|
If you can make multiple attacks in a round using the full attack action you can use them to deliver multiple touches.
There isn't a limit of 1 attack a round, with the exception of the round in which you cast the spell as normally you use a standard action to cast a spell and so you get only the free touch attack generated by the spell, not all your iterative attacks.
Diego has the right of it.
|
If you can make multiple attacks in a round using the full attack action you can use them to deliver multiple touches.
There isn't a limit of 1 attack a round, with the exception of the round in which you cast the spell as normally you use a standard action to cast a spell and so you get only the free touch attack generated by the spell, not all your iterative attacks.
^this is Truth
As Diego said the round you cast you will only get 1 attack because the casting only comes with one free touch attack. On subsequent rounds you can make attacks based on your BAB and the number of available attacks you have. If you have BAB 6 you can make two attacks, both as touch atatcks. Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.
|
|
There is one thing that can break Diego's answer about only being able to deliver one touch during the first round, and that is a Magus using Spell Combat and Spellstrike...
And quickened spells, and probably some other trick too, that is why I said "as normally".
Specific rules or abilities aren't the norm.
As Diego said the round you cast you will only get 1 attack because the casting only comes with one free touch attack. On subsequent rounds you can make attacks based on your BAB and the number of available attacks you have. If you have BAB 6 you can make two attacks, both as touch atatcks. Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.
Do you have source that you can make a touch attack as an attack action and iterative touch attacks as a full-attack? I'm curious because, AFAIK, the rules never specify what kind of action it is to make a touch attack with a held charge (which has always frustrated me).
Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.
Just a note: you can make touch attacks even with natural attacks IIRC...
As Diego said the round you cast you will only get 1 attack because the casting only comes with one free touch attack. On subsequent rounds you can make attacks based on your BAB and the number of available attacks you have. If you have BAB 6 you can make two attacks, both as touch atatcks. Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.
All of this should be qualified with the "limb holding the charge" as well. If you have 7 natural attacks because you have 7 limbs, only one of them (that you choose) is holding the charge. They might all be tentacles but only one tentacle has the charge on it, so only the attack that has the charge can deliver/use the charge.
That also brings up another issue when using natural attacks to hold charges. Charges are held on a limb, when that limb is used for "things" it will discharge the spell. That means don't use limbs that will be needed for locomotion if you want to be mobile though the fight. When you use the limb to move, you'll be forced to touch the ground and discharge the spell.
Also, are you 100% sure you can make 2 touch attacks as part of a full attack? I was under the impression last this came up that making the touch attack was a standard action. If you decided to make multiple attacks using your BAB you'd be choosing to go against the full AC on normal attack resolution. I have been absent from the boards for awhile so if this is a new-ish ruling I've not run into it yet.
A touch attack is an attack action. Its in the name.
So, no source. That's a shame.
If I remember correctly, one of the developers stated a long time ago that touch attacks are not useable as iterative attacks because they aren't normal weapons; I think the idea was that they operate as if you've created yourself something more like a natural attack. The topic shouldn't be hard to dig up.
In the end the rules are vague about exactly what a touch attack is and how it gets discharged, but that was the last ruling I've seen. To be fair, it makes at least some degree of sense that if you want to discharge multiple charges in a round rather than just lunging at someone and touching them once, you have to do it through multiple unarmed strikes or natural attacks. Because there is no definite duration to holding a charge (I vaguely remember something about 'an hour'), you can in theory cast your frostbite before battle begins as if it was a long-duration buff.
Going through Unarmed Strikes at least opens up some fun synergy - say a level 8 Shaman using a Rime Frostbite, Evil Eye Hex Strike, Unarmed Strike Charge to drop a -7 on your target's attacks without a save...
|
|
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.
I don't see anything that say that touch attacks can't benefit from iterative attacks.
Touch attacks are attacks? Yes
What you need to do to make multiple attacks in a round? Use a full round action. You get multiple attacks, depending on your BAB, fighting with two hands and available natural attacks.
If touch attacks are limited to standard actions and 1 attack each round every monster that has 2+ touch attack is violating that rule and a character with a held spell would be unable to use it for Attacks of Opportunity.
