I have a couple questions about how a bloodrager with natural attacks would interact with touch spells. Also about the order of attacks.
The Setup:
Take a PFS legal 7th level half-orc draconic bloodrager (steeldblooded archetype although that doesn't matter) with the toothy trait, so she has a 1d4 natural bite attack. She has the feats power attack, furious focus, rime spell, and cornugon smash. She has a +1 Cruel Greatsword.
Said bloodrager is holding greastsword in one hand (not wielding), while using their free hand to cast a Rime Frostbite spell (2nd level slot) and hold the charge with 7 uses.
Question 1:
From my reading on the boards it looks like objects which you were already holding at the time don't discharge the spell, such as using a wand to cast shocking grasp or using a metamagic rod to enhance a touch spell.
The bloodrager proceeds to hold the two-handed sword properly in two hands as a free action.
I believe this would discharge 1 use of the spell. If it does, its not that much of a issue as the character still has 6 touches left and the sword is immune to non-lethal damage. Also from what I've read, it looks like as long as they continue to hold it in two hands after an initial discharge, the spell does not continue to go off.
Is this the correct flow of events?
Question 2:
A few minutes later, the character makes a full attack on an enemy, declaring she will use power attack.
I think the character choose to take the bite secondary attack first. If so, would the bite attack take the full power attack penalty or would furious focus negate it?
Even if furious focus doesn't work with the bite, the order matters as the bite if it hits would deal damage, deliver 1 charge of Frostbite (fatigue and entangle), and grant a free demoralize (possibly making the target shaken). The greatsword strikes would have an easier time hitting (-6 to target's dex) and then trigger cruel (sickened) if they also hit.
Question 3:
Lastly, if this bloodrager were 11th level instead with Greater Bloodrage, would using the ability to apply the effects of a 1st or 2nd level spell for the duration of the rage remove the frostbite spell. My guess is no, since greater bloodrage is listed as a supernatural power, not a spell or spell-like ability and is not actually casting the spell. Could the character spend a 1st level slot to add the effects of another frostbite spell upon entering the rage.
Going to the logical conclusion (although I'm betting not RAI), could a bloodrager stack up multiple touch spells with a duration of instantaneous this way by entering and leaving greater bloodrage? I could imagine a worst case 11th level bloodrager spending all 7 spell slots (assuming Cha 16 for bonus spells) and 7 rounds of rage ahead of time, for 7 held charges adding up to 7d6+77 non-lethal cold damage per hit, for 11 hits.
From the PRD:
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
I'm guessing what is intended is you can't hold more than one charge at a time, although I can't seem to find such a ruling anywhere.
Thanks ahead of time for any and all clarifications.
Attacks must be made in the order of decent. Because a bite is secondary, it therefore cannot be made first.
So the only two options for attack order of a character with +11 BAB and a single secondary natural attack is:
+11 Weapon/+6 Weapon/+6 Secondary Natural/+1 Weapon
or
+11 Weapon/+6 Secondary Natural/+6 Weapon/+1 Weapon
Ok, that makes sense.
To follow up, if the character is only attacking with the bite (making it primary and applying 1.5 x Str), would Furious Focus kick in while wielding the greatsword?
Thanks again.
|
I don't understand. If the character is only attacking with the bite, then they aren't wielding the greatsword.
I see two possible readings for Furious Focus. More favourably, it would apply to the first attack made using a weapon wielded in two hands. Less favourably, it would apply only if the first attack you make in a round is made with a two-handed weapon. An example of how this might come up would be if you have Improved Unarmed Strike and a polearm - you could use your first iterative attack to kick someone, and your second to attack with your polearm, and it would be relevant whether or not the second attack (first attack with a qualifying weapon) benefits from Furious Focus.
Not sure which reading is correct, but for PFS I'd assume the less favourable - that if your first attack in the turn isn't with the greatsword you can't use Furious Focus that turn.
1) That's also my reading of how discharging would work.
3) Since Greater Bloodrage says you apply the effects of a spell rather than casting it, I think you are correct that it would not cause a held charge to dissipate. However I don't think it can be used to activate an multi-touch spell like Frostbite because the effect of the spell is the damage, not the ability to deliver charges. If you tried to use Frostbite in that way you'd end up damaged, fatigued, and entangled yourself.
Okay, a few things (not numbered by which question they answer):
1. The rule on the order of attacks applies only to iteratives. Natural attacks are free of it, secondary or not.
2. You can apply the furious focus effect on the bite attack, but it is a gross exploitation of the obvious meaning of the feat. Expect GMs to deny this option.
