Most, but not all spells are "independent" from the a creature status after they have been cast.An example of a spell where the friend/foe status matter Monster summoning if the summoned creature is something with which you can't communicate.
The bear you have summoned will attack the enemies. Probably the enemy closest to its location, unless you use handle animal or speak with animals when you summon it. Who are your enemies isn't set the moment in which you cast the spell or it wouldn't attack enemies that where hidden when he was summoned, nor it would fight for you if you...
I agree, excepting that I would think that a summoned creature would key off your actions, so if you attack an ally, then the creature would naturally think him an enemy and follow suit.
However, this is only an exception because the "spell effect" is a creature of a certain amount of independent intelligence.
As any touch spell can be delivered this way we are speaking of a serious advantage.
It's really a moot point, because in the same situation, an active ally that moves through an adjacent square of our touch-spell caster could reach out an touch the caster as a free action and receive the touch spell anyway. It doesn't even take an attack roll.
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
The only time this even comes into play is when the ally doing the provoking is not fully in control -- in which case, the caster would indeed have to treat the individual as an enemy in full and the former ally would treat the caster as an enemy as well.
You cannot have it both ways Rysky. Either he is resisting the spell, thus requiring an attack roll and saving throw, or he isn't.
In any case, this is a futile discussion. You are ignoring several rules and trying to logic your way around them. You are free to houserule that you can use beneficial non-attack spells in an AoO, but that is not how the rules are written.
I posed whether the bolded subject was necessary to affect a Superstition Barbarian with a spell as an ally, and most everyone said that no attack roll was required, even though a Superstition Barbarian is an unwilling target of any spell or SLA thrown at him.
If being an unwilling target requires that you must roll a saving throw and you must be successfully hit by an actual attack roll, then quite frankly most everyone on the messageboards are running/interpreting the Superstition Rage Power completely wrong.
So I'll ask again, is an attack roll required or not? Bearing in mind, that if you say yes, then a FAQ for Superstition is required, and if you say no, then you're contradicting your own stance.
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies."Cannot be a willing target of any spell" and "must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies" are different things.
The first mean that the barbarian is never a willing target for spells that affect only willing targets, like teleport, not that he will avoid being the target of a spell.
"Willing target" has a specific meaning in the rules.
Of course they're different. But you clearly forget that they're conjoined by "and," which means both conditions apply, and only reinforces mine (and technically Gauss') point.
I simply stated that if Gauss' argument is that an unwilling target requires both a saving throw and an attack roll to properly affect said target, then everybody on the forums is going to disagree with his argument, since a Superstition Barbarian is not a "willing target of any spell," which means he's unwilling, and most everyone I asked when I posed the question stated that an attack roll is not necessary for allies, even if they are unwilling targets.
It's a catch-22. He either stands by his argument of an attack roll being required (in which case he must say that everyone who plays Superstition Barbarians have been playing them wrong this whole time), or he doesn't stand by his argument of an attack roll being required (in which case he would be saying incorrect rules since square 1, something which I don't think he'd like or care to admit).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now hang on just one bloody minute.
I'm a cleric, and I've got a cure spell cast, but not delivered. A creature rushes past me, moving out of a threatened square.
Are you seriously saying that if said creature is a barbarian with whom I am friends I cannot stick out a hand and touch him as he rushes past, but if it is a zombie, I can?
That's correct, because presumably you and your allies have been trying to destroy that zombie the entire battle, and in that scenario, your hand is an armed weapon that acts under the AOO rules, which means you still have to get past it's dfenses.
If you want to touch your friend as he runs past, that requires a readied action as a spell cast to cure him is not a weapon used against him.
Yes, turn-based combat can produce some corner cases like this, but that's what the rules imply.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see nothing wrong with allowing someone to touch an ally as they go by to discharge a touch spell, but I think that allowing an AoO to do so opens up the door to rules loopholes/exploits and unintended problems that the core rules of the game aren't designed to work with.
As a house-rule, I'm perfectly fine allowing touch spells with the harmless descriptor to be delivered later in the round as an ally passes by. I think it's dangerous to try to shoehorn it into cannon rules through AoO because that's going to lead to (possibly) unintended consequences.
