Reach Spell and Cure Spells


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Simply put, when a curative spell (such as Cure Light Wounds or Breath of Life) is modified by the Reach Spell metamagic feat (increasing the range from "Touch" to "Close (25' + 5'per 2 levels)", becoming a ranged touch spell in the process), and used in such a way as to target an ally (not offensively vs creatures harmed by positive energy), is a roll to hit required?

Reach Spell wrote:


Reach Spell (Metamagic)

Your spells go farther than normal.

Benefit: You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long.

Level Increase: Special. A reach spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level for each increase in range category. For example, a spell with a range of touch increased to long range uses up a spell slot three levels higher.

Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

Spells that do not have a range of touch, close, or medium do not benefit from this feat.

Core Rulebook wrote:


Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.


Follow up: If it does require a roll, what modifiers would apply to a dead/not dead Schrodinger's Corpse ally targeted with a ranged Breath of Life? Can you crit healing with a ranged touch Cure X Wounds (used for healing)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No.

The line you bolded says it only applies to spells that need a melee touch attack. You don't need to make a melee touch attack to cast a Cure X Wounds on an ally, so making it into a ranged spell with with this feat doesn't require a ranged touch attack.

If you tried to use it to harm undead you would need to make the ranged touch attack.


TwoWolves wrote:


Follow up: If it does require a roll, what modifiers would apply to a dead/not dead Schrodinger's Corpse ally targeted with a ranged Breath of Life? Can you crit healing with a ranged touch Cure X Wounds (used for healing)?

No roll needed. No critical healing.


No a hit roll is not required.


So, it doesn't matter if your ally is blurred, invisible (but you know what square he's in), if you are blinded, he's in melee, nothing?

The specific (Ranged Touch Spells in Combat) doesn't supercede the general (Touch Spells in Combat)?

I've never seen a circumstance where a ranged touch roll is EVER considered automatic, and that's specifically what a Touch ranged spell becomes when modified by Reach Spell.


If you do not have line of sight, you cannot cast a targeted spell.


DM_Blake wrote:

No.

The line you bolded says it only applies to spells that need a melee touch attack. You don't need to make a melee touch attack to cast a Cure X Wounds on an ally, so making it into a ranged spell with with this feat doesn't require a ranged touch attack.

If you tried to use it to harm undead you would need to make the ranged touch attack.

I'm confused. The reach metamagic turns range: touch into range: close, and requires a ranged touch attack.

Ranged touch attacks need to-hit rolls even for allies:

Quote:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

This entire paragraph refers to range: touch spells, which no longer applies.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
If you do not have line of sight, you cannot cast a targeted spell.

You have line of sight to a displaced ally. Automatic hit?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

If you bring in corner cases, you also risk bringing in GM rulings for things that aren't specified in the rulebook, but the inability to see a target is actually covered in the RAW.

Cure spells say you must pick a target. The magic chapter says that this means you need to "see or touch" your target. So for cases where the target is invisible or the caster is blind, he cannot "see" the target, therefore he must "touch" the target in order to designate that target in the first place.

Making a ranged touch attack is not the same thing as "touch". In order to make a ranged touch attack, you first choose a target or a target square and then you make an attack roll. In order to choose a target you must be able to see the target. There are no requirements for choosing a square, but choosing a square does not meet the requisites for casting a spell that hits a "target" (you need to "see or touch" your target, not merely see or touch a designated square).

Based on all that, there is no way to deliver a Reach Spell Cure X Wounds at range to a target you cannot see, just like you can't cast Charm Person or any other targeted spell with a range) on a target you cannot see.

A blurred target is still visible and you can choose that target. Doing so with a spell that requires a ranged touch attack means the Blur miss chance applies, but there is no ranged touch attack for your spell so Blur doesn't matter.

Your ally being in melee doesn't matter because there is no ranged touch attack, but if you were casting to harm undead you would have a ranged touch attack and firing into melee penalties (-4 to hit) would apply.


