As the title says, a wildshaped druid (leopard) + natural spell casts a cure spell before hand.
He holds the charge in his leopard tail and uses it when appropriate.
Now since it's not a prehensile tail, should it be allowed or not?
This is not a game I'm in, but I'm acting as a consultant for one of the players in a group who keeps wondering if the druid's player is abusing the rules or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the druid gets hurt, he chases his tail until he catches it in order to deliver the touch spell? I've watched my cats do this and tail chasing looks pretty complicated and involved; certainly takes more than a few seconds. Perhaps the druid is also using it with an attempt to confuse and confound the enemy?
Seriously though, no he can't. Touch spells are still involve a touch attack (though the target may choose to be willing, it just means you automatically hit). Touch attacks must be delivered by something that can deliver attacks. The leopard's tail cannot be used to deliver attacks since it is not a natural weapon. Ergo, no touch spells on the tail.
And just to make things more complicated, this druid also has 1 level dip in monk. At first I thought it was for the Wisdom AC bonus when Wildshaped, but it also grants Improved Unarmed Strike + FoB where every part of the body is a weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or in the tongue! Then he could literally lick his wounds to heal them!
How is he transferring the held spell from his hand to his tail?
Nothing specifically says that a touch spell charge *must* be in the hand (or claw, tentacle, appendage, etc.).
I'd say that as long as the charge holding appendage is well defined and usable.
Headbutt of Cure Light Wounds?
Held spells are not held in a specific limb or other body part. Though the phrase holding the charge in your hand does sometimes come up (but that is because we are generally talking about bipeds, who touch things with their hands to discharge it).
Intentionally or accidentally touching something discharges a held charge (it doesn't say touching something with the hand holding the charge). Making natural attacks whether its clawed hands, toothy maw, or tail slap all qualify for discharging the spell in this way. As do unarmed attacks as headbutts, elbows, kicks, etc.
If it were a specific body location I could simply declare that I hold it in my big left toe till I'm ready to use it and completely bypass the above restriction to get out a potion, wand, or any other item and use it without fear of discharging the spell.
It seems fair to ask him to charge the mouth, both for the legality and the evocative licking of wounds to heal them.
I suppose I might accept a headbutt, from a cat, as a way to deliver a heal.
|
Intentionally or accidentally touching something discharges a held charge (it doesn't say touching something with the hand holding the charge). Making natural attacks whether its clawed hands, toothy maw, or tail slap all qualify for discharging the spell in this way. As do unarmed attacks as headbutts, elbows, kicks, etc.
I'd argue that this is more flavor text than rules text, but it's impossible to tell the difference. If this were actually rules, then the case "what happens to a held charge when I'm grappled" wouldn't come up (or at least not as often). Also, in this super strict interpretation, the kitty druid isn't going to need his held charge in his tail or anywhere else because the first time he swipes at someone he's going to both damage and heal them.
I digress on the part about "hand to tail" though, I always just assumed the charge was held in the hand, not the body as a whole.
|
And just to make things more complicated, this druid also has 1 level dip in monk. At first I thought it was for the Wisdom AC bonus when Wildshaped, but it also grants Improved Unarmed Strike + FoB where every part of the body is a weapon.
First of all, unarmed strike can't be *any* body part you want. It's undefined for non-monks, but the monk class specifically calls out "a monk's [unarmed] attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet," so it's reasonable that non-monks have to follow a similar restriction (otherwise the non-monk has more versatile unarmed strike options, which is silly).
And the rule SKR cited:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Then:
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster
There are a few other times where that assumption appear. A held charge is not held in a random appendage, it is held in one of the appendages that normally do the act of touching for your race.
So a leopard can held the charge in a paw or even its bite, but not in his tail.
I thought that when a character 'holds a charge' it is always immediately discharged as a touch attack (whether or not willing or unwilling) as soon as the character holding the charge touches or gets touched by any other creature, regardless of where he or she is touched.
From the SRD:
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.
In my mind, the druid in leopard form would automatically cure the first thing it attacks.
That would mean: The druid can deliver the cure spell with his tail, prehensile or not, whenever he likes, HOWEVER, if he dared touch an enemy or get hit by an enemy in the meantime, that would mean the spell would discharge and the enemy would be healed instead.
"You can continue to make touch attacks round after round" only applies to spells such as chill touch, where you can make multiple attacks with one touch spell. This is not true for a cure spell.
|
|
I thought that when a character 'holds a charge' it is always immediately discharged as a touch attack (whether or not willing or unwilling) as soon as the character holding the charge touches or gets touched by any other creature, regardless of where he or she is touched.
From the SRD:
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.
