| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Targets creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage + 1 point per level, and the target is fatigued. The fatigued condition ends when the target recovers from the nonlethal damage. This spell cannot make a creature exhausted even if it is already fatigued. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.
This spell lists a singular Target, yet the text talks about affecting multiple targets. It refers to a range of touch, but the text is for a personal spell. The duration is instantaneous, yet the effects persist for a number of attacks. The wording contradicts itself.
/cevah
ps: Based on questions raised here: Shocking Grasp vs Frostbite
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell says "Your melee touch attack...". That's you. You can only cast this on yourself, then you touch the targets.
It might be more clear if it had listed Range: Personal but it didn't, so that part is weird, but clearly the spell gives you a cold melee touch attack and you can only use that touch attack against "creature touched".
It's instantaneous because if it had a duration, it could be dispelled or interrupted. So you cast it on yourself with an instant duration, but you get a number of touch attacks up to one/level. So if you are 4th level, you get 4 touch attacks. If you dual wield and have iterative attacks and/or Haste, you might use all of your 4 attacks in just one round. Or you might only hit one guy every 3 rounds so your 4 attacks might last for a dozen rounds. Or whatever. But there is no ongoing spell effect to suppress or dispel because it was instantaneous.
I hope that clears it up.
I suspect (by analogy to similar duration'd touch-buffs such as rusting grasp) that the RAI should look like this:
School: TR [cold]; Lv druid 1, magus 1, witch 1
CT: 1 standard action
Comp: VS
Range: touch
Target: creature touched
Duration: see text
Save: no SR: yes
Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 nonlethal cold damage + 1 per caster level, and the target becomes fatigued. This fatigued condition ends when the target recovers from this nonlethal damage. This spell cannot make a creature exhausted even if it is already fatigued.
The spell lasts for 1 round per level, and you can make one melee touch attack per round.
-----
The duration needs to be "see text" because if it were 1 round per level, that'd be saying something about the spell's effect on the target (ie, the duration of the fatigue,) not how long you can hold the charge.
|
You can hold the charge on spells with instantaneous duration, for example Shocking Grasp or Chill Touch - also multi-touch but obviously not to be used as a buff.
From the other thread:
Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal).Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage + 1 point per level, and the target is fatigued.[/b] The fatigued condition ends when the target recovers from the nonlethal damage. This spell cannot make a creature exhausted even if it is already fatigued. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.Frostbite's wording is more similar to shocking grasp than to elemental touch, the latter being a spell that clearly acts as a buff granting a touch attack rather than a touch spell.Upon completing the casting of this spell, elemental energy infuses your hands.
Choose an energy type: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. You gain a melee touch attack causing 1d6 points of damage of that energy type, along with a special effect described below. You also deal energy damage and the related special effect when you attack with your hands using an unarmed strike, a single claw, or a single slam attack. This bonus damage can never apply to multiple weapons.
|
The spell says "Your melee touch attack...". That's you. You can only cast this on yourself, then you touch the targets.
It might be more clear if it had listed Range: Personal but it didn't, so that part is weird, but clearly the spell gives you a cold melee touch attack and you can only use that touch attack against "creature touched".
It's instantaneous because if it had a duration, it could be dispelled or interrupted. So you cast it on yourself with an instant duration, but you get a number of touch attacks up to one/level. So if you are 4th level, you get 4 touch attacks. If you dual wield and have iterative attacks and/or Haste, you might use all of your 4 attacks in just one round. Or you might only hit one guy every 3 rounds so your 4 attacks might last for a dozen rounds. Or whatever. But there is no ongoing spell effect to suppress or dispel because it was instantaneous.
I hope that clears it up.
You can do that trick with iterative attacks only if you are a magus with spellstrike or you if you are using unarmed attacks and/or natural attacks. And you would target normal AC, not touch AC.
You can do that trick with iterative attacks only if you are a magus with spellstrike or you if you are using unarmed attacks and/or natural attacks. And you would target normal AC, not touch AC.The spell says "Your melee touch attack...". That's you. You can only cast this on yourself, then you touch the targets.
It might be more clear if it had listed Range: Personal but it didn't, so that part is weird, but clearly the spell gives you a cold melee touch attack and you can only use that touch attack against "creature touched".
It's instantaneous because if it had a duration, it could be dispelled or interrupted. So you cast it on yourself with an instant duration, but you get a number of touch attacks up to one/level. So if you are 4th level, you get 4 touch attacks. If you dual wield and have iterative attacks and/or Haste, you might use all of your 4 attacks in just one round. Or you might only hit one guy every 3 rounds so your 4 attacks might last for a dozen rounds. Or whatever. But there is no ongoing spell effect to suppress or dispel because it was instantaneous.
I hope that clears it up.
A magus or a Bladebound Arcanist with Spellstrike.
Yeah, even though we have all these categories to describe the spells, these ones, like Frostbite and Chill Touch, manage to fall outside the expected possible effects these categories can describe clearly.
It would be great if they could find a better way to write these, even if it's all "Range: See Text; Target: See Text".
I think Range could be written as "Range: Personal & Touch". This way it would be clear that you can't use it to buff someone else and that the offense part is a touch attack, and if someone want to interpret it as a spell that you can only harm yourself, let them.
The spell says "Your melee touch attack...". That's you. You can only cast this on yourself, then you touch the targets.
It might be more clear if it had listed Range: Personal but it didn't, so that part is weird, but clearly the spell gives you a cold melee touch attack and you can only use that touch attack against "creature touched".
If touch spells had range: personal, then they couldn't interact with Reach Spell - which is pretty much the purpose of that MM feat. It would also cause weird interactions with spell storing weapons (which can't cast personal-range spells.)
It'd also mean that the spell's stat block would be relative to you (not your target,) and we would need to specifically describe in the spell's text whether the discharge allows save and SR. (It happens for saves anyway, but...)
Instead, touch spells describe their effect relative to the target and have a range of touch, while acknowleding that the underlying mechanic is that you're making a pie of spell-effect in your hand and trying to smash it into your target's face until you succeed.
