What is an attack when the word "attack" is referred?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

The question starts with an argument with my friend:
Can I activate the stored spell on spell storing armor by touching myself?

the spell storing says

Quote:
Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires.

my friend insist that the word "attack" in the description is referring an offensive attack, only striking from a foe would make it possible for me to activate the stored spell. A willing creature will never trigger stored spell.

but i rather believe this only applies to invisibility spell, as the spell says

Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe......

i further came up an example that Reach CLW is a ranged touch attack but will not end the invisibility effect on the caster.

but my friend believe it is a "ranged attack roll" not an "attack".

after all the only question is:
1,Can I activate the stored spell on spell storing armor by touching myself?


It's not really in the spirit of the enchantment, but I'd allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A: No.

In order to activate the spell stored in the armor,"a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack".

A melee attack or melee touch attack is part of a standard action or part of a full round action.

Note that the FAQ for this ability also calls out that the swift action should be an immediate action, since it's intended to be activated during another person's turn.

The only way to activate a Spell Storing armor on your turn is to target yourself with a melee attack or melee touch attack. Even then, you need to successfully hit yourself to activate it by RAW.

Also, to correct another point in the OP, a spell of Cure Light Wounds doesn't require a ranged touch attack to cast when modified by Reach Spell. The base spell has a range of touch but doesn't require a melee touch attack. Instead it has a Will saving throw applied to the effect, should a creature wish to resist the spell. Spells modified by the Reach Spell only require a ranged attack roll if the original spell require a melee touch attack.


JDLPF wrote:

The only way to activate a Spell Storing armor on your turn is to target yourself with a melee attack or melee touch attack. Even then, you need to successfully hit yourself to activate it by RAW.

If i cast a Shocking Grasp on myself, am i able to activate a Spell Storing armor?

JDLPF wrote:
Also, to correct another point in the OP, a spell of Cure Light Wounds doesn't require a ranged touch attack to cast when modified by Reach Spell. The base spell has a range of touch but doesn't require a melee touch attack. Instead it has a Will saving throw applied to the effect, should a creature wish to resist the spell. Spells modified by the Reach Spell only require a ranged attack roll if the original spell require a melee touch attack.

That is to say, CLW always automatically hit, even when attacking undead?


Yes, if you spend your standard action to target yourself with a Shocking Grasp, you could spend an immediate action to activate your Spell Storing armor, essentially wasting your turn for the round and potentially dealing yourself damage at the same time. Note that using an immediate action on your turn counts as a swift action, so no other swift actions in that turn for you, such as a Quickened spell.

Cure Light Wounds requires no attack roll to hit, even though it's a touch range spell. Instead, the creature targeted gains a saving throw against the effect, which undead may wish to take. Another example of a similar spell is Bestow Curse. These types of spells work similarly to other targeted spells that allow a saving throw, such as Finger of Death. Unless the spell tells you to make an attack you don't make an attack roll.


I had never noticed that you can't use immediate actions when flatfooted before. Makes me wonder how feather fall and similar abilities are intended to work.


This is why having some semi-permanent method of gaining a flying speed is useful, since you are not considered flat-footed while flying.

Yep, that's right. You need to be flying to avoid falling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JDLPF wrote:
Cure Light Wounds requires no attack roll to hit, even though it's a touch range spell. Instead, the creature targeted gains a saving throw against the effect, which undead may wish to take. Another example of a similar spell is Bestow Curse. These types of spells work similarly to other targeted spells that allow a saving throw, such as Finger of Death. Unless the spell tells you to make an attack you don't make an attack roll.

Spell range says

Quote:
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it.

Cast a spell says

Quote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.


dynilath wrote:
That is to say, CLW always automatically hit, even when attacking undead?

Cure Light Wounds and all other touch spells do not require a to-hit roll when used on willing creatures.

They do require to-hit rolls against unwilling creatures.

Magic wrote:

Touch

You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

The RAW only covers spells with a range of touch. There is no similar RAW granting an automatic hit to willing opponents with ranged touch attacks.


It's definitely not intended to work the way you want it to.

But technically it does, however, I would make you spend an action (either standard action or as part of a full attack action).

As a GM I wouldn't be happy about it though, and you might find your armor destroyed depending on how far you went with the shenanigans.


dynilath wrote:

after all the only question is:

1,Can I activate the stored spell on spell storing armor by touching myself?