Be great if we could get a few hits on the FAQ button regardless of one's own interpretation.


_Ozy_ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

No.

The line you bolded says it only applies to spells that need a melee touch attack. You don't need to make a melee touch attack to cast a Cure X Wounds on an ally, so making it into a ranged spell with with this feat doesn't require a ranged touch attack.

If you tried to use it to harm undead you would need to make the ranged touch attack.

I'm confused. The reach metamagic turns range: touch into range: close, and requires a ranged touch attack.

Ranged touch attacks need to-hit rolls even for allies:

Quote:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
This entire paragraph refers to range: touch spells, which no longer applies.

The Reach Spell feat says:

SRD, Reach Spell wrote:
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

See the part I bolded. The ONLY spells that get a ranged touch attack are spells that require melee touch attacks. Cure X Wounds does not require a melee touch attack when used to heal an ally, so it doesn't require a ranged touch attack when modified by Reach Spell.

However, if you use it against undead, which DOES require a melee touch attack, and then modify it with Reach Spell, it now requires a ranged touch attack.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TwoWolves wrote:


Be great if we could get a few hits on the FAQ button regardless of one's own interpretation.

There is no interpretation. The rule is very clear. No FAQ needed.


How I see it:

The caster makes all relevant decisions about a spell, including targets, and then let's it fly and what happens next is completely out of his control. The spell is created, it flies off, and what happens then is dictated by the circumstances. IMO, there is no way the spell can determine if the target at range is friend or foe once the caster has cast it. In other words, you have no idea when you cast the Reach Cure X Wounds if your target is really an ally or undead, so why would it automatically behave differently based on knowledge you don't have when you make all the decisions about the spell?

The stipulation that Touch spells auto-hit allies is to me less to do with "casting a spell on a buddy" and more to do with "buddy lets down his guard for his caster pal and accepts the spell". Hell, you have to roll to hit to drop a flask of alchemist's fire at your own feet!

I can see both sides of the debate, but there is enough ambiguity that I'd like the FAQ to answer it definatively and have an errata to either the feat description or to the section on touch/ranged touch spells.


DM_Blake wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:


Be great if we could get a few hits on the FAQ button regardless of one's own interpretation.

There is no interpretation. The rule is very clear. No FAQ needed.

Obvously, I disagree. The rule is very clear that Touch spells become Ranged Touch Spells, which always require a roll to hit. Would it REALLY hurt to hit the FAQ button?


I am with DM_Blake. The ruling is obvious, no FAQ needed.

Cure spells are specifically an exception to the normal targeting rules. When you use a cure spell to heal an ally, it does not require an attack roll. When you use a cure spell to damage an undead, it requires an attack roll. The range of the spell will not change that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwoWolves wrote:

How I see it:

The caster makes all relevant decisions about a spell, including targets, and then let's it fly and what happens next is completely out of his control. The spell is created, it flies off, and what happens then is dictated by the circumstances. IMO, there is no way the spell can determine if the target at range is friend or foe once the caster has cast it.

Here's what the rules say:

SRD, Magic, Aiming a Spell wrote:
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.

The specific target is chosen. The spell, being magic, doesn't need to decide if the target is a friend or foe. Spells don't make decisions. Casters do. You selected the specific target and then the laws of magic (e.g. the rules in the rulebook) resolve what happens next.

Since you chose an ally, there is no attack roll, regardless of whether it's melee or ranged. The spell description says so. It's written in the rules. It's RAW. Adding Reach Spell changes it from a no-attack touch to a no-attack short range. By RAW.

TwoWolves wrote:
In other words, you have no idea when you cast the Reach Cure X Wounds if your target is really an ally or undead, so why would it automatically behave differently based on knowledge you don't have when you make all the decisions about the spell?

Yes, you do have an idea. An exact idea. When you cast the spell, YOU pick the target. YOU know if the target YOU designate is your ally. YOU know if the target YOU designate is an undead enemy. YOU know this because YOU pick the target.

