells. offensive spells like shocking grasp do not have willing allies or yourself listed as a target. cure spells do. normally, a cure spells requires no touch attack to deliver because the target is willing, but in the case of a superstitious ally, the spell becomes just like an offensive spell in order to deliver.
you cannot touch yourself with a spell like shocking grasp without making a touch attack because you are NOT a willing target, and the spell does not allow a target to be willing. so if holding the charge on a shocking grasp and then using LoH on yourself, the touch from LoH does not meet the needed requirement of a touch attack roll because you are not making one for LoH.
even if you are voluntarily making yourself a target, shocking grasp cannot target "self" or "willing person" so to touch yourself in order to discharge the spell, you still have to make a touch attack as though you were your own opponent. sense LoH does not need a touch attack to touch yourself, you are STILL not making the necessary attack roll to discharge shocking grasp. as such, it does not get discharged.
shocking grasp cannot target "self" or "willing person"
So Cure Light Wounds can't target "self" or "willing person"? Interesting.
If you want to refute that and stand by your point, please tell me how whether or not objects can be affected affects how the spells interact with living beings.
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Range touch
Target creature or object touched
Duration instantaneous
nice catch, but the rule isn't in the spell, its in here:
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.
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.
if you are attempting to do harm to yourself or a friend, you are no longer considered a friend, you are an opponent,even if they dont know you are trying to hurt them. even if attempting to target yourself. nowhere in the rules does it allow you to cause any kind of harm to someone (including yourself) without explicitly giving that person some way to stop you (such as a saving throw, or their natural defenses like AC). the only time you can bypass this is when using things that are beneficial to them. never when the effect is harmful.
Oh, I totally agree that I am not likely to be a willing target for shocking grasp. That doesn't mean I can't be one, though. It is a very baseline assumption that when you choose to touch yourself, you are willing to be touched, therefore never needing an attack roll no matter how debilitating a touch spell you are stupid enough to subject yourself to.
Also, even if we ignore whether or not a roll to attack is needed, in touching yourself to use lay on hands you have willingly touched yourself. Touch = charge delivered. You don't get to say "oh, I touched myself to use lay on hands, not to deliver the charge that will go off the moment I touch something or someone, so I'm still holding it".
EDIT: The part you highlighted even says "or use the touch spell on yourself". That clearly excludes the need for you to be your own friend or ally. In other words, "you can automatically [...] use the touch spell on yourself". No roll needed.
and again, we go back to the basic argument about touch spells. if you can always automatically touch yourself, then doesn't simply existing discharge the spell on myself? remember that a touch spell is not held in a specific location on the body, its everywhere. and since this is true, every part of my body is also touching every other part of my body because that is how molecules interact with one another. your argument invalidated all touch spells, making any of of them cast automatically discharge on yourself the moment you cast it, before you ever have the opportunity to touch something else.
conversely, using the same argument, one could say that because of this, you are never able to touch yourself because you are already doing so. so now we have to stop, take a moment to step back from overanalyzation, and look at just the rules again, and stop being stupid (not that you are stupid, just the logic cited above is).
so we come back to what is a friend, and what is an opponent. the rules never clearly define to two, but we can assume that an opponent is someone you wish to do harm to and that a friend is someone you do not wish to do harm to. agreed? that is in fact a pretty accurate description of the two words as far as what we are discussing goes. do if you are not trying to harm yourself, you can use a spell that doesn't harm you fairly easily.
lets take a look at some other things that have potential to harm the user when they do wrong. trip for example, you cannot willingly trip yourself, but if you fail a trip on someone else by 10 or more, you fall prone. you, as the user of this ability, has a say in weather or not you fall prone (you get to roll the dice). this is important because although you MIGHT harm yourself by doing this, you are still getting a roll to do it. just like the opponent you are trying to trip, a roll is determining what happens to you. there are many spells out there that can have negative effects on the caster, but none of them treat the caster as a willing recipient of them. they treat him/her just like they would the opponent they are meant to be used on. see where im going with this?
all that said, from a thematic point of view, if a caster of shocking grasp forgot he was holding the charge on it and went to scratch his head after the fight, i'd probably make him roll a touch attack against himself to see if he hit. if he did, hes gonna have some singed hair, but i wouldn't say it went off without at least a roll to do so.
in the original situation that you posted, i would personally rule that when the paladin touches himself for LoH, he'd need to make a touch attack to see if CLW goes off on himself or not. but that is not strictly RAW.