3. You have two issues with the third situation you gave. First of all, you can't hold two charges, so the whole idea is busted. Secondly, Frostbite doesn't work with Greater Bloodrage, or rather it works horribly. You see, the effect of the spell isn't gaining eleven charges that do nonlethal damage and fatigue, rather it is nonlethal damage and fatigue. The whole touch and charge thing is just the method of applying said effect. So you could use Frostbite, but then you'd fall out of bloodrage since you'll be fatigued.
First, thank you Weirdo and Kaboogy.
You have pointed out the obvious thing I was missing, namely that the bloodrager's greater blood rage effect is targeting the bloodrager, and as you say, the effect is the non-lethal damage and fatigue, not holding the charge.
I was hoping to find an explicit FAQ or the like forbidding two held charges in general, as I figure that was the designer intent. There probably is no way to get an offensive supernatural ability (as opposed to spell-like or casting) duplication of touch spells so the spell dissipating when another spell cast is broad enough to cover all cases. Good enough.
It looks like multiple people reading Furious Focus see RAI as not applying to natural attacks, which is also good enough for me. I should expect table variation on how exactly that plays out when trying to attack with a natural attack before a two handed weapon (i.e. whether you get it on the first greatsword attack or not).
Speaking of which, I've gotten two different answers to whether you can arbitrarily order weapon and secondary natural attacks. I haven't been able to find anything definitive on the topic. The core rulebook, under full attack, talks about being able to choose either weapon first when using two weapons (which is clearly a reference to the two-weapon fighting rules which I'm pretty sure natural attacks don't use), or either end of a double weapon (again two-weapon fighting rules). It certainly seems to be RAI that you choose which "weapon" but it is not explicitly spelled out for natural weapons.
The natural attack section of the core rule book doesn't talk about the order of the attacks at all. Although it weirdly mentions that "Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties", when referring to the base attack bonus minus 5 of secondary attacks. I didn't think the two-weapon fighting feat affected secondary attacks in any way as they are neither primary hand or off-hand.
I don't suppose anyone has a faq link I've missed regarding weapon and natural attack ordering, or an in depth discussion on the forums my search fu has missed?
I swear that will be my last question for awhile. Thanks.
|
|
I am not aware of a rule addressing natural attacks either way. Kaboogy is correct that at least the main rule only mentions iteratives:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
The section on natural attacks doesn't contain such a restriction.
It may be RAI if not RAW.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) "objects which you were already holding at the time don't discharge the spell"
"proceeds to hold the two-handed sword properly in two hands"2) "full attack ... bite secondary attack first"
"bite ... furious focus negate it?"
"bite ... deliver 1 charge of Frostbite"3) "Greater Bloodrage ... apply the effects of a 1st or 2nd level spell for the duration of the rage remove the frostbite spell"
"stack up multiple touch spells"
You will receive a great deal of table variance and short of a developer comment directly to the questions at hand or a FAQ, I wouldn't expect all of your GM's to answer the question the same way or to accept your version of RAW.
With that being said, this is how I'd rule RAW on your questions.
1) I don't know any rule that says objects held can be freely touched.
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
By my RAW, when you touch the greatsword with your hand holding the spell, you discharge the spell. If you have multiple charges, they will all discharge if you continue to hold the item. How fast depends on how you react to me telling you a charge discharged.
2) Yes you can attack with the Bite only, get the furious penalty reduction, and deliver a charge of Frostbite. If you attack with a bite with the greatsword, then the bite is -5 and not 1.5x STR and doesn't get Furious.
3) The RAI is very close to you casting the spell, but if you picked a non-holdable spell, I'd be fine. With a spell that you hold a charge, I'd discharge the previous one as I don't see any allowance in the rules to have two spells held.
If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates
When they write the rules, they don't think of every scenario that could happen. This rule essentially says you can't have two spells holding a charge. If you can get a second spell on you without casting, this rule still applies.
A lot of FAQ work on the basic principals of the game, not the strict words. So this explains the reason we see some people saying FAQ "don't follow the RAW". They do follow RAW, just not that reader's RAW.
You will receive a great deal of table variance and short of a developer comment directly to the questions at hand or a FAQ, I wouldn't expect all of your GM's to answer the question the same way or to accept your version of RAW.
Fair enough. I definitely agree its an unfortunately murky subject. Hence why I asked on the forums to see if there was any general agreement.
With that being said, this is how I'd rule RAW on your questions.1) I don't know any rule that says objects held can be freely touched.
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.By my RAW, when you touch the greatsword with your hand holding the spell, you discharge the spell. If you have multiple charges, they will all discharge if you continue to hold the item. How fast depends on how you react to me telling you a charge discharged.
I fully expect 1 charge to discharge on first touching the sword with the second hand.
