No attack roll should be needed, as the Spell Storing armor can only be activated when the wearer gets hit with a melee weapon or melee touch attack. In essence, the enemy is already touching you. Therefore, you are already touching the enemy.
Keep in mind, the wearer isn't casting the spell, the armor is casting the spell. What is the armor's BAB? What is the armor's strength score?
I think it's clear that no touch attack is needed. After all, the enemy is already touching the armor.
Keep in mind, the wearer isn't casting the spell, the armor is casting the spell. What is the armor's BAB? What is the armor's strength score?
I think it's clear that no touch attack is needed. After all, the enemy is already touching the armor.
so... the armor's swift action is used up then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so... the armor's swift action is used up then?Keep in mind, the wearer isn't casting the spell, the armor is casting the spell. What is the armor's BAB? What is the armor's strength score?
I think it's clear that no touch attack is needed. After all, the enemy is already touching the armor.
That's my favorite part of this terribly-written item.
|
I default to the armor casting the spell as the caster since the only things we do know are the casters stats. I also treat it as the spell. Since touch spells require an attack roll, I follow the rules of the spell and make an attack roll. If the armor simply has to be touched, great. Makes things easier. But is there anything in the rules to support this and not the idea that the touch spell in the armor still has to make an attack roll to hit? The only thing that comes to mind for me is that if the caster of a touch spell touches anything, the spell is discharged. In that respect I can see an argument being made for their not needing to be an attack roll. Aside from that, I am in disagreement, though.
The only thing a touch spell cares about is if you are touching the target. Not all touch spells require an attack roll.
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
If the target hits you in melee, you are touching the target already. There is no need to make an attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was waiting for someone to say that. Glad we can shortcut to the end of that train of thought: Holding a charge is impossible. You're always touching the ground. Or air molecules. Or your clothes.
Auto hits, as an immediate action. CL? Ask your GM for a ruling. RAW is CL 12.
As it specifically calls out a swift action, it's pretty clear that you can't use this outside of your own turn...Auto hits, as an immediate action. CL? Ask your GM for a ruling. RAW is CL 12.
It's a swift immediate action, immediate actions occur outside your turn.
|
RAW, the armor casts the spell. That means if it's a touch spell, the armor needs to make an attack roll using its attributes.
It's silly, but that's what it says. All it would need to say is that the wearer can cast the spell as an immediate action upon being hit with a melee attack or melee touch attack, and it'd be fixed. But it doesn't say that.
That's how I'd houserule it, though. RAI.
As it specifically calls out a swift action, it's pretty clear that you can't use this outside of your own turn...Auto hits, as an immediate action. CL? Ask your GM for a ruling. RAW is CL 12.
As it specifically calls out a swift action, it's pretty clear that the editor was asleep, because it's complete and utter nonsense.
It seems pretty obvious that the intent was "it costs some sort of action", which in context clearly is 1), an immediate action, 2), by the wearer of the armor.
you don't need to roll a melee touch attack against someone already touching you or vice versa, a melee touch attack is to try to touch someone...
Gets into dangerous territory there, since it can also trigger when someone with a weapon attacks you.
Are spells conductive? Can you cast Shocking Grasp, hit a wall, and electrocute the person on the other side?
After all, they're touching something which is touching you, the same logic that says you can swing a sword at a guy, and they count as already touching you so no attack is needed.
Actually, a better example, by that logic someone attacking you when you're holding the charge will set it off.
That's a big can of worms to open up over a poorly written +1 armor ability.
Gets into dangerous territory there, since it can also trigger when someone with a weapon attacks you.
Are spells conductive? Can you cast Shocking Grasp, hit a wall, and electrocute the person on the other side?
After all, they're touching something which is touching you, the same logic that says you can swing a sword at a guy, and they count as already touching you so no attack is needed.
Actually, a better example, by that logic someone attacking you when you're holding the charge will set it off.
That's a big can of worms to open up over a poorly written +1 armor ability.
you cannot use free actions when it is not your turn, the armor lets you use immediate to cast the spell on someone. so no worms opened.
you cannot use free actions when it is not your turn, the armor lets you use immediate to cast the spell on someone. so no worms opened.Gets into dangerous territory there, since it can also trigger when someone with a weapon attacks you.