It's instantaneous because if it had a duration, it could be dispelled or interrupted. So you cast it on yourself with an instant duration, but you get a number of touch attacks up to one/level.
It's instantaneous because the effect (deal damage, add status: Fatigued) is instantaneous; while this Fatigued has a pseudo-duration of "as long as this spell's damage is on the target," it's not subject to dispelling as a durationed effect (such as touch of fatigue) would be. Consider rusting grasp and touch of idiocy.
With RG, you get one slap per round and one round per level; each slap deals instant damage to a metallic creature (such as an iron golem.) The duration is "see text" because it has to address both; if it could only discharge once, then it would be "instantaneous" because the damage is.
With ToI, the duration is 10 min / level. This doesn't mean that you gain a buff for that long, that lets you slap people silly; it means that you get one slap, that lets you slap someone silly for that long.
And if you're holding a charge, the charge has an implied duration of "permanent until discharged or you cast another spell." As such, it can be suppressed or dispelled.
The spell lists multiple targets. "Targets: Creature touched" very clearly has a plural word in it.
You've hit that point multiple times now, but I don't know how you can read "Targets" as anything but a plural (contrast Shocking Grasp, which has a singular Target).
In fact, in the other thread you quoted both Frostbite and Chill Touch and seemed to believe they worked differently... based on the Targets line. Which is plural for both.
I'm also going to say again:
If Frostbite works by touching a target, thereby granting them the ability to touch a second target to deliver the effects of the spell, why does Haste not work by touching a target, thereby granting them the ability to touch a second target to deliver the effects of the spell?
"Targets: Creature touched" very clearly has a plural singular word in it.
Is it singular or plural?
Chill touch has:
"Targets creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)"
This is clealy plural.
Frostbite lacks "or creatures", so is singular.
/cevah
The spell lists multiple targets. "Targets: Creature touched" very clearly has a plural word in it.
You've hit that point multiple times now, but I don't know how you can read "Targets" as anything but a plural (contrast Shocking Grasp, which has a singular Target).
In fact, in the other thread you quoted both Frostbite and Chill Touch and seemed to believe they worked differently... based on the Targets line. Which is plural for both.
I'm also going to say again:
If Frostbite works by touching a target, thereby granting them the ability to touch a second target to deliver the effects of the spell, why does Haste not work by touching a target, thereby granting them the ability to touch a second target to deliver the effects of the spell?
"Targets: Creature touched" very clearly has a
pluralsingular word in it.Is it singular or plural?
Chill touch has:
"Targets creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)"
This is clealy plural.
Frostbite lacks "or creatures", so is singular./cevah
The little "s" at the end of the word we are discussing is usually used to indicate pluarl, yes?
You mean the one missing after "Creature"? :-)
/cevah
You mean the one missing after "Creature"? :-)
/cevah
No the one not missing at the end of Targets;)
Under Aiming a Spell is:
Target or Targets: 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.
Since Frostbite has a range of touch, I can cast it on myself, or I can cast it on someone else. We agree what happens when it is cast on myself. What happens when I cast it on someone else? Someone else is a valid target for the spell, just as I am.
@Sandslice: You mention the Reach Spell metamagic. Tell me. Does the reach version spell allow me to cast it on someone farther away, or does it let me make multiple ranged touch attacks? I think the former since that metamagic affects the casting of the spell and not its effect.
And is the spell resistance against the casting of the spell or against the chill?
/cevah
Under Aiming a Spell is:
Target or Targets: 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.Since Frostbite has a range of touch, I can cast it on myself, or I can cast it on someone else. We agree what happens when it is cast on myself. What happens when I cast it on someone else? Someone else is a valid target for the spell, just as I am.
You can cast it on yourself if you're a masochist, sure. The range "touch" has an underlying mechanic that is unique among range categories. It is this:
As part of the process of casting, you are giving yourself the ability to discharge the spell's effect through your touch. Normally, this operates only once, though some spells allow this to operate several times (as with rusting grasp); in this latter case, each touch may have a different target even if the target line is singular. If you happen to fail to touch, you can normally maintain the ability to discharge it until you do so or cast a different spell.
Everything about the spell, except this ability to touch, is in reference to the target of your touch.
In other words, touch spells, merely by virtue of being touch spells, never give their target the ability to make these touch attacks. (They CAN give this ability as a matter of the spell's effect; but such spells are quite unusual and tend to involve bestowing the ability to cast spells.)
----
So, for frostbite:
Range: Touch (you gain the ability to do one touch per level)
Target: Creature touched
Duration: See text. Each touch has an instantaneous effect. You have multiple touches.
Save: No, the target being touched doesn't get a save.
SR: Yes, if the target has SR, you must check against it.
@Sandslice: You mention the Reach Spell metamagic. Tell me. Does the reach version spell allow me to cast it on someone farther away, or does it let me make multiple ranged touch attacks? I think the former since that metamagic affects the casting of the spell and not its effect.
And is the spell resistance against the casting of the spell or against the chill?
Reach Spell Frostbite would give you multiple ranged touch attacks at the chosen range category. It affects the range line (causing it to no longer be touch, so you can't hold the charge) but not the effect (including your ability to use it several times.)
As for SR, it's always effect. It's never "against the casting" unless rather unusual debuff effects are involved
Cevah, you've ignored this question about four times now.
As you believe Frostbite works, Caster A applies it to Character B who then uses it on Target C to apply its effects.
Why does Haste not work the same way? Why doesn't Caster A apply it to Character B, who then has to touch Target C to actually grant the speed boost, extra attack, etc?
Repeat the question for Cure Light Wounds and Mass Cure Light Wounds, noting that they have different target lines (I'm particularly interested in Haste vs. Mass Cure Light Wounds. Mass CLW has a singular "Target" compared to Haste's "Targets").
I was ignoring you repeating a question I had already answered in this post which occurs right after your original post with the question. You even quoted it.