Actually, the barbarian can touch the Cleric and the spell will be delivered. Same result.
|
Most, but not all spells are "independent" from the a creature status after they have been cast.An example of a spell where the friend/foe status matter Monster summoning if the summoned creature is something with which you can't communicate.
The bear you have summoned will attack the enemies. Probably the enemy closest to its location, unless you use handle animal or speak with animals when you summon it. Who are your enemies isn't set the moment in which you cast the spell or it wouldn't attack enemies that where hidden when he was summoned, nor it would fight for you if you...
I agree, excepting that I would think that a summoned creature would key off your actions, so if you attack an ally, then the creature would naturally think him an enemy and follow suit.
However, this is only an exception because the "spell effect" is a creature of a certain amount of independent intelligence.
RAW, it knows. Otherwise when summoned he wouldn't know what to do.
And an animal intelligence creature seeing you touch a friend to heal or buff him could easily mistake that for an attack."It act on the basis of your actions.2 work very badly if you don't take offensive actions after summoning it, or if you are invisible and summoning creatures.
It's really a moot point, because in the same situation, an active ally that moves through an adjacent square of our touch-spell caster could reach out an touch the caster as a free action and receive the touch spell anyway. It doesn't even take an attack roll.
As any touch spell can be delivered this way we are speaking of a serious advantage.
Wrong, touch spells don't discharge when some other creature touch you (barring specific exceptions), they discharge when you touch someone or something.
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
The only time this even comes into play is when the ally doing the provoking is not fully in control -- in which case, the caster would indeed have to treat the individual as an enemy in full and the former ally would treat the caster as an enemy as well.
Key word: "you". and please differentiate the times when you are citing me, the rules or some other person.
Actually, the barbarian can touch the Cleric and the spell will be delivered. Same result.
You must touch something to discharge a touch spell, otherwise every time an enemy hit you your touch spells would discharge.
A few arrows and your multy-touch attack spell is out.|
|
Of course they're different. But you clearly forget...You cannot have it both ways Rysky. Either he is resisting the spell, thus requiring an attack roll and saving throw, or he isn't.
In any case, this is a futile discussion. You are ignoring several rules and trying to logic your way around them. You are free to houserule that you can use beneficial non-attack spells in an AoO, but that is not how the rules are written.
I posed whether the bolded subject was necessary to affect a Superstition Barbarian with a spell as an ally, and most everyone said that no attack roll was required, even though a Superstition Barbarian is an unwilling target of any spell or SLA thrown at him.
If being an unwilling target requires that you must roll a saving throw and you must be successfully hit by an actual attack roll, then quite frankly most everyone on the messageboards are running/interpreting the Superstition Rage Power completely wrong.
So I'll ask again, is an attack roll required or not? Bearing in mind, that if you say yes, then a FAQ for Superstition is required, and if you say no, then you're contradicting your own stance.
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies."Cannot be a willing target of any spell" and "must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies" are different things.
The first mean that the barbarian is never a willing target for spells that affect only willing targets, like teleport, not that he will avoid being the target of a spell.
"Willing target" has a specific meaning in the rules.
No, they are 2 different effects:
1) a raging superstitious barbarian can't be a willing target (something with a specific meaning in the rules), i.e. can't benefit from teleport, dimension door, or any other spell that require a willing target;2) He must always make a save against spells, even beneficial ones.
Both apply, but that don't force him into avoiding touch spells. Generally they can't apply at the same time as spells requiring a willing target don't have a save (at least I don't know any that require that).
To have the effect that you describe you need a different text in the ability.
Interesting idea....never thought of that!
In PFS I have saved players lives 4 times from them provoking attacks from one of my characters.
3 of them people were feared, and one time they were suggested. The PCs were going to run into further encounter by themselves and be killed. So I tripped them as they passed by.
Also I have refused players to enter my square to prevent similar things.
No, they are 2 different effects:
1) a raging superstitious barbarian can't be a willing target (something with a specific meaning in the rules), i.e. can't benefit from teleport, dimension door, or any other spell that require a willing target;
2) He must always make a save against spells, even beneficial ones.