"If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. -Holding the Charge"
If he still has Cure Light on charge and then touches himself for Lay on Hands, the spell automatically is cast on him.
You almost had me accept that maybe the caster is constantly touching himself in one way or another, but the charge is just fine within the confined system that is the caster and to use it on himself he would simply will it to go off*. Then you wrote this.
all that said, from a thematic point of view, if a caster of shocking grasp forgot he was holding the charge on it and went to scratch his head after the fight, i'd probably make him roll a touch attack against himself to see if he hit. if he did, hes gonna have some singed hair, but i wouldn't say it went off without at least a roll to do so.
So you accept that applying his hand to his head would make the spell go off after all, thus completely negating the closed circuit argument. And then you make him roll to see if he manages to touch himself with his completely voluntary headscratch? If he can deliver the spell to himself by touching his hand to his head, and he is stupid/forgetful enough to do so willingly, then the spell is delivered. There is no attack roll involved because when you deliver a touch attack, you roll for you to touch, not the magic, and our hypothetical caster willingly chose to scratch his head.
*This is my rationalisation of how he would ever target himself with any touch spell if not by touching himself.
You almost had me accept that maybe the caster is constantly touching himself in one way or another, but the charge is just fine within the confined system that is the caster and to use it on himself he would simply will it to go off*. Then you wrote this.
all that said, from a thematic point of view, if a caster of shocking grasp forgot he was holding the charge on it and went to scratch his head after the fight, i'd probably make him roll a touch attack against himself to see if he hit. if he did, hes gonna have some singed hair, but i wouldn't say it went off without at least a roll to do so.
So you accept that applying his hand to his head would make the spell go off after all, thus completely negating the closed circuit argument. And then you make him roll to see if he manages to touch himself with his completely voluntary headscratch? If he can deliver the spell to himself by touching his hand to his head, and he is stupid/forgetful enough to do so willingly, then the spell is delivered. There is no attack roll involved because when you deliver a touch attack, you roll for you to touch, not the magic, and our hypothetical caster willingly chose to scratch his head.
*This is my rationalisation of how he would ever target himself with any touch spell if not by touching himself.
the part of my post you quoted is just what i would do as a GM for thematic purposes. it is NOT RAW. i clearly stated it as such. my arguments before that have been within the rules. i personally see alot of logistically incorrect things in the rules RAW, but i know that they are not RAI, and so choose to ignore them. this is one of those things. by RAW, when you said that "he wills it to go off", that would be the most accurate rules description of using a touch spell on yourself. but for storytelling purposes i, as an individual, would tell my players that if they wanted to use a touch spell on themselves, they would have to actually touch themselves. this is purely for clarity in storytelling purposes. if a player really had a problem with this and wanted to just "will it" then i would be fine with that so long as they tell me when its happening.
So, a Paladin tries to cast Cure Light Wounds on a Superstitious Raging Barbarian, and he rolls a 1 and fails to touch. The next round, he is down to about 5HP so decides to use Lay On Hands as a swift action, healing Xd6, and then tries to touch the Barbarian. The question is, what happens? Does the spell discharge on him/her, healing as normal and not getting to the Barbarian, or is the charge held and transfered to the Barbarian.
Next, related question:If the Paladin tries to use a buff on the same barbarian, fails, and then has to heal via LoH, does he get the buff or can he buff the barbarian?