Are spells conductive? Can you cast Shocking Grasp, hit a wall, and electrocute the person on the other side?
After all, they're touching something which is touching you, the same logic that says you can swing a sword at a guy, and they count as already touching you so no attack is needed.
Actually, a better example, by that logic someone attacking you when you're holding the charge will set it off.
That's a big can of worms to open up over a poorly written +1 armor ability.
Not quite correct. You can take Free actions when you take another action. Since you are casting as an immediate, you can use a Free to deliver it, much like you can use Free action abilities on AoOs.
That example doesn't really work in terms of pathfinder.
In pathfinder the sword your holding is part of "you" so it would transmit if the person with the spell touched it. so it would still fry you and if hte gm is feeling froggy probably bust your blade if it isn't magical. The wall isn't part of either person it's it's own "self" so the spell would discharge there. Well unless you were a magus with a brilliant energy spellstrike but at that pont the wall isn't in play. (that'd also have a weird interaction for imagination with conern to spell armour. But would still work raw)
The defintion of "self and targets" is a bit weird in pathfinder. but it's basically "everything on you is part of you" baring specific abilities that focus target specific aspects
True, but doesn't cover the second example: Whacking someone who is holding the charge automatically discharges it and hits you? I think not.
It's not the same as armour, which is where the spell coming from, which is part of you. zapping the weapon of someone, which is part of them.
The armour enchantment specifically specifies it casts the touch spell upon the person. There doesn't require any sort of attack roll in that. The attack roll has to do with attempting to cast the spell on the target. as per touch spell rules
So, we agree the spell is cast?
Well, CASTING a touch spell does nothing. You must deliver it for it to take effect.
So, the armor is continually holding the charge without being able to do anything with it?
I think not.
It's pretty clear the intent is for the armor wearer to be the one using his actions to cast the spell. The Spell Storing armor is not intelligent or animate, it does not get actions.
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.
not a round, a turn.
not a round, a turn.
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.
That just applies a potential limitation on Free action in a turn. It does not in any way limit Free actions to your turn. While Free actions are generally limited to your turn (like all actions, and backed up by Speaking being an exception to this rule), this:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."
Provides an exception to the general rule.
not a round, a turn.
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.
That just applies a potential limitation on Free action in a turn. It does not in any way limit Free actions to your turn. While Free actions are generally limited to your turn (like all actions, and backed up by Speaking being an exception to this rule), this:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."
Provides an exception to the general rule.
to not being able to use actions at the same time. it does not grant the ability to use them "whenever" you take another action.
The weapon has already made an attack roll, though. It's much like delivering a touch spell with an unarmed strike, Natural Attack, or with Spell Combat.
The armor essentially giving a free attack to the first person you get hit by both rings wrong from a balance perspective, and isn't backed up by any rules.
I don't think there's any other ability in the game that lets you completely bypass the attack roll from something which normally requires it.
Firstly this isn't directly related to holding a charge.. This is directly casting the touch spell on someone; which is what happens when you succed in touching someone ( a successful touch attack). It completes the spell and it is cast on the target. The armour directly says in it's text it casts the spell on the attacker.
Except that's not how touch spells work. Casting the spell merely gives you an attack, that you can then deliver to the target as a Touch Attack with a Free action.
You do not cast Touch spells on a target, you cast a touch spell, and then attack to discharge it on the opponent.
The armor casts the spell, but does not deliver it, which is a prerequisite for it having an effect. And delivering it requires a touch attack.
If you want to go full RAW, the armor property doesn't work at all because of that fact (the armor can't deliver the spell at all. Ignoring again the fact that the armor can't take actions anyway, so the wearer is involved in some capacity already).
Why, then, is it so difficult to believe that Spell-Storing armor works the same way? That contact is established via an attack previously made-- "your target is now touching you, because they just attacked you"-- and thus the spell can be delivered without a new roll?
Because within the rules, a target touching you is VERY different from you touching a target. Touch spells discharge when you touch an enemy. NOT when an enemy touches you. Which is why touch attacks deflected by Crane Style don't go off.
Touch spells do NOT discharge from simple contact, they discharge from you purposefully touching the target.
And is that based on anything BESIDES visualization?
Because it breaks all the rules of touch attacks and touch spells to use your interpretation, and the armor gives no specific exception to those rules that would support this.