Holding the charge don't say that it is stored in a specific limb. Au contraire it say that you can make an attack with a natural weapon, and that include your bite attack. AFAIK the head isn't a limb.
The idea that a held charge is stored in a specific limb is an implication of the magus FAQs, but it has never been fully explored in its consequences or stated explicitly.
The Magus FAQ text:
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. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Not much to change the rules.
Hey, I'm just reporting that a voice from on high once said:
"Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way." ~James Jacobs, Creative Director.
I don't think Mr. Jacobs is always the master of jurisprudence that one might wish from a person making rulings; for that matter, for all its greatness Pathfinder has had its share of head-scratching writing, editing, and rulings as far as the rules system goes. But in this case the ruling is at least clear and functional.
|
|
So we agree that the rules need clarification.
Could a Paizo official address this question, or better yet, change the wording in the next issue of the core rules PDF?
The spell is a spell, not a weapon. It's intent is to give the spellcaster a fire attack that he can touch foes with or throw. Since it's not a weapon, and the fire isn't wielded like a weapon, it doesn't really follow the rules for weapons. (Note how flame blade DOES actually say the spell functions like a weapon—"you wiled this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar;" Flame blade's also higher level than produce flame.)
No iterative attacks with produce flame as a result, since it only grants the one attack per round as a touch attack.
That said... I don't really think that allowing iterative attacks with a produce flame unbalance things TOO much, especially since each time you attack reduces the duration of the spell. You won't get more attacks out of produce flame if you allow iterative attacks, but you WILL power through the spell's duration faster.
A bit dated and in a discussion about produce flame.
In a more recent discussion:
Sorry if this has been asked before. How does the chill touch spell work?
I beleave it works like a held charge for subsequent attacks. Being able to discharge those touches as one standard action per round or if using bab with unarmed attacks or as a magus using spellstrike.
There just seems to crop up alot of confusion on the rules forum but never a definative answer.Chill touch essentially gives you a weapon that you can make a number of attacks with equal to your level. It's certainly poorly worded—it probably SHOULD say something more like a duraiton of 1 round/level and that you can make 1 attack each round. Unless what it's REALLY trying to say is that you can make 1 attack per level, so that if you have iterative attacks or haste effects you might be able to make the attack more than 1 time per round.
Pick the one you like better if you're the GM. If you're a player, ask your GM. If you're a player in Pathfinder Society who gets caught up on these rules, prepare burning hands or shocking grasp instead. :P
Chill touch,and the spells derived from it, like frostbite, still suffer from having been published the first time in AD&D 1st edition, where a spellcaster had only 1 attack every round, so there was no need to explain if the spell was meant to allow for multiple attacks or not.
They need a bit of clearing up.
You should have probably have read further.
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.
First italics. If you aren't holding the charge on a limb, it is just randomly floating around all over your body, well every time you step it is getting discharged as your foot hits the ground... I guess that makes more sense.
Second bold. Not sure why they would state this and use the word alternatively if it was already working that way. As stated up thread an attack action is normally a standard action. The rules for holding the charge give an alternative to that standard action touch attack on rounds after the initial casting by granting the ability to make the charge a rider effect on unarmed strikes or natural attacks.
|
|
@Skylancer4
Can you clarify to what post you are replying?
If you aren't holding the charge on a limb, well every time you step it is getting discharged... I guess that makes more sense.
A leg is a limb. The Magus FAQ actually say hand.
My cat familiar has no hand and all its limbs touch the ground when he move.It is unable to deliver any spell?
This ability do nothing unless your familiar is a monkey or something with hands?
Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.
Touching the ground while moving has always been disregarded as a way to discharge touch spells. Like having something in one of your hands while casting the spell.
Wand of CLW, use wand, you are touching the wand, the spell is discharged on the wand .......
Doesn't compute.
Not strictly RAW but it has always been read as "if you touch something that you weren't touching before".
|
Touching the ground while moving has always been disregarded as a way to discharge touch spells. Like having something in one of your hands while casting the spell.
Wand of CLW, use wand, you are touching the wand, the spell is discharged on the wand .......
Doesn't compute.Not strictly RAW but it has always been read as "if you touch something that you weren't touching before".