I suppose there might be weird circumstances where you don't have such knowledge, like if you meet a random stranger fighting a random monster and you want to heal the random stranger, the GM might decide the random stranger is ALSO an enemy (he's going to kill you right after he kills this monster), so in a weird case like this you might be wrong to consider this random stranger an "ally".

Again, we can argue GM-fiat corner cases all day, but for the primary situation that comes up all the time where your group is fighting some monster(s), you definitely know who your allies are. You definitely, absolutely, do not need to make any melee or ranged attack rolls to heal your known allies with a Cure X Wounds spell, even when you use Reach Spell to cast it, and you definitely DO need to make attack rolls when using that same spell offensively against an enemy.

TwoWolves wrote:
The stipulation that Touch spells auto-hit allies is to me less to do with "casting a spell on a buddy" and more to do with "buddy lets down his guard for his caster pal and accepts the spell".

You can call it what you want but the rules are clear.

Let me ask, do you require a ranged attack roll when a PC wizard casts Charm Person on an enemy?

The targeting rules for Charm Person are EXACTLY the same as the targeting rules for Reach Spell Cure X Wounds - designate the target, apply the effect, no attack roll necessary.


TwoWolves wrote:
Would it REALLY hurt to hit the FAQ button?

Yes.

There is an "opportunity cost".

If the developers are only going to answer one FAQ request this week, I want them to answer one that really needs an answer. If they answer this one, that is CLEARLY defined in the RAW, then they've wasted their time and we won't get an answer to a question that actually needs a FAQ answer.


Declaring yourself as willing to be a target is outside the realm of the caster's choice, it's the target's choice. Once a spell is created an unleashed, "ally" vs "not ally" is out of the caster's control. The caster made a chunk of positive energy and lets loose. The target chooses to be an ally, but in this case, by that time the energy is loosed and the dice need to be rolled bacause it's at range, not adjacent.

Core Rules wrote:

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.

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.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Charm Person never requires an attack roll, no matter what metamagic feats you apply. It has an entry under the "Ranged" entry that is not "Touch". They are not exactly the same, as the Range for Cure Light Wounds is clearly listed as "Touch". Conversely, do you not require a roll to throw a flask to an ally 30' away just because it's a healing potion and not alchemist's fire?


DM_Blake wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:
Would it REALLY hurt to hit the FAQ button?

Yes.

There is an "opportunity cost".

If the developers are only going to answer one FAQ request this week, I want them to answer one that really needs an answer. If they answer this one, that is CLEARLY defined in the RAW, then they've wasted their time and we won't get an answer to a question that actually needs a FAQ answer.

What exactly is the opportunity cost of a developer glancing at the email, mentally thinking "nope. Next!" and moving on?


You're quoting an inapplicable rule.

Note that it says "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only". Cure X Wounds is NOT restricted to willing targets only.

Look at the spell Carry Companion. This spell targets "one willing creature touched". The rule you quoted would apply to Carry Companion but would not apply to Cure Light Wounds (which targets "creature touched" with no restriction about "willing" at all).


TwoWolves wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:
Would it REALLY hurt to hit the FAQ button?

Yes.

There is an "opportunity cost".

If the developers are only going to answer one FAQ request this week, I want them to answer one that really needs an answer. If they answer this one, that is CLEARLY defined in the RAW, then they've wasted their time and we won't get an answer to a question that actually needs a FAQ answer.

What exactly is the opportunity cost of a developer glancing at the email, mentally thinking "nope. Next!" and moving on?

If only it were that easy. I don't think FAQ requests are ever answered at a glance, or even rejected at a glance.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe you should consider how the feat Channel Ray changes Channel Energy, and the words in that feat, as most of them would also be applicable to a Reach modified Cure X Wounds spell:

Channel Ray
You can focus your channeled energy on a single target.
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: When you channel energy, you can project a ray from your holy symbol instead of creating a burst. You must succeed at a ranged touch attack to hit an unwilling target; your target is then affected by the channeled energy as normal and receives a saving throw. You need not make an attack roll to affect a willing creature with the ray. The ray has a range of 30 feet per channel energy die, and its save DC is increased by 2.