In my mind, the druid in leopard form would automatically cure the first thing it attacks.
That would mean: The druid can deliver the cure spell with his tail, prehensile or not, whenever he likes, HOWEVER, if he dared touch an enemy or get hit by an enemy in the meantime, that would mean the spell would discharge and the enemy would be healed instead."You can continue to make touch attacks round after round" only applies to spells such as chill touch, where you can make multiple attacks with one touch spell. This is not true for a cure spell.
Right, I'd say that the first attack the kitty makes delivers the touch spell, unless he were somehow wielding a weapon in which he could not deliver the spell through. He can't choose to not discharge it. I worded this oddly in my above post that seems to imply otherwise.
Tell me where it says it's not true for a cure spell? If I'm holding a cure spell and attack an undead, and miss, you're saying the spell just fizzles?
So a leopard can held the charge in a paw or even its bite, but not in his tail.
It is not true that a touch spell absolutely must be done with a limb or appendage that a creature can 'attack' with.
That would imply that wizards would have to make unarmed strikes against everything they wanted to touch, but that's not true. They can deliver the spell by a mere touch.
I can't imagine that it would truly matter whether a wizard delivered the spell through his little finger or whether he'd deliver it by pulling down his pants and bumping the target with his bum.
Although that would of course be pretty weird!
The same applies to the leopard form. As I stated in my post above I think this is possible but the druid should understand that he cannot hold the charge of a cure spell in his tail, then attack with its paws and not deliver the cure spell to the target.
They way I read the R.A.W., you hold a charge with your entire body, not a single limb or appendage, because that would be cheating of some sorts.
Tell me where it says it's not true for a cure spell? If I'm holding a cure spell and attack an undead, and miss, you're saying the spell just fizzles?
I think that the spell only discharges when you actually hit. If you had intentionally touched the undead creature as a touch attack, then the spell would fizzle on a miss.
|
|
I think that the spell only discharges when you actually hit. If you had intentionally touched the undead creature as a touch attack, then the spell would fizzle on a miss.
Tell me where it says it's not true for a cure spell? If I'm holding a cure spell and attack an undead, and miss, you're saying the spell just fizzles?
Again, I need the rules citation for that..
From the Combat section in the SRD:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat
"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."
However, this is only true when you deliver the touch spell through a regular attack (unarmed or natural).
If you only want to deliver the touch attack without the regular attack, and THEN you miss, the spell is just a miss and it fizzles.
The difference is that the regular attack is aimed at AC, and the touch attack always targets Touch AC. Touch AC is usually much lower and you'll have a much higher chance to hit, which is nice for wizards and such.
Touch spells and their attacks are a bit confusing overall, but I have experience in this because I played an Aberrant sorcerer once.
You should also keep in mind that when you hold the charge for a cure spell, you cannot keep making cure touches one after another.
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.
You could touch all of your allies in a full-round action, but the Cure spell would discharge only on the first person you touch.
This rule only really matters for spells such as Chill Touch, which grant you multiple touches for a single casting of the spell depending on your caster level.
I've seen people abuse the confusion around these rules to cast cure light wounds 6 times in a full round action with only one casting. I don't mean to imply that is the intention but I just wanted to clarify this just in case.
|
|
However, this is only true when you deliver the touch spell through a regular attack (unarmed or natural).
If you only want to deliver the touch attack without the regular attack, and THEN you miss, the spell is just a miss and it fizzles.
The difference is that the regular attack is aimed at AC, and the touch attack always targets Touch AC. Touch AC is usually much lower and you'll have a much higher chance to hit, which is nice for wizards and such.
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
The bolded being the only important part. It doesn't discharge if it doesn't hit. Tell me which part says "missing with the free touch attack fizzles the spell"
Nowhere does it say that you lose the charge.
You should also keep in mind that when you hold the charge for a cure spell, you cannot keep making cure touches one after another.
No one is claiming or contesting this, bringing it up is only going to cause confusion...
You don't have to worry about www.d20pfsrd.com not providing correct information, even if it's not the "official" page. It's just a different layout, really.
It doesn't discharge if it doesn't hit. Tell me which part says "missing with the free touch attack fizzles the spell"
EDIT:
If you do not hit with an immediate touch attack after you cast the spell, you do not lose the charge. My mistake!
No one is claiming or contesting this, bringing it up is only going to cause confusion...
Sorry for confusing you then, I just thought it'd help clarify how holding the charge works. I was simply pointing out a common misinterpretation of these rules.