If you were going to be that pedantic, Any wizard with a bonded item or caster with a divine focus would discharge their spells immediately upon casting them.
Common sense must be applied to rules interpretations.
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.Not sure why they would state this and use the word alternativelyChange the bold to show why.
First, you can touch a friend or friends - this would apply to spells like teleport. (You can't hold that charge into the next round to touch more friends.) Alternatively, you can touch enemies - that's an attack.
That makes absolutely NO sense as you would never need to make a touch attack against your friends... Alternatively was a modifier to how the normal attack mechanic would work. Normally you make your touch attack or alternatively you can discharge it using a non-touch attack attack.
An attack action is normally a standard action, as in the default action to do so is a standard action. You can make multiple attacks if your BAB is high enough but that doesn't mean you can mix and match things how you like or that all attacks are interchangeable. Case in point combat maneuvers, they have wording to allow them to be used in a full attack action. This was because the default attack action was a standard action and that limited them to being used once per round.
Touch attacks from spells have no such wording.
@Skylancer4
Can you clarify to what post you are replying?
If you aren't holding the charge on a limb, well every time you step it is getting discharged... I guess that makes more sense.A leg is a limb. The Magus FAQ actually say hand.
My cat familiar has no hand and all its limbs touch the ground when he move.
It is unable to deliver any spell?
This ability do nothing unless your familiar is a monkey or something with hands?Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.Touching the ground while moving has always been disregarded as a way to discharge touch spells. Like having something in one of your hands while casting the spell.
Wand of CLW, use wand, you are touching the wand, the spell is discharged on the wand .......
Doesn't compute.Not strictly RAW but it has always been read as "if you touch something that you weren't touching before".
The one where you say that holding a charge doesn't require you to decide which limb you are holding it in. Even though the official FAQ for the magus implies that it does. Not all natural attacks are bites and as of the rules being published no PC had a natural bite attack that it would have made a difference or required it to be spelled out.
We're basically at the point where you argue that the rules don't explicitly state you can't do it, so you say you can, despite the rules pointing in the direction of it not working that way.
Does anyone have a source on "charges are held on one limb"? That was the case in 3.5, but PF seems to be going with "distributed" charges.
That makes absolutely NO sense as you would never need to make a touch attack against your friends...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. 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.Where does it say touch attack against friends? This text is about holding the charge.
You can hold the charge indefinitely. You can touch friends. Alternatively, you can make a touch attack.
Holding the charge starts off about making a touch attack. It details the aggressive action of a touch attack. It then goes to talk about how it can discharged on a friendly unit with a standard action or multiple friendlies with a full round action. It then says alternatively you can make another different aggressive action.
In any literary class I've taken, that word would not be needed if it didn't mean the first and the last actions weren't different. It isn't needed to differentiate the last from the preceding statement about friendlies at all.
Diego is stating touch attacks are interchangeable with melee attacks, if that were the case, the word "alternatively" would not be needed. He is using the fact that the rules don't say you are limited from doing so, so it can be done. The issue with that is, the rules default to attacks being standard actions. Multiple attacks in a full attack action is an exception to the norm. When an attack action is capable of being interchanged into those exceptions, they state they can be (sunder, trip, disarm, etc).
|
This is the way I see it and I think it fits in the rules. Holding a charge and using a spell with multiple charges are two different things. If you have multiple charges, you can use separate limbs to make the attacks, but if you are holding a charge (because your first attack missed, for example) then the charge is in that limb and you need to try again with the same limb.
In the case of the plant with 5 limbs and frostbite with five charges. You attack with 1 limb and charge it, and hit, then charge a second limb and hit, then a third and miss. Now that charge is still there, holding. Now you can use a fourth charge for your fourth limb, and hit, and a fifth for your fifth limb and miss. You now have two charges you are holding, and next turn you have to use those limbs to try to make those touch attacks. Also if they touch anything else in the meantime,the charge is wasted.
|
Does anyone have a source on "charges are held on one limb"? That was the case in 3.5, but PF seems to be going with "distributed" charges.