Both apply, but that don't force him into avoiding touch spells. Generally they can't apply at the same time as spells requiring a willing target don't have a save (at least I don't know any that require that).To have the effect that you describe you need a different text in the ability.
But according to Gauss, being an unwilling target means you try to actively avoid the Touch Attack as well, so that's why I posed the argument that everyone would disagree with him when it came to running Superstition Barbarians. To be honest, it makes more sense to be an unwilling target if we factor that sort of thing in.
If you don't want to be affected by the spell in any way, shape, or form, then it would make sense that you would actively try to avoid it by any means possible, such as by dodging the Touch Attack required to be affected by said spell.
At this point, all I'm saying is that an unwilling target, although "defined" in the rules, is a very poor and inconsistent definition to follow, even by game terms, since being automatically hit by a Touch Spell from an ally equates to being willing to be hit by said Touch Spell, even though you don't want to be affected by the Touch Spell at all. If the intent of being an unwilling target means you do not wish to suffer the effects of the spell, then you would do everything in your power to not suffer the effects of the spell, up to and including avoiding the touch attack required to deliver the spell unto you.
Holding the Charge: ... 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.
I was re-reading the text for holding the charge. If I read the bolded part of the text is true, then you can't even use a held charge in an attack of opportunity, as you do not threaten while unarmed-unarmed.
A held charge attack is considered to be unarmed-unarmed, and while unarmed-unarmed, you don't threaten the squares around you.
The only way you can make an attack of opportunity with a held-charge spell is if you are armed-unarmed (i.e improved unarmed strike).
Am I reading this right?
You're reading it wrong. The text says that you aren't considered armed, and you provoke Attacks of Opportunity as normal, because the game presumes you're making an Unarmed Strike, and uses those base rules.
Similarly, if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you apply those benefits to that attack.
You're reading it wrong. The text says that you aren't considered armed, and you provoke Attacks of Opportunity as normal, because the game presumes you're making an Unarmed Strike, and uses those base rules.
Similarly, if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you apply those benefits to that attack.
Right, but in our scenario, the caster wants to make an attack of opportunity on an ally using a spell that has been held.
So, if caster is not considered to be armed, then he doesn't threaten the squares around him, and if he doesn't threaten the squares around him, he can't make an attack of opportunity, on an ally or enemy.
You're reading it wrong. The text says that you aren't considered armed, and you provoke Attacks of Opportunity as normal, because the game presumes you're making an Unarmed Strike, and uses those base rules.
Similarly, if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you apply those benefits to that attack.
Right, but in our scenario, the caster wants to make an attack of opportunity on an ally using a spell that has been held.
So, if caster is not considered to be armed, then he doesn't threaten the squares around him, and if he doesn't threaten the squares around him, he can't make an attack of opportunity, on an ally or enemy.
Yes, because you aren't normally considered armed when performing an Unarmed Strike.
You would be armed when delivering a Touch Spell as a Touch Attack, because in that manner, it's an Armed Unarmed Attack. In the other case, it's not.
|
|
In PFS I have saved players lives 4 times from them provoking attacks from one of my characters.
3 of them people were feared, and one time they were suggested. The PCs were going to run into further encounter by themselves and be killed. So I tripped them as they passed by.
Also I have refused players to enter my square to prevent similar things.
Both fully acceptable from my point of view. You had reasons beside "I want to abuse actions AoO to get an action advantage" and treated them as enemies for a time. Very different to shift between enemy/friend on a wim.
|
|
No, they are 2 different effects:
1) a raging superstitious barbarian can't be a willing target (something with a specific meaning in the rules), i.e. can't benefit from teleport, dimension door, or any other spell that require a willing target;
2) He must always make a save against spells, even beneficial ones.
Both apply, but that don't force him into avoiding touch spells. Generally they can't apply at the same time as spells requiring a willing target don't have a save (at least I don't know any that require that).To have the effect that you describe you need a different text in the ability.
But according to Gauss, being an unwilling target means you try to actively avoid the Touch Attack as well, so that's why I posed the argument that everyone would disagree with him when it came to running Superstition Barbarians. To be honest, it makes more sense to be an unwilling target if we factor that sort of thing in.
