immediate actions are the only spell you can cast with falling, without having to fall additional distance. aka feather fall, it is in essence immediate, with so little time required that it is effectively instantaneous.
swift actions still have you fall down the time for your turn.
The difference between swift and immediate actions isn't a question of how long the actions take, it's a question of your reaction time and whether you can act right a way or wait until you can respond to a sudden event. Since it's magic armor, it can release a spell as an immediate action, without having to worry about how fast it can react to someone attacking you. It's not effectively instantaneous in terms of how long it takes, because you can only perform one immediate action per round.
yeah i imagine an immediate action applies an effect immediately but the rebound takes some time.
|
Hey, after all this discussion of spell storing armor, please give your opinion about whether this is legal:
Obviously the armor will never cast the spell when hit by an enemy.
Legitimate? Would the ally need to strike you for damage, or is a touch attack sufficient?
Can you touch yourself (as a Standard Action)?
Can an ally target you with an AoO to strike you and receive the cure? E.g. You move past a wounded ally, theoretically provking an AoO they would not normally take because you are allies, so they swipe you on the way past to be healed.
Opinions?
Yes, immediate actions take time. However, so does hitting a creature. There is a finite amount of time when their weapon is in contact with you. During this time, your armor can cast a touch spell. This does not need to be "in response to being hit," this is an immediate action and "can be performed at any time." The armor ability description narrows this down to "anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack." So, while the creatures weapon is touching you and your armor, the armor casts a touch spell as an immediate action if you want it to.
No. It can cast the spell as an Immediate upon the wearer being hit with a melee attack. There is nothing there, implied or otherwise, about the spell going off at the same instant the weapon is still touching you.
According to the Core Rulebook, "the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect."
Selective reading does you no favors.
This is the IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING sentence: "(either ranged or melee)."
And arguing that only their weapons are touching you is meaningless. As someone already pointed out, touching anything someone is holding or wearing counts as touching them.
I can't find this rule anywhere, mind quoting it for me?
That's why you can still cast touch spells on someone using a tower shield for total cover, and that's why touch attacks ignore armor and shield bonuses in the first place.
No, you can't. You can't make attacks against someone with total cover. Says so right in the Cover rules in the Combat section. A touch spell is only delivered by an attack, either melee or ranged. You therefore cannot deliver touch attacks against someone using a tower shield for cover.
You and your armor are touching their weapon. While this is happening, your armor can cast a spell on them. It takes an immediate action. That's all.
You say this, but it's not based on anything in the rules. At all.
There are 2 different errors just in those two sentences.
1.) Touch attacks are not delivered by an opponent touching you, ever. Their weapon touching you is irrelevant.
2.) Your armor casting the touch spell on them just gives them an extra weapon to smack you with. Well, actually, this is just supposition since technically touch spells aren't cast on the caster either, they're merely cast and then delivered. SO what would really happen is that the spell would just fizzle, probably, since Touch spells don't work like Targeted spells. A touch spell must be delivered after being cast, simply casting it has no effect.
The only correct part of this is that it does, in fact, take an Immediate action. But I guess 1/3 ain't bad.
In fact, if the unarmed strike roll of your ally ends up being somewhere between your touch AC and your AC, then they would hit your armor (activating the spell), but not deal any damage to you. That could be useful.
This is also not a rule.
The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding.
this is what he meant with the tower shield.
1.) Touch attacks are not delivered by an opponent touching you, ever. Their weapon touching you is irrelevant.2.) Your armor casting the touch spell on them just gives them an extra weapon to smack you with. Well, actually, this is just supposition since technically touch spells aren't cast on the caster either, they're merely cast and then delivered. SO what would really happen is that the spell would just fizzle, probably, since Touch spells don't work like Targeted spells. A touch spell must be delivered after being cast, simply casting it has no effect.
this is because as mentioned, you can never discharge the spell as an immediate action in normal circumstances(only with this armor it seems).
and you still haven't shown how the weapon version is different. it has the exact same wording as the armor. so either an additional roll on weapon touch, or no roll on armor touch.
Not sure it's as simple as one working one way so the other does too. Plus, it doesn't have the same wording as the weapon anyway.
What I'm saying is that there's no rule that allows the armor to cast a touch spell with no attack roll, and plenty of things that say nay to it.
And that's disregarding all the other terribly worded portions of the ability (it uses the armor's Immediate action?).