To reiterate, the text itself describes the effect differently:
Haste: target of spell moves faster
Frostbite: target of spell gets special attack form
You can cast it on yourself if you're a masochist, sure. The range "touch" has an underlying mechanic that is unique among range categories. It is this:
As part of the process of casting, you are giving yourself the ability to discharge the spell's effect through your touch. Normally, this operates only once, though some spells allow this to operate several times (as with rusting grasp); in this latter case, each touch may have a different target even if the target line is singular. If you happen to fail to touch, you can normally maintain the ability to discharge it until you do so or cast a different spell.
Everything about the spell, except this ability to touch, is in reference to the target of your touch.
The magic has two touches referenced.
1) The target of the spell.2) The target of the touch attack.
These are not the same.
Not sure how you justify the bolded text.
In order to hold the charge on Frostbite, I must not touch anyone. As soon as I do, the spell discharges. Boom. No more spell being held. Now there is an effect on the one touched that allows a special attack. This effect can only be discharged by attacking with it, as opposed to the spell touch which goes off the first thing touched, even if not an attack. How can you change the discharge mechanic if it is the same touch causing both?
In other words, touch spells, merely by virtue of being touch spells, never give their target the ability to make these touch attacks. (They CAN give this ability as a matter of the spell's effect; but such spells are quite unusual and tend to involve bestowing the ability to cast spells.)
You contradict yourself. I will accept rarely give.
So, for frostbite:
Range: Touch (you gain the ability to do one touch per level)
Target: Creature touched
Duration: See text. Each touch has an instantaneous effect. You have multiple touches.
Save: No, the target being touched doesn't get a save.
SR: Yes, if the target has SR, you must check against it.
Range has no effect on number of touches, so your parenthetical is misplaced. It should be on the Targets line, but that line has a confusion of plural/singular number for targeting.
The duration is not see text, but instantaneous. The one touched has multiple touches, and their effect lasts per text. The spell, however, is done and gone.@Sandslice: You mention the Reach Spell metamagic. Tell me. Does the reach version spell allow me to cast it on someone farther away, or does it let me make multiple ranged touch attacks? I think the former since that metamagic affects the casting of the spell and not its effect.
And is the spell resistance against the casting of the spell or against the chill?
Reach Spell Frostbite would give you multiple ranged touch attacks at the chosen range category. It affects the range line (causing it to no longer be touch, so you can't hold the charge) but not the effect (including your ability to use it several times.)
As for SR, it's always effect. It's never "against the casting" unless rather unusual debuff effects are involved
Reach affecting the Range line has no effect on the description of the spell, since the touch attack described is not the touch of the spell.
As to SR, I think a similar situation occurs in Bless Water. It creates a magical effect, holy water, but when you attack with the holy water, does SR get checked? If so, nearly everything with SR that can be affected by it will resist it.
/cevah
The magic has two touches referenced.
1) The target of the spell.
2) The target of the touch attack.
These are not the same.Not sure how you justify the bolded text.
Likewise, I'm unsure how you justify the idea that Frostbite, as blocked OR as described, has a bestowing mechanic as you are trying to claim.
So I'm going to try again.
Stat block:
Range touch
Targets creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Description:
Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage + 1 point per level, and the target is fatigued. The fatigued condition ends when the target recovers from the nonlethal damage. This spell cannot make a creature exhausted even if it is already fatigued. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.
There is no bestowing mechanic. You cannot, by casting Frostbite, give the ability to discharge Frostbite to another creature.
When you cast a touch spell, you put a charge in your hand, which discharges as the spell's effect (damage and fatigue for Frostbite) when you make a touch attack. In Frostbite's case, you have multiple charges (1 per level) and can discharge one per touch attack.
(I'd personally change this to one touch per round for one round per level, the way rusting grasp works; but apparently Frostbite is designed to allow discharges on iterative unarmed attacks or multiple natural attacks.)
----
As for Reach Spell, again, the touch attack IS the "touch of the spell." (Or, rather, each touch attack is.) Thus, when you Reach Spell it, you create a weird exception to "holding the charge" where you are holding unused charges, and "throwing" (hit or miss, it counts as expended) single charges with your ranged touch attack.
----
And as for SR, Bless Water is not similar. The target is the water; if the water has SR for some reason (eg, being held by a creature that has SR,) you'd need to check to affect the water.
Once the water is affected, it's now Holy Water; whatever you attack with the Holy Water doesn't get SR against it.
That was a non-answer where you outright ignored the follow-up question so... no, that's not an answer.
How do you determine which creatures are "transmuted" by Haste? Note that nowhere in Haste's description does it say that the targets are transmuted, so that argument falls flat.
Actually, it does. "School: transmutation". The spell transmutes something. "Targets: one creature/level, ..." This is what is transmuted.
The argument displays massive circular logic until you do a much better job explaining it. Haste works as it does because that's how touch-ranged spells work (presumably, that's how you determined target = transmuted creature), but Frostbite works differently because you argue that Frostbite works differently. What, exactly, is stopping a GM from treating Haste the same way?
Once I cast Frostbite, I can hold the spell. This is a feature of touch spells. I can wait a few rounds before I touch someone. That touch will go off early if I accidentally touch someone. Once I have triggered the spell, the recipient gets a touch attack that cannot accidentally go off, but must be purposely used. This is a different mechanic, for a different touch.
As I cast Haste, I select targets as part of the casting. The spell then affects those targets for the duration. I have no chance to hold the spell, so that is different. Haste is a Close spell, not Touch, so that also is different. It also means you cannot use Haste to explain Touch mechanics.
Or Cure Light Wounds/Mass Cure Light Wounds. Again-- none of them specify that the recipient of the touch is, in fact, the recipient of the spell. In fact...
Your melee touch attack deals...When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy...Why would you treat these two spells differently? Neither specifies that recipient=target, and the only thing that points to the caster as the deliverer of the touch that matters is the word "you", which you've already openly stated to not be applicable to determining targets.
Later it states:
Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds.
Clearly the healing is the spell energy and not some boon the touched applies to another. The text describes the act of the caster touching the target.
Frostbite tells you that you gain a special attack. It then describes that attack. That attack, however, is not the spell.
/cevah
The magic has two touches referenced.
1) The target of the spell.
2) The target of the touch attack.
These are not the same.Not sure how you justify the bolded text.