If you don't want to be affected by the spell in any way, shape, or form, then it would make sense that you would actively try to avoid it by any means possible, such as by dodging the Touch Attack required to be affected by said spell.
At this point, all I'm saying is that an unwilling target, although "defined" in the rules, is a very poor and inconsistent definition to follow, even by game terms, since being automatically hit by a Touch Spell from an ally equates to being willing to be hit by said Touch Spell, even though you don't want to be affected by the Touch Spell at all. If the intent of being an unwilling target means you do not wish to suffer the effects of the spell, then you would do everything in your power to not suffer the effects of the spell, up to and including avoiding the touch attack required to deliver the spell unto you.
As I see it, the conscious part of the barbarian mind is accepting the magic, even if he distrust it. His subconscious think that magic is always a bad thing. When not raging he is capable to fully accept magic, even if he is cringing inside.
When raging his subconscious has a stronger grip on him. He is still capable to accept being touched by an ally, but his subconscious force him into resisting the spell, hence the obligatory save and the inability to be a willing target.It is like someone suffering from vertigo. He can force himself into in a location where his problem will trigger, but he can't stop himself from suffering from vertigo.
|
|
You're reading it wrong. The text says that you aren't considered armed, and you provoke Attacks of Opportunity as normal, because the game presumes you're making an Unarmed Strike, and uses those base rules.
Similarly, if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you apply those benefits to that attack.
Right, but in our scenario, the caster wants to make an attack of opportunity on an ally using a spell that has been held.
So, if caster is not considered to be armed, then he doesn't threaten the squares around him, and if he doesn't threaten the squares around him, he can't make an attack of opportunity, on an ally or enemy.
Yes, because you aren't normally considered armed when performing an Unarmed Strike.
You would be armed when delivering a Touch Spell as a Touch Attack, because in that manner, it's an Armed Unarmed Attack. In the other case, it's not.
Exact.
Ok, so the basic conclusion of all of this tangential stuff is this:
If you cast a touch attack spell, you can make a touch attack as if you were armed. As in, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing your touch attack.
However, despite the fact that you can make a touch attack as if you were armed, you are not considered to be armed while holding the charge, and because you aren't considered to be armed, you do not threaten the squares around you, and therefore cannot perform attacks of opportunity yourself with your touch attack spell.
... Unless you use improved unarmed strike or natural weapons (which allow for being armed and therefore can threaten).
Am I getting this straight?
Ok, so the basic conclusion of all of this tangential stuff is this:
If you cast a touch attack spell, you can make a touch attack as if you were armed. As in, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing your touch attack.
However, despite the fact that you can make a touch attack as if you were armed, you are not considered to be armed while holding the charge, and because you aren't considered to be armed, you do not threaten the squares around you, and therefore cannot perform attacks of opportunity yourself with your touch attack spell.
... Unless you use improved unarmed strike or natural weapons (which allow for being armed and therefore can threaten).
Am I getting this straight?
Wrong again.
Let's take the Touch Spell out of the equation for a moment. Let's say you want to punch the guy. Normally, that's an Unarmed Attack. And Unarmed Attacks cannot be done as an Attack of Opportunity, and plus they provoke one if you make it so. Improved Unarmed Strike or some other specific ability that says so overrides those normal rules, allowing you to make AoOs with them and making them not provoke when you perform them.
Now, ignore the Unarmed Attacks for a moment. You have a Touch Spell, let's say Shocking Grasp. The rules say that delivering a Touch Spell is an Armed Attack, and therefore when you perform a Touch Attack with the Shocking Grasp spell cast, it can be done as an Attack of Opportunity, and doesn't provoke for performing it. The rules also say that if you perform an attack successfully, such as an Unarmed Strike or Claw Attack, the spell discharges into the target that you hit.
Keep in mind that in those instances, you follow the normal rules set by the attack condition, which the portion you quoted re-iterates; that is, if you perform an Unarmed Strike without an Improved Unarmed Strike feat or similar ability, the Unarmed Strike you perform to deliver the spell provokes, and cannot be made to provoke.