The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding.this is what he meant with the tower shield.
Touch spells are not targeted spells.
At least not in the same way. They must still be delivered by a touch attack, and people with Total Cover can't be targeted by attacks.
|
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.
I like how you ignored the conditions of the actual spells being cast. Pretty convenient for your argument. Because, you know, all of those offensive touch spells which don't require attack rolls in their text are relevant. Oh wait...
Also, because the arguments are now starting to get rather ridiculous I am inclined to agree with rynjin here and just let you all have it your way:
The armor doesn't require an attack roll; you guys are absolutely right. It just cast whatever cool touch spell on the guy hitting you so that now they have the charge to use against you in subsequent rounds.
If you want to argue silly and argue to win rather than to be right or at least try to be right, then I think it is only fair to argue back with equal or greater sillyness by taking your arguments further down the rabbit hole.
Shall we get more shovels and keep digging or would some of you like to resume something at least akin to a rational debate? Ignoring common sense, using the touch rules without considering how any of the printed touch spells work, ignoring precedent and plying what is clearly either a house rule or personal preference as raw is making me feel like this thread is forgetting what forum it is in.
I could have swore it said rules and not homebrew/general discussion/personal opinions.
There's also no rule that allows a weapon to cast a touch spell with no attack roll, and all the same things that say nay to it.
Yes. What's your point?
I did say, after looking into it more, that the weapon (as per RAW, anyway...well RAW assuming the RAI is not that the weapon gives your enemy another weapon to use against you) would require a new roll to deliver.
|
|
Do you believe Spell-Storing weapons require an attack roll (after meeting the condition to discharge the spell), or just armor?
The wording on spell storing weapons is different than on spell storing armor. With regards to non-touch spells, the weapon simply casts the spell on the target and the spell functions like it normally would.
If it was a touch spell cast in the weapon I would default to the normal rules for the touch spell, which is an attack roll. My monk uses scorching ray in his spell storing Bodywraps. On a successful hit, he discharges the ray and rolls a ranged touch attack to hit his target.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
What I'm saying is that there's no rule that allows the armor to cast a touch spell with no attack roll, and plenty of things that say nay to it.
I'm just going to glaze over the fact you think trying to touch someone and trying to make a ranged touch are not both targeting.
specifically the weapon casts the spell AFTER you make contact, so it can't use previous attempts like someone hitting your armor or you hitting someone elses armor. so I'm going to bring up once again, where you think the weapon is different than the armor other than the trigger event.
also
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance of having a spell stored in it already. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
apparently can't cast melee touch spells into it. (because they're not targeting)
other bolded part for the "worded the same" part.
This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift immediate action if the wearer desires. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. The armor magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it.
the words in relation into how the spells are used on the target.
also, this is the entirety of the section on touch spells in the range portion of the magic section.
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.
nothing about 100% needing a roll.
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
apparently can't cast melee touch spells into it. (because they're not targeting)
They are targeted (Target: Creature Touched) but require an attack roll. Total Cover means you can't be targeted by melee or ranged attacks, which Touch spells are. Seems to me that if the Shied wasn't supposed to protect you from spells, it would simply say "the shield doesn't block spells" instead of only targeted spells.
But like I said, it's also oddly worded. Could be the intent is you only get the Cover bonus versus Area spells (which is retarded, but so are a lot of things pertaining to magic).
also, this is the entirety of the section on touch spells in the range portion of the magic section.
nothing about 100% needing a roll.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.
Check the Combat section.
[Responding to Rynjin's earlier post]
Let's go through these one at a time, shall we?
1."Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires."
This is a quote from the ability description. It does not say "upon the wearer being hit by a melee attack."
They are the same thing. If I hit you, you get hit. That's just how the English language works. Being pedantic here doesn't really change anything.
The normal time frame for using an immediate action is "any time." This narrows it down to "anytime a creature hits the wearer," or any time in which the wearer is being hit. Therefore, the time in which the armor casts the spell is the time that the wearer is being hit. They happen at the same time, or at least overlap.
Yes, nobody is disputing this.
However, you seem to be conflating this with "The spell is also delivered at the same time, requiring no roll" which is an entirely different matter.
2.The attacker must make a touch attack roll if they are the one attempting to initiate contact. In this case, the attack or touch attack roll to initiate contact came from the creature attacking the wearer, and contact was already made, without requiring a second roll.
Source? I've cited all the rules supporting my case.