And even your visualization has massive holes in it, as you yourself admit.
It could be a shield, it could be a breastplate, or an armored kilt, or any number of other things that don't cover the whole body (which is every armor except Full Plate really).
The weapon has already made an attack roll, though. It's much like delivering a touch spell with an unarmed strike, Natural Attack, or with Spell Combat.
The armor essentially giving a free attack to the first person you get hit by both rings wrong from a balance perspective, and isn't backed up by any rules.
I don't think there's any other ability in the game that lets you completely bypass the attack roll from something which normally requires it.
weapon says you cast it AFTER you strike, just like you cast it AFTER your struck, attack roll or no attack roll, there is nothing different in their effect only execution.
I'll concede that point then. You can deliver the spell with a weapon as well then, as a separate action.
Like any other ability in the game that do unique things.Because it breaks all the rules of touch attacks and touch spells to use your interpretation,...
Except all of those have specific exceptions that allow it. Not "it does this thing which follows these rules" and then nothing else.
|
|
What we know is this:
The armor casts the spell.
The spell is a touch spell.
You must be hit by a melee or natural attack to trigger the casting.
The spell is cast as an immediate action.
Immediate action: we know how this works. Moving on.
Must be hit by melee/natural: Self explanatory.
Spell must be touch: So it follows the rules of touch spells so far and the particular one used.
The armor casts the spell: somewhat ambiguous but we can default to armor caster level and spells cast from magic item rules. Gm adjudication may be required.
What this all means is that when the wearer of the armor is hit with a melee or natural attack, the armor casts a touch spell that was previously cast into it and the target of the touch attack is the one hitting the armors wearer.
Casting a touch spell, as rynjin has said, does nothing by itself. You still make attack rolls to discharge touch spells. The armor ability says nothing about eliminating how the spell works. People are trying to get overly analytical here.
Arguing that a melee attack touching the armor discharged the touch spell is like saying that every time a caster with a familiar on his shoulder casts a touch spell, his familiar dies.
Every time an ally taps your shoulder or elbows you, that ghoul touch goes off.
That casting a touch spell while grappled or in a swarm automatically discharges it without you getting to pick any adjacent targets to touch.
You are also saying that the armor cannot score a critical hit with it's touch spell even though touch spells can clearly do so- but an attack roll is required.
Your arguments are not sound and are not supported within either the context of this debate or the rules of the game. The armor requires an attack roll. This is probably to your statistical advantage as it is a touch attack so is likely to hit and each trigger is a 5-10% chance to threaten a crit which is likely to be confirmed. There is your advantage.
You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
please note the lack of "needs to roll an attack against touch AC"
you seriously only need to be touching someone, if someone is already touching you, no roll is needed.
Who said the enemy was touching you when the spell goes off? All it says is that you take an immediate action in response to being hit: nothing says it happens the instant the enemy attack is connecting. By your logic you don't need to make attacks with a touch spell at all.
you need to make a melee touch attack to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched.
if someone is dragging you along by the hand, you can cast a touch spell and electrocute him with no roll.
also, it's just melee attacks and natural attacks, i don't see a problem with the touching, except maybe with a brilliant energy weapon(or what ever it is called).
|
|
Right, but just touching someone is a free action. We don't have rules for touching someone that doesn't want to be touched. Spells have a specific requirement that says that touch spells make touch attacks.
I think I need an adult.
Now I agree COMPLETELY that the idea is that the spell is automatically discharged on the attacking enemy, without an attack roll, and that's probably how I'd rule it in a home game. I just don't think that's what the RAW says, even if it is RAI.
Arguing that a melee attack touching the armor discharged the touch spell is like saying that every time a caster with a familiar on his shoulder casts a touch spell, his familiar dies.it does not because the armor ability said the spell is casted on the creature thea hited the werer not on the wearer to hold hte charge.
Ooh, ooh, does that mean I get to deliver the touch spell next time?
Since if it's casting the spell on me, that means I'm the one who can deliver the touch spell.
Who said the enemy was touching you when the spell goes off? All it says is that you take an immediate action in response to being hit: nothing says it happens the instant the enemy attack is connecting. By your logic you don't need to make attacks with a touch spell at all.Isn't that what the word "immediate" means?
Immediate actions still take time. They're not like AoOs which take place before the triggering action.