Likewise, I'm unsure how you justify the idea that Frostbite, as blocked OR as described, has a bestowing mechanic as you are trying to claim.
So I'm going to try again.
<snip:spell text>There is no bestowing mechanic. You cannot, by casting Frostbite, give the ability to discharge Frostbite to another creature.
The Range: Touch tells me I can place it on myself or another. Same as I can with Cure Light Wounds.
When you cast a touch spell, you put a charge in your hand, which discharges as the spell's effect (damage and fatigue for Frostbite) when you make a touch attack. In Frostbite's case, you have multiple charges (1 per level) and can discharge one per touch attack.
However, a held spell can be discharged by an accidental touch. The magical effect of Frostbite cannot. Therefore, you are NOT holding a charge of the spell. You are holding an effect.
As for Reach Spell, again, the touch attack IS the "touch of the spell." (Or, rather, each touch attack is.) Thus, when you Reach Spell it, you create a weird exception to "holding the charge" where you are holding unused charges, and "throwing" (hit or miss, it counts as expended) single charges with your ranged touch attack.
You see these as the same touch, I do not. They have different mechanics, and so are not the same. If they are the same, then show me they have the same mechanic.
And as for SR, Bless Water is not similar. The target is the water; if the water has SR for some reason (eg, being held by a creature that has SR,) you'd need to check to affect the water.
Once the water is affected, it's now Holy Water; whatever you attack with the Holy Water doesn't get SR against it.
Exactly my point. The effect of the special attack bypasses SR, but the spell can be stopped by SR. They are different things.
/cevah
The Range: Touch tells me I can place it on myself or another. Same as I can with Cure Light Wounds.
You can touch yourself with Frostbite. When you do it, you will take 1d6 nonlethal cold damage, +1 per level, and become fatigued; and you'll have (level -1) more touches.
However, a held spell can be discharged by an accidental touch. The magical effect of Frostbite cannot. Therefore, you are NOT holding a charge of the spell. You are holding an effect.
Actually, this is in the FAQ: you are holding the charge in this case. And by rule, if you're holding the charge, you can make accidental touches.
You see these as the same touch, I do not. They have different mechanics, and so are not the same. If they are the same, then show me they have the same mechanic.
Because no touch spells operate in the way that you describe, unless they do so as a function of their effect. Frostbite is not one of those. Nor is chill touch, which uses the same language as frostbite but different damage.
Elemental touch is an example of a buff spell that gives melee touch attacks to its target. It's personal range, but this has a mechanic different to how Frostbite and chill touch work.
----
Suppose elemental touch had a range of touch. Then we would have a clear example of a touch spell that bestowed the ability to make touch attacks.
"You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.Actually, it does. "School: transmutation". The spell transmutes something. "Targets: one creature/level, ..." This is what is transmuted.Do you have RAW evidence that all Transmutation spells refer to the "Target" line as "what is being transmuted"?
Target or Targets:..."
I'm honestly curious about your actual evidence for contending that you can determine how a spell works based on its school, of all things. Certainly nothing I can find in the Transmutation rules says that.
Check all the polymorph threads for that one. There is more than ample evidence that the school has a strong influence on the spell. You are often told to refer to the school to determine if you are immune or resistant to a spell. The mind-affecting entry of a school in particular is often referenced.
And I have never heard of somebody actually trying to argue that they can determine how a spell works based on the school outside of the specific rules regarding schools.
Not sure how to parse that.
Lets say you cast an illusion. What does it do? Check the description of the school, and especially the things like pattern, figment, and so on. They tell you what the magic does and what it does not do.
Please explain the same thing with Cure Light Wounds, which can have a held charge and is Touch range.Once I cast Frostbite, I can hold the spell. This is a feature of touch spells. I can wait a few rounds before I touch someone. That touch will go off early if I accidentally touch someone. Once I have triggered the spell, the recipient gets a touch attack that cannot accidentally go off, but must be purposely used. This is a different mechanic, for a different touch.
As I cast Haste, I select targets as part of the casting. The spell then affects those targets for the duration. I have no chance to hold the spell, so that is different. Haste is a Close spell, not Touch, so that also is different. It also means you cannot use Haste to explain Touch mechanics.
I can hold Cure Light Wounds until I touch someone. If I accidentally touch the wrong person, oops, spell lost [wrong person healed/damaged]. Frostbite, after the spell is delivered, my special attack cannot accidentally touch the wrong person, because it is part of an intentional attack that cannot accidentally discharge.
Can you provide RAW evidence that the "spell energy" isn't placed in the transitory character who is 'buffed' by Cure Light Wounds?Clearly the healing is the spell energy and not some boon the touched applies to another. The text describes the act of the caster touching the target.
Frostbite tells you that you gain a special attack. It then describes that attack. That attack, however, is not the spell.
... you channel positive energy...
... In fact, if it's not the spell's 'energy', where the heck is what Frostbite does coming from? This is, amusingly, a case in which even answering "magic" doesn't work, since if it's some sort of magic energy then it'd be using the energy of, well, a spell.
The transmutation, achieved by the spell, is where it comes from.
Notably, if you don't believe that Frostbite's touches are actually the spell, does that mean you believe you can Exhaust a target with it? If not, why not? Frostbite says that "This spell cannot make a creature exhausted even if it is already fatigued", but based on what you just said the touches are not the spell.
Point. Just goes to show the spell is not worded correctly.
Finally, can you quote me the above bolded portion from Cure Light Wounds? Note that, per your own argument, the word "You" doesn't mean the caster, simply the person who's supplying the touch that leads to the spell effect-- if it does, your Frostbite argument is Disintegrated.
When laying your hand upon a living creature
This is the caster discharging a touch spell.
/cevah
The Range: Touch tells me I can place it on myself or another. Same as I can with Cure Light Wounds.You can touch yourself with Frostbite. When you do it, you will take 1d6 nonlethal cold damage, +1 per level, and become fatigued; and you'll have (level -1) more touches.
Only if you think the spell's target is the target of the attack the spell enhances. Not if they are different targets.