There's nothing in the rules that states this.
Touch spells grant a touch attack. Touch attacks require an attack roll. Period.
You can complain all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you are in contact with a creature (normally with your hands, but in this case it comes from the armor) and are currently capable of taking an action that casts and an action that delivers a touch spell, you can target the creature with the touch spell.
You seem to be confusing "complaining" with "stating facts".
I'm doing the latter.
This is the Rules forum, not the "State my opinion and hope nobody actually brings silly things like rules text into it".
3. No, I wouldn't mind at all. In fact, I'm surprised you didn't find it , what with your talk about the dangers of selective reading. It's right in front of the section that we both quoted:
"Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor-the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect."
This clearly shows that you "need only touch a foe" and "disregard armor, including shields. This means that if you touch a foes armor or shield, it delivers the touch spell as if you had touched the foe. If this was not the case, someone's armor and shield bonus would work against a touch spell. And there's no reason why touching a square piece of metal someone is holding would have any different effect than touching an oblong piece of metal someone is holding. If any intervening object that you wear or carry protected you, than a character could protect themselves entirely from touch spells by wrapping themselves in an extremely thin cloth with eye holes. Sound reasonable to you?
You are again pulling things out of context and hoping nobody will call you on it.
Touch attacks attack touch AC. Yes, this is not in question. They can trigger from contact with the opponent, regardless of armor or shield status IF YOU MAKE THE ATTACK ROLL.
You're also putting words in my mouth, which I don't appreciate.
I at no point said or suggested that armor or any other object protected you from touch spells.
What I did say, however, is that there is no rule (as you claim) that says a person's armor and weapons count as that person. Which is true.
If it were true, attacking an opponent would damage their weapon or armor directly (instead of requiring a Sunder check). This is obviously not the case.
5. Touch attacks normally are not delivered by an opponent touching you because they are free actions, which normally can't be triggered by anything at all when it isn't your turn. If you wanted to spend the standard action, you could ready a free action to touch any object that comes in contact with your hand. In this case you are given an immediate action to cast the spell whenever someone hits you with a weapon, and "you can perform one or more free actions when taking another action normally." If you want to be literal about it, you're casting a spell on them by taking a free action to touch them that was triggered by their attack. It just happens to be a lot easier to touch them when you're already in contact with them. (well, the armor that's casting the spell is)
You're again extrapolating from nothing.
You're starting with an end goal (the armor MUST be able to bypass the attack roll) and coming up with convoluted, non-rules based explanations to justify it.
That's not how this works. You use the rules to reach an unbiased conclusion as best as possible.
There is no unbiased way to read the rules that comes to the conclusion you desire. There isn't even a biased way to read them. They simply can't be read in any way that comes to the same conclusion you have come to.
In this case, you've taken a logical leap from "it takes a Free action to deliver a touch spell, which requires an attack roll" (which is rules) to "if someone makes contact with you you can use that Free action to bypass the attack roll" (which is not rules).
I guess 0/5 ain't bad.
4/5 at worst.
80% is a passing grade I can live with.
|
|
@Avoron
Just because touch spells ignore armor doesn't mean that they also ignore their spell descriptions or the various rules sections depicting how they work (you make an attack roll). Believe me, if I knew that the rules supported me not having to make one, I would be quite happy. I am a bit of a munchkin. But nowhere do I see any rules for touch spells that would let me ignore the attack roll portion of the spell effect. You have not proven your point through the use of the rules. You have demonstrated no fact as referencable from the rules to support your claim. Show me some proof please, that touch spells do not require attack rolls or that when casting a touch spell you automatically inflict the effect without following all of the rules of the touch spell or touch spells in general. Barring specific instances from specific abilities that call out the exceptions to the normal rules, I think you will find your argument is not raw.
Spell storing armor allows you to cast a touch spell as an immediate action, breaking the normal rules for any given touch spell. It does not, however, allow you to ignore other rules for touch spells in general or the touch spell you are specifically using.
Touch spells are not targeted spells.
They are targeted (Target: Creature Touched) but require an attack roll.
apparently can't cast melee touch spells into it. (because they're not targeting)
so pickle me confused, which is it?
also, this is the entirety of the section on touch spells in the range portion of the magic section.
nothing about 100% needing a roll.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.