No disrespect intended, but I believe Skylancer4 is just making it up. There's nowhere in the rules (that I've ever come across) that supports his/her statement about being able to decide which natural attack you deliver the charge with.
(referencing this "If you have 7 natural attacks because you have 7 limbs, only one of them (that you choose) is holding the charge. They might all be tentacles but only one tentacle has the charge on it, so only the attack that has the charge can deliver/use the charge." --it's just not in the rules).
This is the way I see it and I think it fits in the rules. Holding a charge and using a spell with multiple charges are two different things. If you have multiple charges, you can use separate limbs to make the attacks, but if you are holding a charge (because your first attack missed, for example) then the charge is in that limb and you need to try again with the same limb.
In the case of the plant with 5 limbs and frostbite with five charges. You attack with 1 limb and charge it, and hit, then charge a second limb and hit, then a third and miss. Now that charge is still there, holding. Now you can use a fourth charge for your fourth limb, and hit, and a fifth for your fifth limb and miss. You now have two charges you are holding, and next turn you have to use those limbs to try to make those touch attacks. Also if they touch anything else in the meantime,the charge is wasted.
Nowhere is this supported in the rules (unless you can show me where, I don't recall seeing it anywhere).
So two things:
It is a valid point that you may not be able to make iterative touch attacks, it's not perfectly clear. However, you could certainly make unarmed strikes with a single limb (that is holding the charge) and that you could as many as is allowed by your BAB. To that end you could make multiple unarmed strikes and deliver the touch attack. Based on this I find it difficult to not allow iterative touch attacks (though I think I may go back and forth on this point if I were to review my post history). It's not clearly laid out in the rules, and so I may change my mind from my time to time back and forth.
Secondly, you all are absolutely right that the charge is held in one limb, and while the consequences of that were never fully laid out it does mean you couldn't attack with multiple natural attacks and have all deliver it (at least I think so). I honestly forget about the limb rule. So you could hold the charge in one natural attack and deliver it thorugh that one natural attack.
The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.
Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?
The FAQ as posted shows that it would work as it did in 3.5. Magus just have exceptions due to their weapon augmented casting abilities. They get a pass on touching their weapon but need to worry about everything else like a "normal" caster does.
It isn't flavor text... It is rules crunch. Don't touch things with your hand if you want to keep your charges. That also means, charges are held in certain body part for use. For just as many copied and pasted rules that have undergone change, there are rules that haven't been changed from 3.5. It would seem that is the case here would it not?
The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.
Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?
No the common sense approach is to regard the Magus FAQ as an example of a specific rule trumping a general rule. The Magus FAQ only applies to the Magus and has absolutely zero implications for anyone else. A Magus and a Magus alone can pick up a weapon without discharging his spell. The FAQ itself even differentiates between the Magus and "normal casters" implying that this ability is not the norm.
So Magus, and Magus alone, can hold the charge while picking up a weapon everyone else just uses the regular rules for touch spells in combat which specifically state that if you touch anyone or anything the spell discharges.
Does anyone have a source on "charges are held on one limb"? That was the case in 3.5, but PF seems to be going with "distributed" charges.No disrespect intended, but I believe Skylancer4 is just making it up. There's nowhere in the rules (that I've ever come across) that supports his/her statement about being able to decide which natural attack you deliver the charge with.
(referencing this "If you have 7 natural attacks because you have 7 limbs, only one of them (that you choose) is holding the charge. They might all be tentacles but only one tentacle has the charge on it, so only the attack that has the charge can deliver/use the charge." --it's just not in the rules).
Yet the FAQ states normal casters are limited from picking up a weapon or using the limb to grab a potion so as to not discharge the spell. A floating charge that is miraculously where you want it when you make an attack yet not limiting in any way despite rules stating it gets discharged if it accidentally comes into contact with something, sounds more like a "made up" opinion, no disrespect.
|
|
The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.
Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?
No the common sense approach is to regard the Magus FAQ as an example of a specific rule trumping a general rule. The Magus FAQ only applies to the Magus and has absolutely zero implications for anyone else. A Magus and a Magus alone can pick up a weapon without discharging his spell. The FAQ itself even differentiates between the Magus and "normal casters" implying that this ability is not the norm.