However, a held spell can be discharged by an accidental touch. The magical effect of Frostbite cannot. Therefore, you are NOT holding a charge of the spell. You are holding an effect.Actually, this is in the FAQ: you are holding the charge in this case. And by rule, if you're holding the charge, you can make accidental touches.
I have no problem with this. A spell with held charges can be accidentally discharged. But Frostbite's attack cannot be accidentally discharged. It is not covered by this FAQ since it is not a held spell charge.
Frostbite: Your melee touch attack ...Not the next N creatures touched, accidentally or not.
You see these as the same touch, I do not. They have different mechanics, and so are not the same. If they are the same, then show me they have the same mechanic.Because no touch spells operate in the way that you describe, unless they do so as a function of their effect. Frostbite is not one of those. Nor is chill touch, which uses the same language as frostbite but different damage.
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.
Do you mean to say if I accidentally touch someone, a charge goes off even if I did not make an attack? I don't think that is how it works.
Elemental touch is an example of a buff spell that gives melee touch attacks to its target. It's personal range, but this has a mechanic different to how Frostbite and chill touch work.
----
Suppose elemental touch had a range of touch. Then we would have a clear example of a touch spell that bestowed the ability to make touch attacks.
At least it would be better written.
/cevah
On Transmutation and Schools: As I said, I have never heard of somebody trying to use the school to determine effects outside of the specific rules regarding schools. Certainly if we have an Illusion or Polymorph, we would look there. And if we have a Transmutation spell, and we're arguing that it works in a specific fashion because it is a transmutation spell... we should be able to immediately cite those rules to determine that target = what is being transmuted.
That comment came right after me asking you for those specific rules. You instead pointed to a general one, so again: how do I know that the target is what is being transmuted? Nothing in your quote about Aiming a Spell says that.
A specific rule overrides a general rule. We don't need a specific one for transmutation. The general rule covers it just fine.
On Frostbite/CLW: First, you didn't answer the question. How do I know that Cure Light Wounds doesn't have a third involved character? You managed to explain that, to a reasonable degree, with Haste. That was based on Haste being A. Close instead of Touch and B. a spell where we can't hold the charge.
Cure Light Wounds meets both of those points; it is a Touch spell where one can hold charges. Why does it not work as you think Frostbite does? Why is there no 'buff' applied by CLW?
CLW: When laying your hand upon a living creature
FB: Your melee touch attackOne describes the discharge of the spell, the other describes the effect of the spell.
Second, the "you touch" point. You've now contradicted yourself:
The wording is reasonably clear. The spell is not a "Personal" spell, so the use of the words "Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage + 1 point per level, and the target is fatigued." refers to the creature targeted by the spell gaining the attack form.Likewise, it is not a personal spell, but touch range. Since it can be applied to you or to another, why are they using the words "your melee touch...."? If you apply the spell to another, how does it affect you? You are not receiving the spell's magic. The spell target is.By your own statement, twice, the fact that Cure Light Wounds is not a personal spell means that "you" = "recipient of the spell's buff", just that it does with Frostbite. This is a strong contradiction with what you just posted, so you may want to take a serious look at your arguments and beliefs and revise them.
As I have said before, the text is not great. Do I disregard "You" or "Targets: creature"? If the text would agree with itself, there would be no question.
Finally, Exhaustion: Do you believe it's possible to Exhaust somebody with Frostbite? You didn't give a straight answer.
The language disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold occurs in a number of spells. So does disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by other things. So far as I understand, you cannot get Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold damage unless specifically called out.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you actually confused or do you not like the wording?
Only if you think the spell's target is the target of the attack the spell enhances. Not if they are different targets.
They're not different targets - and this is not what I think, but how the spell actually works, as described.
I have no problem with this. A spell with held charges can be accidentally discharged. But Frostbite's attack cannot be accidentally discharged. It is not covered by this FAQ since it is not a held spell charge.
Frostbite: Your melee touch attack ...
Not the next N creatures touched, accidentally or not.
The spell also says you get one melee touch attack per level. This is why the FAQ applies here.
This is how Frostbite and Chill Touch work.
1. You do the hocus-pocus.
2. You generate charges of Frostbite equal to one per level; you are now holding the charge.
3. You make a melee touch attack...
3a. And hit with it! You expend one charge and the target is affected by the Effect. Go to 4.
3b. And miss! You don't expend a charge. Go to 4.
4. If you still have some charges, you are holding the charge. If you wish to keep using this casting of Frostbite, go to 3.
-----
-Frostbite is not a personal buff.
-Frostbite does not give someone else the ability to make touch attacks that deal 1d6(+1/lv) nonlethal cold damage.
-Touching yourself with Frostbite is normally masochistic.
A specific rule overrides a general rule. We don't need a specific one for transmutation. The general rule covers it just fine.So then...
1. You know that Haste's targets are "the transmuted creatures" because it's a Transmutation spell.
I never said that. I pointed out that the general "Aiming A Spell" which points to the "Target or Targets" line is what defines the target. You are the one who wants a specific rule overriding this.
2. Your evidence proving this is a rule that has nothing to do with the Transmutation school.
You mean the evidence you want from me, that I never gave.
3. You don't think you need a rule about the Transmutation school to support your logic that you can determine a spell's effect based on it being of the Transmutation school.
I think the details in the magic section handle it fine. No special additional rule needed.
I hope you can see the flaw in that logic.
I see flaws in your understanding of my arguments.
CLW: When laying your hand upon a living creature
FB: Your melee touch attackOne describes the discharge of the spell, the other describes the effect of the spell.
No, they don't.
By your logic, the "your" means nothing. So we'll throw that out. Thus it comes down to the meaning of "when laying your hand upon a living creature".
Well. When does that happen? At the casting of the spell? Maybe, but probably not since it's structured nigh-identically to Frostbite. But if it passes along the "CLW Buff" to a second character, and then that character touches his friend...
He has laid his hands upon a living creature. When he did that, the target is healed.
Fits within your logic of "your" =/= "the caster". Fits within your logic of how Frostbite works. Parses just fine with the "when" statement.
So I'll ask again: Do you think that Cure Light Wounds provides a 'buff' to be discharged into a tertiary character, and if not, what is your RAW support for that position?