I mention this because changing a touch spell into a ranged touch spell would seem to carry the same proviso.

Would you require a caster using Reach Spell on Fly to need to make a ranged touch attack on his ally that is not adjacent to him to affect them?

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with everything DM_Blake has said here.


So what if someone casts cure light on a dhampir ally without realizing that he would take damage from it? Of course the same issue applies to the regular touch version.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:


The Reach Spell feat says:

SRD, Reach Spell wrote:
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

See the part I bolded. The ONLY spells that get a ranged touch attack are spells that require melee touch attacks. Cure X Wounds does not require a melee touch attack when used to heal an ally, so it doesn't require a ranged touch attack when modified by Reach Spell.

Just jumping on the bandwagon here, DM Blake's post here really should have ended the discussion. No touch attack roll, therefore no ranged attack roll (assuming a willing target).


Talon Stormwarden wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:


The Reach Spell feat says:

SRD, Reach Spell wrote:
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

See the part I bolded. The ONLY spells that get a ranged touch attack are spells that require melee touch attacks. Cure X Wounds does not require a melee touch attack when used to heal an ally, so it doesn't require a ranged touch attack when modified by Reach Spell.

Just jumping on the bandwagon here, DM Blake's post here really should have ended the discussion. No touch attack roll, therefore no ranged attack roll (assuming a willing target).

DM Blake has the right of it in a general scenario.

But what about buffs getting in the way? Spell Resistance? Invisibility? Displacement? Mirror Images? Cover? These are all things that aren't brought up, and they should be, especially if we're going to argue from a rules perspective.

If the PC can't see the target (properly), then he wouldn't be able to target the creature properly either. For example, if a PC is covered by an Ogre, and the Cleric goes to cast a Reach Cure Moderate Wounds on the PC, would he not have to make an Attack Roll, as in a normal scenario, the spell might actually hit the Ogre and heal it instead? Handwaving the whole "He doesn't need an attack roll" in that situation makes no sense, because if it were any other spell or effect, the Ogre would provide the same amount of cover and unlikely hood to hit the PC as it would in this example.

Hell, if the PC is invisible, and the Cleric can't see Invisible creatures, then he can't feasibly even Target the PC, and even if he magically pinpointed the square, that's still a 50% Miss Chance. Lastly, Displacement or Blur fall under a similar scenario; unless you can tell where he actually is, or heaven forbid, have a True Sight spell cast on you, then you'd have to roll Miss Chance, because you have these effects on you.

Don't even get me started on Mirror Images. Trying to inaffectually hit the PC with a Reach Cure spell would end up destroying Images if the Cleric hits the wrong one.

In a normal scenario, sure, I can see how a Reach Cure Spell wouldn't require an attack roll. But that doesn't mean it stops acting as if it were a Ranged Attack, and Ranged Attacks have to deal with Line of Sight/Effect, Concealment, Cover, etc.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

And yet none of those situations would require an attack roll. Other checks like miss chances might be required, but no attack roll.
(Also, there is no chance of the ogre receiving the spell, according to the rules. A miss due to cover is just a miss.)


TwoWolves wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:
Would it REALLY hurt to hit the FAQ button?

Yes.

There is an "opportunity cost".

If the developers are only going to answer one FAQ request this week, I want them to answer one that really needs an answer. If they answer this one, that is CLEARLY defined in the RAW, then they've wasted their time and we won't get an answer to a question that actually needs a FAQ answer.

What exactly is the opportunity cost of a developer glancing at the email, mentally thinking "nope. Next!" and moving on?

A touch spell and a melee touch attack are not the same thing. One requires an attack roll. The other does not.