This is how the situation should be ran, according to RAW:
Turn 1: Paladin casts CLW to heal Barbarian after getting a solid thwack. Since the Barbarian has the Superstition Rage Power, he cannot be a willing target of any spell, so the Paladin must make the touch attack, though the Barbarian doesn't get a saving throw to reduce the healing by half. (That would be some very odd turn of events.) Critically failing his touch attack roll, the spell remains held.
Turn 2: After being subject to a full attack from the BBEG, the Paladin is gravely injured, and needs to heal up before getting back into the fight. His CLW spell is still held. He uses a charge of Lay On Hands and touches himself as a Swift Action to heal. However, since the CLW spell is held, and discharges on physical contact with a creature or object, the CLW spell would also go off on him when the Paladin would use Lay On Hands.
However, at this point, the Paladin still has a Standard Action (and perhaps a Move Action) left. He could try to heal the Barbarian again, or buff him with PFE, but this would fall under the same premise as with the CLW spell; if he fails, and has to heal himself again, he would expend he PFE spell upon himself, wasting its effects (assuming he has it active already).
hmm..i see your conundrum then...because as the caster of a CLW spell, you are also a valid target of the spell....so i would have to say that since you are a willing target for the LOH and the LOH automatically succeeds its touch attempt for that, that that touch attempt would also discharge the held CLW into the same target, you.
so you attempted to use CLW on barbarian, but missed. you are now holding the charge. you get hit. next turn you want to use LoH on YOURSELF. and have made yourself a willing target. the LOH auto-hits on you. the auto-hit ALSO discharges the CLW into you because you are a valid target for the spell.
Yep, it also leads to some other questions, like if you use something like "Gentle Repose" through Sacred Servant archetype, miss, and LoH, do you stagger yourself and can you un-stagger yourself via Mercy? Me and a friend were discussing this the other day, an I figured it might be wise to see what the forums have to say.
no, because there is a difference between a cure spell like CLW and other touch spells. offensive spells like shocking grasp do not have willing allies or yourself listed as a target. cure spells do. normally, a cure spells requires no touch attack to deliver because the target is willing, but in the case of a superstitious ally, the spell becomes just like an offensive spell in order to deliver.
you cannot touch yourself with a spell like shocking grasp without making a touch attack because you are NOT a willing target, and the spell does not allow a target to be willing. so if holding the charge on a shocking grasp and then using LoH on yourself, the touch from LoH does not meet the needed requirement of a touch attack roll because you are not making one for LoH.
Whatever way you wanna say it works... this is all wrong.
Either a touch spell DOES trigger on yourself on accident or a touch spell DOES NOT trigger on yourself on accident.
Turn 2: After being subject to a full attack from the BBEG, the Paladin is gravely injured, and needs to heal up before getting back into the fight. His CLW spell is still held. He uses a charge of Lay On Hands and touches himself as a Swift Action to heal. However, since the CLW spell is held, and discharges on physical contact with a creature or object, the CLW spell would also go off on him when the Paladin would use Lay On Hands.
The bolded part doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
If a held spell charge accidentally triggers every time you make physical contact with yourself then it is impossible to hold a charge. You are in continuous physical contact with yourself! It is sorta absurd. Every charge you tried to hold would trigger immediately, because you are always in physical contact with yourself.
You're taking the word "contact" too literally.
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.
If we take the bolded part by RAW with your silly interpretation of the meaning of "contact," this entire section is unneeded, because then the assumed result is "If you miss with the spell, you affect yourself with it instead."
Except, that's not how the devs want it to function. It's much smarter to say that in the heat of combat, if the character spends effort (in the form of actions) that involves touching anyone or anything, the spell will inadvertantly go off. Touching yourself as a Swift Action via LoH would fall under this category.
Are you using any house rules that would subject the paladin to potential harm from trying to touch the barbarian again?
If not, then all you have to do is attempt the touch attack to deliver the Cure spell before laying hands on yourself. I don't recall seeing any rule that specifies the order in which those actions have to be performed.
If a Paladin Casts a Touch-Range Spell and then uses Lay on Hands, does he hold the charge or discharge the spell on himself?