Check the Combat section.
yeah, so i'm going to say the magic section has more precedent for what is true or not for magic, than the combat section.
remember, not all touch spells are hostile, and thus don't necessitate a roll unless the target is trying to not be touched(this is an unwritten rule, but feel free to try to roll touch attacks to heal friends with cure light wounds).
thus someone already in contact with the PC do not in fact need to make rolls.
But nowhere do I see any rules for touch spells that would let me ignore the attack roll portion of the spell effect.
you know, the party of the magic section that for a touch spell to hit something all it needs to do is touch that something. touch rolls are what you make to try to touch someone who is trying to dodge you.
if you already are touching someone, or the person is not attempting to dodge you/is not in combat, there is no reason to make an attack roll.
You're again extrapolating from nothing.
You're starting with an end goal (the armor MUST be able to bypass the attack roll) and coming up with convoluted, non-rules based explanations to justify it.
That's not how this works. You use the rules to reach an unbiased conclusion as best as possible.
There is no unbiased way to read the rules that comes to the conclusion you desire. There isn't even a biased way to read them. They simply can't be read in any way that comes to the same conclusion you have come to.
In this case, you've taken a logical leap from "it takes a Free action to deliver a touch spell, which requires an attack roll" (which is rules) to "if someone makes contact with you you can use that Free action to bypass the attack roll" (which is not rules).
except your also ignoring the rules that explain physically how the touch spell works. you don't need to make a touch attack roll to touch a wall in front of you. you don't need to roll a touch attack roll to touch something your holding, and you definitely don't need to roll to touch something holding onto you.
I don't even understand the last sentence paragraph. he said he's readying as a standard action (to perform a free action) to cast his touch spell on the next thing that touches his hand. this isn't against the rules. he simply needs to touch something, if something touches him he can use the free action he saved via the standard action to ready.
seriously, explain why i must roll to touch something i am already in contact with? the rules specifically say that you need to touch something to effect something with a touch spell, which you are already doing.
"Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires."
It says it casts that spell on the creature. If it simply cast a touch spell, you could use the spell on anyone, hold the charge, etc.
It seems to me the touch spell immediately connects, in the same way that if you drink a potion with a touch spell in it, neither you nor the potion bottle have to make an attack roll.
Why would the item need to work with touch spells and only be triggered by physical contact if it wasn't designed to take advantage of the physical contact to automatically hit targets?
"Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires."
It says it casts that spell on the creature. If it simply cast a touch spell, you could use the spell on anyone, hold the charge, etc.
It seems to me the touch spell immediately connects, in the same way that if you drink a potion with a touch spell in it, neither you nor the potion bottle have to make an attack roll.
Why would the item need to work with touch spells and only be triggered by physical contact if it wasn't designed to take advantage of the physical contact to automatically hit targets?
and what, do you have to get hit and then bump your shoulder into the target?
Touch spells are not targeted spells.
so pickle me confused, which is it?They are targeted (Target: Creature Touched) but require an attack roll.
apparently can't cast melee touch spells into it. (because they're not targeting)
Quote the whole thing: "At least not in the same way. They must still be delivered by a touch attack, and people with Total Cover can't be targeted by attacks."
Plus, I've already conceded this point. You're probably right, on a second inspection.
yeah, so i'm going to say the magic section has more precedent for what is true or not for magic, than the combat section.
Which takes us right back to you only selectively picking which rules you want to follow. Which isn't how the game works.
remember, not all touch spells are hostile, and thus don't necessitate a roll unless the target is trying to not be touched(this is an unwritten rule, but feel free to try to roll touch attacks to heal friends with cure light wounds).
thus someone already in contact with the PC do not in fact need to make rolls.
And, again, extrapolating from nothing. If we're talking unwritten rules, it's far more likely that someone can simply choose to get hit (much like foregoing a Saving Throw), which is at least extrapolating from another similar rule (declaring yourself a willing target).
Plus this: "feel free to try to roll touch attacks to heal friends with cure light wounds"
Is a good example that proves my point. Cure Light Wounds is a Touch spell...but is not a touch ATTACK unless used against an unwilling target.
Remember: "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round."
Which gives a fairly clear definition of attack: An attempt to strike your OPPONENT.
Willing targets are not opponents, meaning there's no rules contradiction between touch spells requiring attack rolls to hit enemies (making them touch ATTACKS, against an opponent, necessitating an attack roll) and not requiring an attack roll to hit someone who is not your opponent (a prerequisite for an attack roll being required).
Which marks another nail in the coffin for the Spell Storing armor not requiring an attack roll.