So Magus, and Magus alone, can hold the charge while picking up a weapon everyone else just uses the regular rules for touch spells in combat which specifically state that if you touch anyone or anything the spell discharges.
How are you going to apply that to a wizard with a weapon as their bonded item? Does the wizard blow up his bonded item every time he casts a touch spell?
The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.
Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?
The FAQ as posted shows that it would work as it did in 3.5. Magus just have exceptions due to their weapon augmented casting abilities. They get a pass on touching their weapon but need to worry about everything else like a "normal" caster does.
It isn't flavor text... It is rules crunch. Don't touch things with your hand if you want to keep your charges. That also means, charges are held in certain body part for use. For just as many copied and pasted rules that have undergone change, there are rules that haven't been changed from 3.5. It would seem that is the case here would it not?
No it just means that a Magus can touch a weapon with his hand and not discharge the spell. Nothing more and nothing less. It has no implications for where the charge is held. There are several explanations besides that a magus chooses where to hold the charge for why they can touch a weapon but debating those is pure speculation. The rules say nothing and imply nothing about choosing a limb. In any case it applies to the Magus only and is irrelevant to other spell casters.
The rules for touch spells in combat say that if you touch anyone or anything you discharge the spell. If you grab a door knob you touched another object and the spell discharges. If you stub your toe on a chair leg you touched another object and the spell discharges. If a pigeon lands on your head you have touched another creature and the spell discharges.
How are you going to apply that to a wizard with a weapon as their bonded item? Does the wizard blow up his bonded item every time he casts a touch spell?The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.
Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?
No the common sense approach is to regard the Magus FAQ as an example of a specific rule trumping a general rule. The Magus FAQ only applies to the Magus and has absolutely zero implications for anyone else. A Magus and a Magus alone can pick up a weapon without discharging his spell. The FAQ itself even differentiates between the Magus and "normal casters" implying that this ability is not the norm.
So Magus, and Magus alone, can hold the charge while picking up a weapon everyone else just uses the regular rules for touch spells in combat which specifically state that if you touch anyone or anything the spell discharges.
Wizard holds bonded weapon in left hand.
Wizard casts spell and holds charge in right hand.Where is the issue?
|
|
The rules for touch spells in combat say that if you touch anyone or anything you discharge the spell. If you grab a door knob you touched another object and the spell discharges. If you stub your toe on a chair leg you touched another object and the spell discharges. If a pigeon lands on your head you have touched another creature and the spell discharges.
Be careful what you claim. Are you saying that I can ready an action to touch a cleric when he casts a spell to steal his cure spell?
The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.
Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?
The FAQ as posted shows that it would work as it did in 3.5. Magus just have exceptions due to their weapon augmented casting abilities. They get a pass on touching their weapon but need to worry about everything else like a "normal" caster does.
It isn't flavor text... It is rules crunch. Don't touch things with your hand if you want to keep your charges. That also means, charges are held in certain body part for use. For just as many copied and pasted rules that have undergone change, there are rules that haven't been changed from 3.5. It would seem that is the case here would it not?
No it just means that a Magus can touch a weapon with his hand and not discharge the spell. Nothing more and nothing less. It has no implications for where the charge is held. There are several explanations besides that a magus chooses where to hold the charge for why they can touch a weapon but debating those is pure speculation. The rules say nothing and imply nothing about choosing a limb. In any case it applies to the Magus only and is irrelevant to other spell casters.
The rules for touch spells in combat say that if you touch anyone or anything you discharge the spell. If you grab a door knob you touched another object and the spell discharges. If you stub your toe on a chair leg you touched another object and the spell discharges. If a pigeon lands on your head you have touched another creature and the spell discharges.
Rules were based on 3.5 where the core assumption was biped humanoid so you had a left and right limb used on combat. You held the charge on the limb of your choice. Pfrpg is written with those same assumptions in core, even so far as "unwritten" rules indicating you are unable to use both 2 handed weapons and an off hand attack due to that being a way to "game" the system and get more benefit than was intended. If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.