EDIT: The Touch Attack Flowchart
Cast cure or other touch spell > Use immediately? > Yes (A) / No (B)
(A) You cast and use the spell in the same round you cast it, delivering it as a touch attack that targets touch AC. Do you hit? > Yes (D) / No (B)
(B) You hold the charge
After (B), you can either choose to do (A) at a later time, or deliver your charge through a regular attack, be it unarmed or natural (C). The way I read the rules as written, is that if you are attacked when you hold a charge, the spell discharges on your attacker, willing or unwilling.
(C) You do a regular attack (unarmed or natural) and discharge the touch spell through your attack. In this case, you target normal AC, not touch AC. Do you hit? > Yes (D) / No (E)
(D) You hit, you always lose the charge, whether or not the enemy makes his save or not. The only exceptions are spells like Chill Touch that allow multiple touches per casting of the spell.
(E) You miss. The spell does not discharge, you do not lose the charge.
Nowhere does it say that you lose the charge.
If you were simply doing a touch attack after you cast the spell, then you wouldn't be holding the charge in the first place. You can't lose a charge if you're not holding a charge.
Failing to make a touch attack does not fizzle the spell. If it was the round you cast the spell it becomes a held charge (Why? Because you did not discharge the spell - and you may now hold the charge indefinitely). If it was a held charge it continues to be a held charge.
Holding the Charge: ... You can continue to make touch attacks round after round...
This would be a meaningless line if a failed touch attack fizzled a held charge. (This applies to more than the two spells that have multiple charges associated with them).
Even if the creatures makes his save, after the spell hits, either through a touch attack or channeled through a regular attack: The charge you were holding is gone.
To do it again, you'd have to cast Cure X Wounds again (which you cannot do in Leopard form unless you have the Natural Spell feat), then you'd have to hold the charge again, and then you'd have to do a regular attack again if you wanted to get both your attack damage and the spell damage.
It will allow you to hurt Undead creatures extra badly in one attack but in terms of action economy, it would not have mattered if you had seperately attacked and seperately cast the spell and delivered it as a touch attack.
For this reason, the whole tactic of a druid holding the charge of a cure spell, turning into a leopard, and delivering the spell to an undead creature, seems to me like a really complex and relatively non-useful tactic UNLESS it was a one-time touch and go situation.
Failing to make a touch attack does not fizzle the spell. If it was the round you cast the spell it becomes a held charge (Why? Because you did not discharge the spell - and you may now hold the charge indefinitely). If it was a held charge it continues to be a held charge.
This would be a meaningless line if a failed touch attack fizzled a held charge. (This applies to more than the two spells that have multiple charges associated with them).
Holding the Charge: ... You can continue to make touch attacks round after round...
Ah yes! You are right, I stand corrected.
Is the whole purpose why the druid is trying to use his tail for holding a charge is because if he held it in a paw or mouth, it would discharge when doing a natural attack using that limb and trying to bypass that?
Meaning wants to hold a charge but doesnt want to lose a natural attack with a paw or jaws?
Meaning wants to hold a charge but doesnt want to lose a natural attack with a paw or jaws?
Holding a charge without losing the claw/claw/bite attack is what I'm guessing he wants.
Now by his logic, it wouldn't be much different than saying I'm holding a charge in my knee, and when I need it I'll bring my knees together.
Meaning wants to hold a charge but doesnt want to lose a natural attack with a paw or jaws?Holding a charge without losing the claw/claw/bite attack is what I'm guessing he wants.
Now by his logic, it wouldn't be much different than saying I'm holding a charge in my knee, and when I need it I'll bring my knees together.
From the Combat rules section:
"If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
He cannot store a spell charge in different body parts. A charge is held throughout the character's entire body.
He can hold the charge and attack an enemy, but if he does so the spell would discharge on the enemy. If he misses, he does not lose the charge, but is in risk of discharging the spell again on the enemy if the enemy hits him.
|
|
From the Combat rules section:
"If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."He cannot store a spell charge in different body parts. A charge is held throughout the character's entire body.
He can hold the charge and attack an enemy, but if he does so the spell would discharge on the enemy. If he misses, he does not lose the charge, but is in risk of discharging the spell again on the enemy if the enemy hits him.
Charges can't be "stolen", regardless of it saying "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." That's why spells don't go off when you get grappled. That text causes more problems than it is worth and is mostly flavor. For instance, let's say I'm sneaking within range of someone who is doing some kind of "battle healing" (as in casting Cure X Wounds), could I ready an attack with the trigger "after he casts cure but before he touches someone" and proceed to tap him on the shoulder to have him cure me?
Specifically, notice how it says "you touch anything" not "anything touches you". Touch is a very specific keyword here with a defined meaning in Pathfinder.
Years ago, a rather crass wizard player talked about holding a charge in a certain limb.
I allowed it, lol.