The feat in question says that melee touch attacks become ranged touch attacks.

From the feat itself.

Quote:
You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long.

<--Tells you how to handle touch spells

Then it goes on to say

Quote:


Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

<----Tells you how to handle melee touch attack spells

It is easy to see that the feat also considers touch spells and melee touch attacks as two different things.

This is not FAQ worthy.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

And yet none of those situations would require an attack roll. Other checks like miss chances might be required, but no attack roll.

(Also, there is no chance of the ogre receiving the spell, according to the rules. A miss due to cover is just a miss.)

Additionally, cover wouldn't affect an auto-hit anyways, there is no miss chance just a bonus to AC.

Liberty's Edge

DM_Blake wrote:

If you bring in corner cases, you also risk bringing in GM rulings for things that aren't specified in the rulebook, but the inability to see a target is actually covered in the RAW.

Cure spells say you must pick a target. The magic chapter says that this means you need to "see or touch" your target. So for cases where the target is invisible or the caster is blind, he cannot "see" the target, therefore he must "touch" the target in order to designate that target in the first place.

Making a ranged touch attack is not the same thing as "touch". In order to make a ranged touch attack, you first choose a target or a target square and then you make an attack roll. In order to choose a target you must be able to see the target. There are no requirements for choosing a square, but choosing a square does not meet the requisites for casting a spell that hits a "target" (you need to "see or touch" your target, not merely see or touch a designated square).

Based on all that, there is no way to deliver a Reach Spell Cure X Wounds at range to a target you cannot see, just like you can't cast Charm Person or any other targeted spell with a range) on a target you cannot see.

A blurred target is still visible and you can choose that target. Doing so with a spell that requires a ranged touch attack means the Blur miss chance applies, but there is no ranged touch attack for your spell so Blur doesn't matter.

Your ally being in melee doesn't matter because there is no ranged touch attack, but if you were casting to harm undead you would have a ranged touch attack and firing into melee penalties (-4 to hit) would apply.

Actually:

PRD wrote:

Cure Light Wounds

Range touch

You don't pick a target, you touch a target.

It is then modified by:

PRD wrote:


Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

It is like attacking an inanimate object: you automatically hit.

But then reach spell change the spell, it isn't anymore a touch spell, it is a ranged touch.

RAW, that don't make it automatic anymore.
RAI? I would make it a automatic hit, but things like blur, mirror image and so on would apply the standard chance to miss or pick the wrong target.

BTW:
Cure spell used to cure creatures don't get critical hits simply because only damaging effects get critical hits.

TwoWolves wrote:


How I see it:

The caster makes all relevant decisions about a spell, including targets, and then let's it fly and what happens next is completely out of his control. The spell is created, it flies off, and what happens then is dictated by the circumstances. IMO, there is no way the spell can determine if the target at range is friend or foe once the caster has cast it. In other words, you have no idea when you cast the Reach Cure X Wounds if your target is really an ally or undead, so why would it automatically behave differently based on knowledge you don't have when you make all the decisions about the spell?

The stipulation that Touch spells auto-hit allies is to me less to do with "casting a spell on a buddy" and more to do with "buddy lets down his guard for his caster pal and accepts the spell". Hell, you have to roll to hit to drop a flask of alchemist's fire at your own feet!

I can see both sides of the debate, but there is enough ambiguity that I'd like the FAQ to answer it definatively and have an errata to either the feat description or to the section on touch/ranged touch spells.

As I see it:

The spell don't care if it target friend or foe. The target care.
For touch spells he move in a way to guarantee that you will hit him (so the automatic touch even if he is blurred, invisible, etc.).

For ranged touch spell it is more tricky.
The touch spell is active until you touch something, and so target and caster of the spell have the time to make the position adjustments needed to make it connect even if the target is blurred, displaced and so on.
Ranged touch are one shot affairs. You hit or you miss. So the target can help standing still for a moment, but he can't adjust his position to guarantee the hit when blurred and so on.