Also, you glossed over the fact that the rules specify Touch Spells threaten and do not provoke.
Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)
As I see it, the conscious part of the barbarian mind is accepting the magic, even if he distrust it. His subconscious think that magic is always a bad thing....No, they are 2 different effects:
1) a raging superstitious barbarian can't be a willing target (something with a specific meaning in the rules), i.e. can't benefit from teleport, dimension door, or any other spell that require a willing target;
2) He must always make a save against spells, even beneficial ones.
Both apply, but that don't force him into avoiding touch spells. Generally they can't apply at the same time as spells requiring a willing target don't have a save (at least I don't know any that require that).To have the effect that you describe you need a different text in the ability.
But according to Gauss, being an unwilling target means you try to actively avoid the Touch Attack as well, so that's why I posed the argument that everyone would disagree with him when it came to running Superstition Barbarians. To be honest, it makes more sense to be an unwilling target if we factor that sort of thing in.
If you don't want to be affected by the spell in any way, shape, or form, then it would make sense that you would actively try to avoid it by any means possible, such as by dodging the Touch Attack required to be affected by said spell.
At this point, all I'm saying is that an unwilling target, although "defined" in the rules, is a very poor and inconsistent definition to follow, even by game terms, since being automatically hit by a Touch Spell from an ally equates to being willing to be hit by said Touch Spell, even though you don't want to be affected by the Touch Spell at all. If the intent of being an unwilling target means you do not wish to suffer the effects of the spell, then you would do everything in your power to not suffer the effects of the spell, up to and including avoiding the touch attack required to deliver the spell unto you.
While I understand it's your interpretation, saying that you find it's the subconscious of the Barbarian isn't what the ability says, or implies. I mean, that's about as much of a rule as flavor text.
All this does is prove my point; that there is ambiguity, or at the very least inconsistency, as to what the ramifications are between a willing and unwilling creature. You said that it was properly defined, and I (and Gauss) firmly disagree, and for fairly solid and not unfounded reasons; if you don't want to be affected by the spell, consciously or subconsciously, why let the spell automatically hit you?
In the Barbarian's viewpoint, you don't want that spell, so that means you're doing everything, and I mean everything in your power to actively avoid it, consciously or subconsciously, and that should include the attack roll associated.
I'm not trying to put a nerf on the Barbarian or the Superstition Rage Power; I'm trying to get a more consistent and sensible definition for what applies to a willing or unwilling target, which, in mine and Gauss' perspective, the Superstition Rage Power does not properly abide by.
Wrong again.Let's take the Touch Spell out of the equation for a moment. Let's say you want to punch the guy. Normally, that's an Unarmed Attack. And Unarmed Attacks cannot be done as an Attack of Opportunity, and plus they provoke one if you make it so. Improved Unarmed Strike or some other specific ability that says so overrides those normal rules, allowing you to make AoOs with them and making them not provoke when you perform them.
Now, ignore the Unarmed Attacks for a moment. You have a Touch Spell, let's say Shocking Grasp. The rules say that delivering a Touch Spell is an Armed Attack, and therefore when you perform a Touch Attack with the Shocking Grasp spell cast, it can be done as an Attack of Opportunity, and doesn't provoke for performing it. The rules also say that if you perform an attack successfully, such as an Unarmed Strike or Claw Attack, the spell discharges into the target that you hit.
Keep in mind that in those instances, you follow the normal rules set by the attack condition, which the portion you quoted re-iterates; that is, if you perform an Unarmed Strike without an Improved Unarmed Strike feat or similar ability, the Unarmed Strike you perform to deliver the spell provokes, and cannot be made to provoke.
Also, you glossed over...
I wasn't attempting to gloss over anything, only seeking clarificaiton, as it seems convoluted to think that if you are holding the charge of a spell, you threaten (as far as responding to AoO provocations is concerned) if and only if you touch only to deliver the spell, but not threaten (and cannot respond to AoO provocations) if you try to punch someone, which also delivers the spell.
The end result of delivering the spell to it's target is met either way.
Just because you can take one of two routes doesn't mean that both routes are the same, nor should they be treated the same.