Given there are no rules on the rate of discharge with continuous contact, I assumed one needed to make a separate "touch" each time you would want to (or not want to in the case of accidental contact) discharge the spell. Otherwise I feel awkward questions like "What rate does it discharge at while grappling an opponent" would come up.
I readily agree however if the GM wishes to rule on a rate of discharge, they are free to do so since there is no clear rule one way or the other (other than a minimum of 1 upon first contact). I just would expect it to be consistent between objects and creatures.
As far evidence for my interpretation, I can point at the vaguely related core rulebook FAQ entry stating that glove-like weapons worn on the hands do not discharge, see Core Rulebook FAQ. Assuming I'm holding a frostbite charge, if I pickup a cestus lying on the ground, the spell will clearly discharge at least once. However, if I then put it on, does it continue to discharge? The FAQ would indicate no, and the only internally consistent logic I can come up with is continuous contact only triggers once.
Its also possible we are completely mis-reading "discharges the spell" and that the entire spell is discharged, not a single melee touch worth of the spell, the effect goes off once, and then there is no more spell.
The easiest thing to do I'm guessing is simply ask at the beginning of each session with the character present how the GM would rule on holding a charge with held weapons, accept their ruling, and play accordingly.
2) Yes you can attack with the Bite only, get the furious penalty reduction, and deliver a charge of Frostbite. If you attack with a bite with the greatsword, then the bite is -5 and not 1.5x STR and doesn't get Furious.
Totally agree the bite becomes secondary when swinging with the greatsword. Actually, with Draconic bloodline bloodragers its gets more complicated because if you're bloodraging, they have claws suddenly, and the bite is no longer the only natural attack and drops to 1x Str from 1.5x Str, even if thats the only attack you make that round.
And at this point I fully expect table variation on whether Furious Focus can be applied to the bite at all (even when the only attack).
3) The RAI is very close to you casting the spell, but if you picked a non-holdable spell, I'd be fine. With a spell that you hold a charge, I'd discharge the previous one as I don't see any allowance in the rules to have two spells held.If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipatesWhen they write the rules, they don't think of every scenario that could happen. This rule essentially says you can't have two spells holding a charge. If you can get a second spell on you without casting, this rule still applies.
The more I think about it, the more I'm coming to the same conclusion as you that the developer intent was one held charge at a time irregardless of mechanism, to avoid silly things like I mentioned in the first post.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
the only internally consistent logic I can come up with is continuous contact only triggers once.
Its also possible we are completely mis-reading "discharges the spell" and that the entire spell is discharged, not a single melee touch worth of the spell
The easiest thing to do I'm guessing is simply ask at the beginning of each session with the character present how the GM would rule
Your internally consistent logic isn't everyone's internally consistent logic. All the past FAQ provide evidence of that, as every one of them was confused by two different people's logical views on the rules.
I didn't think of the "whole spell is discharged" angle. Yes that could be true, since I don't think it uses the word "discharge" to subtract charges on touch attacks.
You will quickly grow tired of asking the GM each session. I played an Overrun Druid for 9 levels and pretty much every table had a different mix of how the rules worked and it soaked up 15 minutes of every game hashing it out. That isn't something you will enjoy and I can promise you that other players will enjoy it even less than you.
|
|
By my RAW, when you touch the greatsword with your hand holding the spell, you discharge the spell. If you have multiple charges, they will all discharge if you continue to hold the item. How fast depends on how you react to me telling you a charge discharged.
If you use the Grab ability on a foe while holding a charge, do you continuously discharge all remaining charges into the foe? If not, you should not continuously discharge into a held item. One charge is discharged per touch, whether intentional or accidental.
2) Yes you can attack with the Bite only, get the furious penalty reduction, and deliver a charge of Frostbite.
Furious Focus says it works "when you are wielding a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon with two hands." While the definition of "wielding" is fuzzy at best, in this context I think it's pretty clearly used in the sense of "making an attack with." If you attack with the bite only, you're not attacking with/wielding a weapon in two hands, so Furious Focus doesn't apply.
3) The RAI is very close to you casting the spell, but if you picked a non-holdable spell, I'd be fine. With a spell that you hold a charge, I'd discharge the previous one as I don't see any allowance in the rules to have two spells held.
If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipatesWhen they write the rules, they don't think of every scenario that could happen. This rule essentially says you can't have two spells holding a charge. If you can get a second spell on you without casting, this rule still applies.
I agree that you're probably not intended to hold two charges at once through any means, but that's a really convoluted way to read the rule. The rule refers to casting a spell, which is different from being affected by a spell or gaining the effect of a spell (eg using a potion or using Wild Shape to gain the effect of Beast Shape). The text also doesn't distinguish between spells that give you held charges and spells that don't - either causes a held charge to dissipate.