Liberty's Edge

DM_Blake wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

No.

The line you bolded says it only applies to spells that need a melee touch attack. You don't need to make a melee touch attack to cast a Cure X Wounds on an ally, so making it into a ranged spell with with this feat doesn't require a ranged touch attack.

If you tried to use it to harm undead you would need to make the ranged touch attack.

I'm confused. The reach metamagic turns range: touch into range: close, and requires a ranged touch attack.

Ranged touch attacks need to-hit rolls even for allies:

Quote:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
This entire paragraph refers to range: touch spells, which no longer applies.

The Reach Spell feat says:

SRD, Reach Spell wrote:
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

See the part I bolded. The ONLY spells that get a ranged touch attack are spells that require melee touch attacks. Cure X Wounds does not require a melee touch attack when used to heal an ally, so it doesn't require a ranged touch attack when modified by Reach Spell.

However, if you use it against undead, which DOES require a melee touch attack, and then modify it with Reach Spell, it now requires a ranged touch attack.

Getting an automatic hit =/= Not requiring a melee attack

Liberty's Edge

kinevon wrote:

Maybe you should consider how the feat Channel Ray changes Channel Energy, and the words in that feat, as most of them would also be applicable to a Reach modified Cure X Wounds spell:

Channel Ray
You can focus your channeled energy on a single target.
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: When you channel energy, you can project a ray from your holy symbol instead of creating a burst. You must succeed at a ranged touch attack to hit an unwilling target; your target is then affected by the channeled energy as normal and receives a saving throw. You need not make an attack roll to affect a willing creature with the ray. The ray has a range of 30 feet per channel energy die, and its save DC is increased by 2.

I mention this because changing a touch spell into a ranged touch spell would seem to carry the same proviso.

Would you require a caster using Reach Spell on Fly to need to make a ranged touch attack on his ally that is not adjacent to him to affect them?

Or it can be "specify trumping generic". It that was the norm why specify it?

(I know, because often the rules have redundant pieces of text.)


Cure spells are only touch attacks when used to do damage.

Quote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Basically it is a touch attack when you are trying to touch an opponent. Otherwise it is just a touch spell. There is nothing to support it being a "touch attack" spell when used on an ally.


Why does this touch attack vs melee touch matter?

It determines which line the of the feat the spell follows. Touch spells become "close".

Melee touch attacks become "ranged touch attacks".

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:

Cure spells are only touch attacks when used to do damage.

Quote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Basically it is a touch attack when you are trying to touch an opponent. Otherwise it is just a touch spell. There is nothing to support it being a "touch attack" spell when used on an ally.

The bolded part is wrong and only increase the confusion.

PRD wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

That is the only difference between "Touch attacks" and "Touch spells".

Invisibility and Mage armor are touch attacks if you cast them on a opponent, even if they help the target. Damaging the target has nothing to do with making it a Touch attack.

RAW a ranged touch require a to hit.


No attack roll needed. Touch spells become close spells as per the metamagic text, not ranged touch attacks Only touch attacks become ranged touch attacks... which CLW isn't unless used on an enemy.

Concealment from blur, invisibility etc are irrelevant if you aren't rolling to hit. For verisimilitude, you can assume that the target moves into the path of the beam, just like they would move into the path of the hand for a touch. Note that you still need a target.

Diego: touch spells are not the same as touch attacks, which have an independent (but related) set of rules. Touch spells become touch attacks when used on an opponent, but that doesn't make them touch attacks when not used on an opponent.

Mage armour et al. Are basically identical. You would not need to roll to hit with mage armour using reach metamagic unless you were trying to mage armour an opponent.


If the target is not actively trying to avoid the spell, then it is considered to auto-hit and the attack roll is moot. It's only if the target is actively trying to avoid being hit by the reach cure spell that you'd need to make an attack roll against their touch AC to hit them. However, if they benefit from concealment (ie. they are in dim light or under the effect of Blur), you would need to roll miss chance since that isn't really under their power.