Is there another FAQ that I'm missing? Or a rule in the prd that I've missed indicating your notion of "distributed" charge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rereading this thread and the Magus FAQ, I see that Skylancer is indeed making s+&% up. Also, the non-Magus rules for holding charges strongly suggest that your entire body is holding the charge.
How are you going to apply that to a wizard with a weapon as their bonded item? Does the wizard blow up his bonded item every time he casts a touch spell?
Oh well by that logic we should allow a wizard to deliver a touch spell as part of an attack with his bonded item if it is a weapon. After all Magus can do it.
Yes a wizard with a bonded weapon can't pick it up or draw it while holding a charge without discharging the spell. As with clothing and anything else that is already worn or carried when you cast the spell if you are already holding the weapon it doesn't discharge the spell.
Wizard holds bonded weapon in left hand.
Wizard casts spell and holds charge in right hand.
Where is the issue?
This issue is that you simply can't do that.
Be careful what you claim. Are you saying that I can ready an action to touch a cleric when he casts a spell to steal his cure spell?
From the PRD "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
For your example the readied action is resolved BEFORE the action that triggers it so you can't steal a spell this way as the spell hasn't been cast yet.
Rules were based on 3.5 where the core assumption was biped humanoid so you had a left and right limb used on combat. You held the charge on the limb of your choice. Pfrpg is written with those same assumptions in core, even so far as "unwritten" rules indicating you are unable to use both 2 handed weapons and an off hand attack due to that being a way to "game" the system and get more benefit than was intended. If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.Is there another FAQ that I'm missing? Or a rule in the prd that I've missed indicating your notion of "distributed" charge?
3.5 is utterly irrelevant to the PFRPG. The rule that says the charge is distributed is simply the rule that says if you touch anything or anyone the spell discharges. It doesn't say "If you touch anything or anyone with the limb holding the charge." It says "If you touch anything or anyone" PERIOD.
Also you misquoted the Magus FAQ. The word "charge holding hand" doesn't appear in the text at all. You inserted that. It just says if they pick up a weapon with their hand without mentioning whether that hand holds a charge or not.
I could argue that a magus is simply able through force of will and training keep the charge from discharging when he touches a weapon with his hand. That totally eliminates the need for choosing a limb to hold the charge. However, both that explanation and yours are just pure speculation and have no place in a rules discussion.
Rereading this thread and the Magus FAQ, I see that Skylancer is indeed making s+~@ up. Also, the non-Magus rules for holding charges strongly suggest that your entire body is holding the charge.
If I'm making things up, please point me to where I am incorrect. This is the rules forum, I'm here to gain a better grasp of the rules. If am am incorrect due to missing something I would truly appreciate being pointed to it.
Does it explicitly say the charge is held in a hand? No, but all the rules surrounding the subject point to that being the case including the official FAQ for the magus. The system is built on he 3.5 framework, it worked this way previously. And the recent FAQ implies it still does. Just because any number of rules have been changed doesn't mean any and all rules are different now. If that were the case there would be NO backwards compatibility at all with 3.5. And to be completely honest "3.5 has no bearing on PFRPG" is typically the "reason" people give when they have nothing to back them up rules wise in many such arguments that have occurred in the past years.
What do you have to indicate to prove that I'm "indeed making s+~@ up" as you so intelligently, politely and "eloquently" put it? Bedsides your well informed opinion?
Edit: I haven't quoted the FAQ, I read what was shown as quoted in Diego's post that can be seen clearly further up thread. Well if it works they way I'm saying it does, they don't need to mention picking things up with a hand (aka limb) that isn't holding a charge as nothing happens. They only would need to mention it if the hand(aka limb) they are using to hold the charge is used to pick it up as then, it would NORMALLY discharge. If it works as "distributed" charge why would they go into detail about it being a single hand? They could have just as easily saved word count and detail by stating "a magus can pickup and use their weapon without discharging a held charge" period.