It does happen at the casting. It uses a mechanic called holding the charge to delay until a touch occurs. It does not matter if the touch was on purpose, it goes with that touch.
Frostbite does not go on any accidental touch. It uses a different mechanic, as laid out in the spell's description.As I have said before, the text is not great. Do I disregard "You" or "Targets: creature"? If the text would agree with itself, there would be no question.As noted, the only disagreement comes from your parsing of the effect. If I look at the plural "targets" in the target line, then it becomes a multiple-target touch spell, and the problem disappears. Both "you = the caster" and "Targets: creature" fit perfectly into that paradigm.
But if you're going to read things differently, you should read things differently on a consistent basis, or be immediately ready to defend why only Frostbite works this way, in ways that don't dismantle your own argument. My understanding of this quote is that that you've effectively said "I'm ignoring the text of the spell to make my argument work, I don't actually think "Your" doesn't mean "the caster" as a general rule, so Cure Light Wounds works as it always has".
That's a terribly flawed position, because it ultimately means you're trying to create a new rule to support your argument instead of revising your actual argument to fit within the existing rules.
You are reading into my words meaning that is not there.
My admission of unclear text does weaken my point, but not so much I need any new rules made up. When you combine a problem in the Targets line, and a problem on the Range line, it no longer is a simple reading. You have to interpret things to make them make sense. I found a way that I think works better for the whole spell. You do not agree. I am OK with that. That is why I made this thread... to present the arguments on both sides, in a way that is FAQ-able. I don't claim to be absolutely right, but I have explained my point of view on this reading. You don't accept that. Again, this is OK.Finally, Exhaustion: Do you believe it's possible to Exhaust somebody with Frostbite? You didn't give a straight answer.The language disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold occurs in a number of spells. So does disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by other things. So far as I understand, you cannot get Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold damage unless specifically called out.Do you have a general rule that you can't cause Exhaustion with cold damage? There are a lot of specific rules, certainly, but so far as I know there's no general claim on the subject-- or we wouldn't need all the specifics, would we?
That was also a beautiful way to sidestep the actual question. Based on Frostbite itself, you're okay with a reading that renders the line about not being able to Exhaust a target irrelevant, and would agree that the RAW wording under your argument means that because Frostbite is able to Exhaust targets because "this spell" does not apply to Frostbite's touches?
That did answer the question. Was an exception called out? No? Then I don't see Exhaustion coming from the spell.
Ultimately, at this point, you have to jump through at least two massive hoops to justify your point without seriously upsetting both the balance of the spell and the function plethora of other spells. You really don't think that it might be time to take a strong re-reading of the spell and reconsider your views?
Your hoops, not RAW hoops.
/cevah
I have no problem with this. A spell with held charges can be accidentally discharged. But Frostbite's attack cannot be accidentally discharged. It is not covered by this FAQ since it is not a held spell charge.
Frostbite: Your melee touch attack ...
Not the next N creatures touched, accidentally or not.The spell also says you get one melee touch attack per level. This is why the FAQ applies here.
This is how Frostbite and Chill Touch work.
1. You do the hocus-pocus.
2. You generate charges of Frostbite equal to one per level; you are now holding the charge.
3. You make a melee touch attack...
3a. And hit with it! You expend one charge and the target is affected by the Effect. Go to 4.
3b. And miss! You don't expend a charge. Go to 4.
3c. You trip and grab your buddy's hand to help you up. You [ do | don't ] expend a charge. Go to 4.
4. If you still have some charges, you are holding the charge. If you wish to keep using this casting of Frostbite, go to 3.
-----
-Frostbite is not a personal buff.
-Frostbite does not give someone else the ability to make touch attacks that deal 1d6(+1/lv) nonlethal cold damage.
-Touching yourself with Frostbite is normally masochistic.
If you loose a charge on 3c, then you are using the holding a charge as referred to by the FAQ.
If you do not loose a charge, then you are using some other mechanism to handle charges, because it is not a spell charge as mentioned in the FAQ. This other mechanism is the spell's description of getting one attack per level.I think it is the latter interpretation.
/cevah
3c. You trip and grab your buddy's hand to help you up. You [ do | don't ] expend a charge.
You do.
If you loose a charge on 3c, then you are using the holding a charge as referred to by the FAQ.
And that is the case with Frostbite and Chill Touch.
Transmutation Spells Again: So explain to me again how you know that Haste's targets are "the transmuted creatures?" Preferably without mentioning the spell school, since that's how you explained that you knew they were last time.
I never said that. I pointed out that the general "Aiming A Spell" which points to the "Target or Targets" line is what defines the target. You are the one who wants a specific rule overriding this.
Pay attention.
CLW and Holding The Charge: You can hold the charge on both spells. Even under your concept of how Frostbite works, you can explicitly hold the charge under game rules. And yes, you can accidentally discharge the held Frostbite under your paradigm. You can also accidentally discharge Cure Light Wounds.
So that point doesn't fly. Both spells can utilize that mechanic.
You need a new explanation on how they're different, because both of them operate on the Touch Spell/Holding the Charge mechanic.
It does happen at the casting. It uses a mechanic called holding the charge to delay until a touch occurs. It does not matter if the touch was on purpose, it goes with that touch.
Frostbite does not go on any accidental touch. It uses a different mechanic, as laid out in the spell's description.
Pay attention.
You/Your: I'll ask explicitly then.
Do you believe, as a general rule, that the word "you" in spells means something other than "the caster"?
General? No. Bad editing? Quite possible.
Frostbite and Exhaustion: Can you cite the rule saying "Cold spells can't Exhaust targets unless they specifically say they can?"
The language disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold occurs in a number of spells. So does disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by other things. So far as I understand, you cannot get Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold damage unless specifically called out.
That did answer the question. Was an exception called out? No? Then I don't see Exhaustion coming from the spell.
Pay attention. You are the one who claiming there is [should be?] a rule, not me.
/cevah
|
|
The language disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold occurs in a number of spells. So does disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by other things. So far as I understand, you cannot get Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold damage unless specifically called out.
A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
A character who takes any nonlethal damage from cold or exposure is beset by frostbite or hypothermia (treat her as fatigued).