There is simply NOTHING within the actual rules of the game that supports that interpretation.
except your also ignoring the rules that explain physically how the touch spell works. you don't need to make a touch attack roll to touch a wall in front of you.
You do not.
However, you do need an attack roll to ATTACK the wall. Objects have an Armor Class. There are rules for attacking objects.
you don't need to roll a touch attack roll to touch something your holding
Again, objects are not characters, and generally aren't opponents.
They follow the rules for objects, which are simply things. Holding an object is covered by the rules for picking up objects (requires a Move action, frex, for most things).
But if you were trying to attack said object, yes you would.
and you definitely don't need to roll to touch something holding onto you.
You do if they're trying not to be touched by you.
Unless you're also suggesting Touch spells automatically hit in a Grapple too?
I mean, we already have rules stating that not everything that touches you discharges a spell:
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.
So why is it so hard to accept that someone touching you doesn't automatically mean the spell succeeds?
I don't even understand the last sentence paragraph. he said he's readying as a standard action (to perform a free action) to cast his touch spell on the next thing that touches his hand. this isn't against the rules. he simply needs to touch something, if something touches him he can use the free action he saved via the standard action to ready.
Which still requires an attack roll.
seriously, explain why i must roll to touch something i am already in contact with? the rules specifically say that you need to touch something to effect something with a touch spell, which you are already doing.
They also SPECIFICALLY SAY you need an ATTACK ROLL to touch an OPPONENT with your TOUCH ATTACK but you conveniently ignore that fact because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion.
And, again, extrapolating from nothing. If we're talking unwritten rules, it's far more likely that someone can simply choose to get hit (much like foregoing a Saving Throw), which is at least extrapolating from another similar rule (declaring yourself a willing target).
Plus this: "feel free to try to roll touch attacks to heal friends with cure light wounds"
Is a good example that proves my point. Cure Light Wounds is a Touch spell...but is not a touch ATTACK unless used against an unwilling target.
Remember: "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round."
Which gives a fairly clear definition of attack: An attempt to strike your OPPONENT.
Willing targets are not opponents, meaning there's no rules contradiction between touch spells requiring...
you haven't gotten into enough RAW fights to know the importance and amount of unwritten rules. like not being able to fight with 3 swords because your holding one in your teeth. somethings aren't written because they're too freaking obvious.
in the magic section, there isn't a distinction between touch and touch attack spells. I'm not ignoring the combat section, just ignoring the part that doesn't apply, trying to actively touch someone(because you're not). the combat section doesn't overwrite the magic section just as much as the versa.
the bit on "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round" pretty clearly demonstrates that the armor doesn't need a roll, as your already struck and thus able to have the spell channel into the opponent. aka, if your already in contact, why would you attempt to touch him further?
if your already in the tiny fraction of time where your striking an opponent, you can discharge the spell. you do not need to make an additional attack.
in essence, the combat section is correct and RAW, but isn't the most prudent choice of sections to cite, as the real issue is whether or not you need to be touching something (which the armor definitely is doing) for a touch spell to discharge, and that seems to be, yes, you can.
i feel at this moment, i should add i feel RAI is more a rule than RAW. thus i am prone to arguing RAI, and i'm pretty suret he RAI for spell storing armor, is no attack roll. (this is apart from my other arguments)
Oh, I know all about the unwritten rules. They're all things which none of us would be able to determine (I can't count on my metaphorical hands the number of times they made no sense within the rules as written through any interpretation), so there's no point in arguing about them.
There's an equal chance of you or I being right or the armor only working under a blue moon when a quark plays the saxophone because Jason Buhlman was drunk when he went on the forums that day, so falling back on that is pointless.
What we have is the RAW, FAQs, and Dev quotes.
So far, RAW and FAQs disagree with you, and I've seen no contrary dev quotes.
So, ball's in your court. You have yet to serve back anything worthwhile.
Oh, I know all about the unwritten rules. They're all things which none of us would be able to determine (I can't count on my metaphorical hands the number of times they made no sense within the rules as written through any interpretation), so there's no point in arguing about them.
There's an equal chance of you or I being right or the armor only working under a blue moon when a quark plays the saxophone because Jason Buhlman was drunk when he went on the forums that day, so falling back on that is pointless.
What we have is the RAW, FAQs, and Dev quotes.
So far, RAW and FAQs disagree with you, and I've seen no contrary dev quotes.