If I'm making things up, please point me to where I am incorrect. This is the rules forum, I'm here to gain a better grasp of the rules. If am am incorrect due to missing something I would truly appreciate being pointed to it.Does it explicitly say the charge is held in a hand? No, but all the rules surrounding the subject point to that being the case including the official FAQ for the magus. The system is built on he 3.5 framework, it worked this way previously. And the recent FAQ implies it still does. Just because any number of rules have been changed doesn't mean any and all rules are different now. If that were the case there would be NO backwards compatibility at all with 3.5. And to be completely honest "3.5 has no bearing on PFRPG" is typically the "reason" people give when they have nothing to back them up rules wise in many such arguments that have occurred in the past years.
What do you have to indicate to prove that I'm "indeed making s+~@ up" as you so intelligently, politely and "eloquently" put it? Bedsides your well informed opinion?
How about this:
If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.
Inserting words that do not appear in the text is making stuff up. The words "charge holding hand" do not appear anywhere in the FAQ. So there is a direct quote from you as evidence that you are just making stuff up.
Again you rely on 3.5 which is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't matter how it worked in 3.5 the PFRPG says that when you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge it discharges the spell. Nothing in the rules for non-magus casters implies it doesn't.
If I'm making things up, please point me to where I am incorrect. This is the rules forum, I'm here to gain a better grasp of the rules. If am am incorrect due to missing something I would truly appreciate being pointed to it.Does it explicitly say the charge is held in a hand? No, but all the rules surrounding the subject point to that being the case including the official FAQ for the magus. The system is built on he 3.5 framework, it worked this way previously. And the recent FAQ implies it still does. Just because any number of rules have been changed doesn't mean any and all rules are different now. If that were the case there would be NO backwards compatibility at all with 3.5. And to be completely honest "3.5 has no bearing on PFRPG" is typically the "reason" people give when they have nothing to back them up rules wise in many such arguments that have occurred in the past years.
What do you have to indicate to prove that I'm "indeed making s+~@ up" as you so intelligently, politely and "eloquently" put it? Bedsides your well informed opinion?
How about this:
If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.Inserting words that do not appear in the text is making stuff up. The words "charge holding hand" do not appear anywhere in the FAQ. So there is a direct quote from you as evidence that you are just making stuff up.
Again you rely on 3.5 which is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't matter how it worked in 3.5 the PFRPG says that when you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge it discharges the spell. Nothing in the rules for non-magus casters implies it doesn't.
So we're going to nit pick the wording I used discussing the FAQ? Misquoting an FAQ would be changing the wording and posting it as official quoted material. That is something I didn't do. at worst my reference to the FAQ was badly written. But that is fine as I'm sure you will ignore the fact that if the hand wasn't holding a charge, it wouldn't need to be mentioned and if the whole body was holding the charge they wouldn't have needed to single out that it was being picked up with a hand. They could have made it less detailed and restrictive.
And again 3.5 isn't as completely irrelevant as you keep saying. There are things that have been copied/pasted and work the same as they did. PFRPG isn't in a vacuum. Until Paizo decides to chime in and say one way or another we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject.
|
|
Nowhere is this supported in the rules (unless you can show me where, I don't recall seeing it anywhere).
Are you asking for support or a quote that specifically states this. You will not find the latter, but for the former, when reading the rules about holding charges, the rules about discharging the charge, the faq for Magus, none of them contradict this, so that is what I use to make my decision. The way I see it, works fine within the rules, and like many other rules that don't specifically spell out exact details, it a judgement call.
I made mine. Some of you may like it and agree, some may not.
|
All this makes for interesting reading. And if this could be definitively decided then we might better understand how long someone could reasonable (or by RAW) hold charges from a frostbite spell. Since the duration is instant but the charges are defined as 1/level I have never been sure how long a person, or an animal companion might maintain the spell.
If you are careful not to accentually discharge it, is there a limit to how long the charges will reside with you?
|
|
Be careful what you claim. Are you saying that I can ready an action to touch a cleric when he casts a spell to steal his cure spell?From the PRD "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
For your example the readied action is resolved BEFORE the action that triggers it so you can't steal a spell this way as the spell hasn't been cast yet.
Seriously? Your argument is that I worded my trigger incorrectly? Can't you answer the question intended and not be a jerk? I mean, we're both in agreement that Skylancer4 is making stuff up, but can't you answer the separate question I posed? How about trigger to touch when he has a charge held--are you saying I can steal spells by doing this?