If the paladin touches anyone or anything the spell discharges. The paladin laying hands on himself (this is not better than saying touches himself I guess) to use LoH would discharge the spell. Except if the reason for LoH being a swift action on self would be because he need not actually touch. But I don't think that is the case.
If a Paladin Casts a Touch-Range Spell and then uses Lay on Hands, does he hold the charge or discharge the spell on himself?If the paladin touches anyone or anything the spell discharges. The paladin laying hands on himself (this is not better than saying touches himself I guess) to use LoH would discharge the spell. Except if the reason for LoH being a swift action on self would be because he need not actually touch. But I don't think that is the case.
I agree. Nowhere does it say that he doesn't need to touch to use lay on hands on himself, only that it is a swift action to do so. He even needs to have a hand free to use lay on hands, making it very obvious that it is a deliberate touch with his hand.
It also doesn't say anywhere that touching himself with a touch spell doesn't require a touch.
It also doesn't specify that you have to use a hand to deliver LoH. Touch effects are still touch effects, and can be delivered with any part if the body. I really with people would stop ignoring that...
And I really wish you'd stop ignoring that when the paladin touches himself in a way that allows for the transfer of one touch effect, the held charge (intentionally or not) follows :(
Perhaps you need to reread the thread. I already said that by the rules, that is what happens. I said after that, that I personally would not rule it that way. That would be a personal house rule.
Sorry, most of our discussion took place very late night/early morning for me, so I may have been a little tired and forgot some details.
*Looks back at thread*
Let's see, you agreed with LoH and CLW in post 6... so we were arguing because... right, because while you did agree with the charge being discharged you wanted to insert an attack roll to see if you manage to hit yourself, which you never ever need to do, not even when confused.
My bad, and I apologise. I still think rolling to hit yourself is stupid. If a player is about to hit themselves with a shocking grasp because they forgot about holding the charge, I suggest setting some fitting DC for a wisdom check to make them realise what they're doing before they follow through on the declared action.
You could do that, but given that anyone capable of casting spells is above average intelegence, I like to think that they are not so absent minded as to forget that they are holding a charge. This is my reasoning for making an attack roll because the way I see it, you are always assumed to know you are holding a charge, because...well...you arnt stupid. Thus you are intentionally trying to hurt yourself.
It also doesn't specify that you have to use a hand to deliver LoH. Touch effects are still touch effects, and can be delivered with any part if the body. I really with people would stop ignoring that...
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about right now.
Yes, touch spells can be delivered through any part of the body, be it from an unarmed strike such as with a kick or elbow/headbutt, or through natural weapons such as claws, horns/gore, bite, etc. And performing actions that involve physical contact successfully would, by RAW, discharge the spell being held.
The thing is that LoH specifically says you need a Free Hand to use LoH, though it is only a Swift Action to activate it on yourself. The intent behind this is that the free hand is being used to deliver the LoH to the Paladin, which inadvertantly would also deliver the CLW spell as he is an eligible target of the CLW spell.
Could the Paladin try to touch himself or the Barbarian as a Standard Action again, and then pop LoH on himself? Perhaps. It'd be a smarter play on the Action Economy to deliver both LoH and CLW on himself via simple activation, and then spend a Standard Action casting CLW to heal the Barbarian again, since the touch "attack" needed to deliver it with casting a Touch Spell becomes a Free Action.
If a character is holding the charge with, say ILW, and becomes Confused, and rolls the D% to hit himself, are you saying he would have to make an attack roll to successfully (not) discharge the ILW he is currently holding when he hits himself?
You could do that, but given that anyone capable of casting spells is above average intelegence, I like to think that they are not so absent minded as to forget that they are holding a charge. This is my reasoning for making an attack roll because the way I see it, you are always assumed to know you are holding a charge, because...well...you arnt stupid. Thus you are intentionally trying to hurt yourself.
I still say that whenever anyone decides to touch (or attack) themselves, they've consented to being hit by that touch and as such aren't trying to avoid it in any way or shape.