So, ball's in your court. You have yet to serve back anything worthwhile.
as i've read the RAW they strongly disagree with you, because it no where suggests that attack rolls do anything more than allow you to strike the opponent. which is all that the touch spells needs to release it's effect.
YOU in fact have done nothing to support that you ignore the magic section that the only thing a touch spell needs is contact.
A touch spell needs contact.
You need an attack roll to make contact with a touch attack.
Touch spells used to attack are touch attacks.
Ergo, they require an attack roll.
This is not rocket science, and is exactly what the rules say. Simply because they're in two separate parts of the rulebook doesn't mean you can ignore one or the other. All of the rules work together (except the ones that don't).
A touch spell needs contact.
You need an attack roll to make contact with a touch attack.
Touch spells used to attack are touch attacks.
Ergo, they require an attack roll.
This is not rocket science, and is exactly what the rules say. Simply because they're in two separate parts of the rulebook doesn't mean you can ignore one or the other. All of the rules work together (except the ones that don't).
and if you're already at the point where you have contact, you don't roll, why? because you already succeeded in touching the creature.
ergo, they don't require an attack roll when your already touching.
this is not rocket science, and is exactly what the rules say, simply because they're in two separate parts of the rulebook doesn't mean you can ignore one or the other. All of the rules work together (except the ones that don't).
this works perfectly well from my point of view btw. no stretch of the imagination was needed by me.
Cute, but wrong, since you're ignoring a rule in your favor.
Let's go with your interpretation for a moment.
Caster gets Grappled? No problem. He can just whip out a Calcific Touch! No attack roll, no save, 1d4 Dex damage a round, every round!
A caster can now ready an action to do the same thing to any creature that attacks it! Good job, negate the downside of that low BaB entirely!
That's bumf%~& stupid. Thankfully it's not the rules so we don't have to worry about it.
actually your ignoring the magic section(in your favor, up until now i've been trying to ignore insults but you keep bringing it up as if it enforces your point, ignorant of your own actions, I've explained that your are not in fact attempting to strike a foe as he is already in contact and thus the combat section's rules don't apply to this circumstance), which outright says the arbiter for applying a touch spell is in fact touch.
grapples apply problems to concentration checks, but i still feel this is fine by raw and balance.
if he cast the spell, and then didn't try to touch you and then spent the next turn doing nothing, i'm pretty sure that also balances the act, as you can probably at this point realize what he is doing, and you can react accordingly.
such as something that would prevent him from taking actions, like a throat punch.
but please we aren't arguing balance were arguing the rules on touch attacks.
Except I'm not ignoring anything.
The magic rules say what (touch is needed). The Combat rules say HOW (in combat, you need an attack roll). It's that simple.
such as something that would prevent him from taking actions, like a throat punch.
Not sure if you're aware, so I'll point it out, targeting a specific body part has no effect under the rules either.
Not sure if you're aware, so I'll point it out, targeting a specific body part has no effect under the rules either.
Yes, I'm sure.
Yes, I'm sure.
Yes, I'm sure.
forgot it was third party feat, so that's my fault.
LazarX, there is both spell storing for armor and weapons. Weapons you can cast the spell as a free action when you damage a creature from hitting it with the weapon. Weapons are limited to melee weapons.
Armor is a swift (clarified to immediate) action to cast the spell when you are hit by an attack.
I have a slightly different question, could you have a spell storing dagger; and throw it to trigger the stored spell assuming you hit? Daggers are a melee weapon, but they can be thrown.
could you have a spell storing dagger; and throw it to trigger the stored spell assuming you hit? Daggers are a melee weapon, but they can be thrown.
As a DM, I would not allow that because the dagger is not in your possession at the instant of impact for you to spend a free action on. However, I could see other DMs ruling differently.
EDIT: I'd say that melee only enchantments on a weapon don't function when that weapon is used as a ranged weapon, and vice-versa.
if it's a melee only enhancement, then i'd probably say it doesn't work with ranged attacks just for that reason alone.
if it's a melee only enhancement, then i'd probably say it doesn't work with ranged attacks just for that reason alone.
\
"Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case their enhancement bonuses apply to both melee and ranged attacks."
if it's a melee only enhancement, then i'd probably say it doesn't work with ranged attacks just for that reason alone.\
"Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case their enhancement bonuses apply to both melee and ranged attacks."
Spell Storing is not an enhancement bonus.