Hmm, do you provoke an AoO with a ranged cure?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

If you don't cast defensively, yes.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you don't cast defensively, yes.

Casting defensively has no effect on an AoO provoked by a ranged attack.


_Ozy_ wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you don't cast defensively, yes.
Casting defensively has no effect on an AoO provoked by a ranged attack.

But you aren't making a ranged attack, are you?


Snowblind wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you don't cast defensively, yes.
Casting defensively has no effect on an AoO provoked by a ranged attack.
But you aren't making a ranged attack, are you?

That's why I asked the question. ;)

If you are making a ranged attack that 'auto-hits', then you would provoke as normal I would imagine.


There is no ranged attack when you cast ANY ranged spell that benefits an ally. This includes a Reach Spell Cure X Wounds.

It really is exactly that simple.


Except what happens when you cast the cure on a dhampir ally in ignorance? Does the spell become an attack without your knowledge?

Scarab Sages

Melkiador wrote:
Except what happens when you cast the cure on a dhampir ally in ignorance? Does the spell become an attack without your knowledge?

That's going to be a GM call, and it's the same call whether it has the Reach Metamagic applied or not.

Reach Spell is very direct in its language. A ranged touch attack roll is only required if a melee touch attack roll would be required. If someone is an ally and willingly letting you target them, there's no melee touch attack rol. Therefore there is no ranged touch attack roll.

In the case of the Dhampir, if the cleric doesn't know, and the Dhampir doesn't realized what is happening or resist, then I probably wouldn't require an attack roll. If the cleric shouts to the Dhampir "Here's a Cure Light Wounds for youl" or if the Damper makes a Spellcraft check, I'd let them actively avoid it. It's up to the cleric at that point whether or not they want to continue trying to affect someone who clearly doesn't want to be affected. At that point, it's a PvP attack, and it would require a roll (or in PFS just stop it from happening).

Either way, the Damper gets their Will save for half damage.


Then you blast him. He takes the damage. Sucks to be a dhampir.

I would never allow a PC or an NPC to cheat the system this way and pretend an enemy is an ally, or metagame it - I would only have this happen if the caster character legitimately thinks the dhampir is is ally - any other loophole exploits cause the spell to be treated as an attack.

Also, if the dhampir knows what is happening, I would allow him to treat the spell as an attack, requiring the caster to make an attack roll.

None of which is in the core rules. Because this is a corner case for a race created in a splat book that was published long after the core rulebook was published. No rules to cover it means each GM has to decide how it works.

Nor does this unlikely corner case change anything about the actual printed rules that have been discussed in this thread - Reach Spell applied to a touch spell works exactly as I (and others) have described, at least until you get into weird corner cases where the rules break down.


There are other cases that are relevant. You're disguised as one of your enemy's allies and 'bluff' that you're going to cast a buff spell on them. Should you get an autohit if that 'buff' isn't actually a beneficial spell?


Ozy, there are NO rules for that. Play it how you want.


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Cure spells are only touch attacks when used to do damage.

Quote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Basically it is a touch attack when you are trying to touch an opponent. Otherwise it is just a touch spell. There is nothing to support it being a "touch attack" spell when used on an ally.

The bolded part is wrong and only increase the confusion.

PRD wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

That is the only difference between "Touch attacks" and "Touch spells".

Invisibility and Mage armor are touch attacks if you cast them on a opponent, even if they help the target. Damaging the target has nothing to do with making it a Touch attack.

RAW a ranged touch require a to hit.

That was copied from the PRD. The best argument you can make is the book contradicts itself, but I don't see a contradion. You are just ignoring what you dont like.

edit: I also said "Cure spells", not all touch spells are only touch attacks when they do damage.

As an example I bestow curse is a touch attack, but it does not do damage.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reach Spell and Cure Spells All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.