Taking cold damage (environmental or from Frostbite) = "doing anything that would normally cause fatigue." Thus a specific rule is necessary to prevent Frostbite (or similar spells) from stacking with itself to cause exhaustion.
General? No. Bad editing? Quite possible.You/Your: I'll ask explicitly then.
Do you believe, as a general rule, that the word "you" in spells means something other than "the caster"?
If "you" by default means the caster, and Frostbite does not say anything that would change that default, then "you" means the caster in the case of Frostbite.
Frostbite has been widely used as a touch spell with multiple charges, like Chill Touch, rather than as a spell granting a touch attack. See here and here. If this were a widespread misunderstanding due to poor editing, it would have been noticed by now and corrected. Therefore the RAW ("you" is the caster) is almost certainly also RAI.
@Weirdo: Nice rules linkage on cold stacking.
As to your links, they are all about the Magus class abilities and not really about the chill touch/frostbite spell under normal usage. They did have a link to JJ's opinion:
A question about chill touch and similar spells with an istantaneous duration and multiple touches.
The touches after the first round count as held charges and so disappear if you cast any other spell?Chill touch is a weird spell. The touch attacks it grants do not function as "held charges." They don't disappear if you cast another spell, and the spell is pretty vague on how long the effects last—in theory, you could cast the spell on a Tuesday and still have some touches left over on Friday, for example, as long as you haven't made more touches than your level. Re-casting the spell when you still have charges left doesn't add to the existing charges—it merely resets your total available touches to its maximum.
Nov 2012
He thinks that the attack effect charges are not a held charge of a spell but something else.
/cevah
@Weirdo: Those rules look like they open up a great 1-2 combo:
Amulet of Mighty Fists with Frost used on unarmed attacks.
Use the unarmed attack to do non-lethal damage twice. First makes fatigued. Second makes exhausted.
An alternate is Frost on a Merciful weapon. Same 1-2 combo.
This might also work with Frost on a non-lethal weapon.
Cost:
AoMF +0 & Frost = 4,000 gp
Frost & Merciful weapon = 9,000 gp
Frost non-lethal weapon = 4,000 gp
The Frost enchantment does not have the rider against exhaustion.
The rules you found don't mention more damage from the same source not escalating.
So after the second hit, your opponent, if affected, is now exhausted. Great debuff.
What do you think about this?
/cevah
Neither the Frost enchantment nor non lethal damage makes you fatigued though. Is there something I'm missing?
@Weirdo: Those rules look like they open up a great 1-2 combo:
Amulet of Mighty Fists with Frost used on unarmed attacks.
Use the unarmed attack to do non-lethal damage twice. First makes fatigued. Second makes exhausted.
An alternate is Frost on a Merciful weapon. Same 1-2 combo.
This might also work with Frost on a non-lethal weapon.
Elemental enchants don't "inherit" the damage type of the base weapon. So your AoMF Frost would deal: 1d3 nonlethal bludgeoning + 1d6 lethal cold.
With merciful, ALL damage becomes nonlethal if you have merciful switched on: 1d3 nonlethal bludgeoning + 1d6 nonlethal + 1d6 nonlethal cold (=stackable fatigue!)
Neither the Frost enchantment nor non lethal damage makes you fatigued though. Is there something I'm missing?
Nonlethal cold damage causes fatigue.
RAI, it's supposed to be damage from cold weather.RAW, "A character who takes any nonlethal damage from cold or exposure is beset by frostbite or hypothermia (treat her as fatigued)."
Thus, nonlethal cold damage = fatigue. MORE nonlethal cold damage, except if the source excludes stacking = exhaustion.
Oh, so it's one of those "it's RAW if stripped entirely out of context" things. Gotcha.
|
|
Yes, context is important and I'd stick with the RAI that fatigue is intended to be caused by environmental cold and effects that specifically mimic it (like Frostbite), not that any cold damage that happens to become nonlethal causes fatigue. I probably should have stopped at the fatigue stacking rule, but I wanted to point out that if you took environmental cold damage twice it would stack to exhausted.
Note the wording on the parallel rule for heatstroke, for which the RAW is more clear:
A character who takes any nonlethal damage from heat exposure now suffers from heatstroke and is fatigued. These penalties end when the character recovers from the nonlethal damage she took from the heat.
Heat exposure, not nonlethal fire damage.
Back to the main topic:
As to your links, they are all about the Magus class abilities and not really about the chill touch/frostbite spell under normal usage.
The only thing that the magus changes about Frostbite and Chill Touch is that it can deliver the charges through a weapon. In fact, if Frostbite worked as you described the Magus could not use it with Spellstrike as described in those threads, because the touch charge would grant a Frostbite attack upon the person touched (struck with the weapon). A magus can deliver charges of a touch spell through their weapon, not special attacks delivered by a melee touch.
They did have a link to JJ's opinion:
stuffHe thinks that the attack effect charges are not a held charge of a spell but something else.
He was specifically overruled by the FAQ linked earlier. Because he's not a rules guy. Some posts on the thread posted use JJ's earlier, overruled opinion because at the time there wasn't a clear official FAQ.
However there's no question over whether Frostbite, like Chill Touch, is considered a touch spell that grants multiple touches to deliver cold damage and fatigue.
I never said that. I pointed out that the general "Aiming A Spell" which points to the "Target or Targets" line is what defines the target. You are the one who wants a specific rule overriding this.
Pay attention.
While this particular point is basically an amusing side-show now, it is amusing. Regarding Haste, I posited the question "How do you determine which creatures are "transmuted" by Haste? Note that nowhere in Haste's description does it say that the targets are transmuted, so that argument falls flat."
Your response was this"
Actually, it does. "School: transmutation". The spell transmutes something. "Targets: one creature/level, ..." This is what is transmuted.Thus you specifically pointed to the spell's school as evidence.
If you'd led with the Aiming a Spell rule instead of that this point would have been long-since dropped, but you chose to try to explain that notion based on Haste being a Transmutation spell. But it is blatantly dishonest for you to say that you "never said" you could tell the targets were "the transmuted creatures" because of its school, when I can scroll up and see you saying that.