But whatever, there's no use in trying to take down your houserules. It's your game after all, so let's bury the hatchet and agree to disagree.
Are we seriously talking about making an attack roll to touch yourself? I will never understand why some people feel they need to roll dice for everything. Should we start making DC 0 constitution checks each round to breathe? If you have a con of 5 and you fail your breathing check 10 times in a row you suffocate.
You could do that, but given that anyone capable of casting spells is above average intelegence, I like to think that they are not so absent minded as to forget that they are holding a charge. This is my reasoning for making an attack roll because the way I see it, you are always assumed to know you are holding a charge, because...well...you arnt stupid. Thus you are intentionally trying to hurt yourself.I still say that whenever anyone decides to touch (or attack) themselves, they've consented to being hit by that touch and as such aren't trying to avoid it in any way or shape.
But whatever, there's no use in trying to take down your houserules. It's your game after all, so let's bury the hatchet and agree to disagree.
That's a good argument for if someone is KNOWINGLY attempting to use the spell on themselves, sure. But IMHO accidentally touching yourself with your own touch spell is not possible for someone of above average intelligence. There are exceptions to this of course, such as playing an absent minded caster, or being under the effects of confusion, but generally speaking, a 13+ intelligence person isn't dumb enough to do this.
Why would I cast shocking grasp on myself ?
I don't know if there's a way for an adventurer to get that, but I know that some monsters that can absorb elemental damages to heal themselves.
Now, I maybe have found a part of a text "missing":
Spoiler to check what I say:
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.
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.
Ok, so when you cast, the touch attack is a free action.
When you hold the charge:
1. "you can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action"
2. "you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon)", so it's a standard action.
I'm amused that I can't find that making a touch attack is a standard action. Some advocate to the Devil would argue that you could still use a free action each round to deliver your touch attack if you don't use option 1 and 2. It's pretty dumb IMO, because why should it be harder/longer to touch a friend than a foe (I sense dirty jokes incoming). But maybe I missed something ?
Anyway, I like the idea of Lay of Hand to deliver the spell.
Just remember, a foe trying to grapple you might get the spell you just hold in your hand, huhuhu.
That's a good argument for if someone is KNOWINGLY attempting to use the spell on themselves, sure. But IMHO accidentally touching yourself with your own touch spell is not possible for someone of above average intelligence. There are exceptions to this of course, such as playing an absent minded caster, or being under the effects of confusion, but generally speaking, a 13+ intelligence person isn't dumb enough to do this.
Reading your argument, you are really making a strong case that it should be an intelligence or wisdom check and not an attack roll.
I actually have cast Shocking Grasp on myself once or twice while playing, because of a special thing that caused an enemy [who happened to stay out of touch-range from my Magus] to take damage whenever I did. It was rather effective, and shockingly enough, I didn't die from it.
All of my rage!
That's a good argument for if someone is KNOWINGLY attempting to use the spell on themselves, sure. But IMHO accidentally touching yourself with your own touch spell is not possible for someone of above average intelligence. There are exceptions to this of course, such as playing an absent minded caster, or being under the effects of confusion, but generally speaking, a 13+ intelligence person isn't dumb enough to do this.Reading your argument, you are really making a strong case that it should be an intelligence or wisdom check and not an attack roll.
thats a fair point. i never thought of it like that (because the game mechanics never mention those types of rolls for a touch spell) but yeah, accidentally using a touch spell on yourself should probably be some kind of intelligence based check to determine how stupid your character is being at that exact moment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you accept that applying his hand to his head would make the spell go off after all, thus completely negating the closed circuit argument. And then you make him roll to see if he manages to touch himself with his completely voluntary headscratch?all that said, from a thematic point of view, if a caster of shocking grasp forgot he was holding the charge on it and went to scratch his head after the fight, i'd probably make him roll a touch attack against himself to see if he hit. if he did, hes gonna have some singed hair, but i wouldn't say it went off without at least a roll to do so.
Sometimes when I go to scratch my head, my hand misses and all I end up scratching is air. :(