Here we go again. You fail to comprehend what I wrote.
You said I posited the question "How do you determine which creatures are "transmuted" by Haste?
and I replied "Targets: one creature/level, ..." This is what is transmuted. Do you think there is some other method to determine who is affected? I never claimed it. This is just part of the "Aiming a Spell" rules.
You said Note that nowhere in Haste's description does it say that the targets are transmuted, so that argument falls flat.
Actually, it states it near the beginning under "School: transmutation". This is evidence that Haste transmutes something. Argument is not so flat, is it?
It does happen at the casting. It uses a mechanic called holding the charge to delay until a touch occurs. It does not matter if the touch was on purpose, it goes with that touch.
Frostbite does not go on any accidental touch. It uses a different mechanic, as laid out in the spell's description.Pay attention.
As I said in the post you quoted, this statement is blatantly false. ALL Touch spells can Hold the Charge. This includes Cure Light Wounds and Frostbite. This includes Frostbite under your interpretation of the rules, since the Holding the Charge is not an exclusive property of touch attack spells. This includes Bull's Charge. The general rule is this: if the spell has a range of "touch", you can hold the charge on it.
I'm not sure why you would possibly think otherwise. The Holding the Charge references both attack and non-attack spells, single- and multi- target touch spells... here.
snipBolded statement makes it clear that friendly touch spells are included under its rules. Italicized statement makes it clear that you can accidentally discharge any Touch spell. Or is there another reason why you think Frostbite works differently from every other Touch spell in the game?
And again you failed to pay attention.
Yes, you can hold the spell charge on Frostbite, but there is a secondary set of charges that are not spell charges. These are the special attacks enabled by the spell. I have claimed this several times.You don't think it works that way, fine. But don't say I am blatantly falsifying things because I forgot to mention that I was referring to the secondary charges.
Oh, and before you go spouting about all touch spells, consider your statement here
All touch spells have an Instantaneous duration
I looked in my downloaded spell index of 1941 spells. 515 had the word "touch" under the range heading. Only 115 had the text "inst" under the duration heading. There were 400 that did not. It was not "All" touch spells, not even "most". It was less than a third.
General? No. Bad editing? Quite possible.So then it would be accurate to say that your interpretation of the rule on Frostbite requires parsing the word "your" in a way that violates both general English reading and any rules statement?
If not, I'd love some explanation as to how a general English reading would read "your" differently for Frostbite and CLW. We've got the rules reading covered by your last post.
Boy, are you stretching things. I implied a possibility of bad editing. This means that the editor could have written it in the first person when they should have written it in the second person. This does not mean I read the first person as second person. When the text does not agree with itself, you must try to understand what it should have said. Several have agreed that the text is not the greatest. I posited that it should have been second person.
The language disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold occurs in a number of spells. So does disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by other things. So far as I understand, you cannot get Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold damage unless specifically called out.
That did answer the question. Was an exception called out? No? Then I don't see Exhaustion coming from the spell.
Pay attention. You are the one who claiming there is [should be?] a rule, not me.
So...
1. You make a claim about a general rule (Cold damage cannot cause Exhaustion unless noted otherwise). You assumed this rule existed to the point of requiring an exception to it, in the posts of yours that you linked.
How do you go from "I saw this several times" to "this is a rule"?
How do you go from "So far as I understand" to "I require an exception otherwise"?2. You provide a number of specific rules regarding specific Cold spells to support this rule.
What rule? Yours?
3. You believe a number of specific rules that are explicitly contrary to the general rule of "Fatiguing an already-fatigued target Exhausted them" create a new general rule, despite never being stated as a general rule
What rule? Yours?
4. You attempt to cite the nonexistent general rule from #3.
You mean my anecdotes of seeing some example text? You think that is a cite of rules text? It is you who cannot parse today.
This is the exacts sort of "RAW Hoop" that I was talking about upthread. You have, quite literally, created a general rule out of air to support your reading without breaking Frostbite.
Since you repeatedly twist my words into things I did not actually say, I think I will ignore you for a while.
/cevah
They did have a link to JJ's opinion:
stuffHe thinks that the attack effect charges are not a held charge of a spell but something else.He was specifically overruled by the FAQ linked earlier. Because he's not a rules guy. Some posts on the thread posted use JJ's earlier, overruled opinion because at the time there wasn't a clear official FAQ.
However there's no question over whether Frostbite, like Chill Touch, is considered a touch spell that grants multiple touches to deliver cold damage and fatigue.
Actually, there is a question. Specifically, are the special attack touches [plural] in agreement with the Targets: Creature [singular]. If they are the same, then the FAQ covers it. If they are not the same, then the FAQ does not apply.
I pointed out JJ's text as an opinion that supported my opinion, not as rules stuff. It also means that not everyone reads the spell the same as some here. Am I right? I think RAI consensus is against me. RAW, I think may still be in doubt. Hence this thread in the Rules and not Advice forum. What does the RAW really say when a spell was badly written. [Singular target or plural? Personal or Range? No duration for expiration of the effect.]
/cevah
|
|
It was unclear, and so it was clarified. It continues to follow the holding the charge mechanics until all charges are expended.
Actually, there is a question. Specifically, are the special attack touches [plural] in agreement with the Targets: Creature [singular].
You mean:
are the special attack touches [plural] in agreement with the Targets [plural]: Creature [singular].
The target(s) line is not in agreement with itself. Therefore the sensible thing is to read the line as plural, but one at a time, since this would agree with the rest of the text within Frostbite.
It's not that the spell is badly written. Compare it to chill touch, which is mechanically equivalent but has a different stat block on the target line: it says creature or creatures.
Now, we have two options.
1. Frostbite is meant to work exactly like chill touch, except in the damage and debuff inflicted. There's a minor consistency failure between two different books, that's all.
2. Frostbite must use all of its touches on the same target, because "creature touched" is singular. (And whatever you decide for frostbite applies for rusting grasp for the same reason.)
Which do you think it is, and why? Consider touch spell mechanics and holding the charge on a multi-touch spell before you answer. :)