You win points for dodging the obvious title for your thread. Or lose jokes, depending. ;)


I'll take "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."


On falling, WHEN do you land? Immediately, or at some point during your own turn?

If the latter, you're no longer flat-footed and can activate Feather Fall.

If the former, I'd still allow casting it while falling, even if flat-footed. Because it's useless otherwise.


bitter lily wrote:
You win points for dodging the obvious title for your thread. Or lose jokes, depending. ;)

I've been very embarrassed after i find that i can't change the title of the thread, from what im arguing on with my friend to a real question that i want to figure out.

the point of the arguement is that whether or not a non-harmful auto-hit touch counts toward a melee touch attack, to meet the requirement of Spell Storing enchantment.


Ultimate Equipment under Armor Special Abilities wrote:
Spell StoringThis armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires.

What kind of spell does he want to store? The intent looks clear to me that you can only store attack spells that target the attacker. It sounds like he wants to store defensive spells that target himself. I couldn't allow it, and would instead direct his attention to a Ring of Spell Storing, Minor.

Ultimate Equipment under Armor Special Abilities wrote:

Ring of Spell Storing, Minor. A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is the same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action. [...]

A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than three. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing.


dynilath wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
You win points for dodging the obvious title for your thread. Or lose jokes, depending. ;)

I've been very embarrassed after i find that i can't change the title of the thread, from what im arguing on with my friend to a real question that i want to figure out.

the point of the arguement is that whether or not a non-harmful auto-hit touch counts toward a melee touch attack, to meet the requirement of Spell Storing enchantment.

Yes, but this way all the jokesters aren't going to find it.


Claxon wrote:

It's definitely not intended to work the way you want it to.

But technically it does, however, I would make you spend an action (either standard action or as part of a full attack action).

As a GM I wouldn't be happy about it though, and you might find your armor destroyed depending on how far you went with the shenanigans.

For instance, I buff myself with Bear's Endurance as a standard action and activating the stored spell Bull's Strength as a swift acton.

Is that fine?


dynilath wrote:
Claxon wrote:

It's definitely not intended to work the way you want it to.

But technically it does, however, I would make you spend an action (either standard action or as part of a full attack action).

As a GM I wouldn't be happy about it though, and you might find your armor destroyed depending on how far you went with the shenanigans.

For instance, I buff myself with Bear's Endurance as a standard action and activating the stored spell Bull's Strength as a swift acton.

Is that fine?

NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn.


bitter lily wrote:
NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn.

I referred the Reach CLW as an example that attack roll is not always an harmful attack.

A touch spell from ally is an auto-hit touch attack, but it is not an "attack" described in the Invisibility spell.


dynilath wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn.

I referred the Reach CLW as an example that attack roll is not always an harmful attack.

A touch spell from ally is an auto-hit touch attack, but it is not an "attack" described in the Invisibility spell.

{Original response deleted as the light dawned.}

You're saying he wants the Bear's Endurance itself to trigger the other? I'm incredulous. And with Claxon:
Claxon wrote:
As a GM I wouldn't be happy about it though, and you might find your armor destroyed depending on how far you went with the shenanigans.

{Or I'd just ban it as an obvious rules-rap. It's clearly outside the intent of how the armor is to be used.}


dynilath wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn.

I referred the Reach CLW as an example that attack roll is not always an harmful attack.

A touch spell from ally is an auto-hit touch attack, but it is not an "attack" described in the Invisibility spell.

When Cure Light Wounds, or any other touch spell, is delivered to a willing target, it is not an attack.

This is why you can deliver a touch spell to up to six targets in a single round instead of the single target you get with the free attack associated with casting a touch spell offensively.

It is also why you cannot crit when using Cure Light Wounds to heal your allies but can crit with the spell when using it offensively.


dynilath wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn.

I referred the Reach CLW as an example that attack roll is not always an harmful attack.

A touch spell from ally is an auto-hit touch attack, but it is not an "attack" described in the Invisibility spell.

Reach CLW lacks the specific exemption from to-hit rolls that touch spells to willing targets have.

The rules in question are not a part of CLW, they are a found in the magic rules under "Range: Touch". Spells with a range other than touch do not include similar text exempting willing creatures from requiring ranged touch attacks. Ranged touch attacks also lack text that would allow them to be applied to up to six willing targets in a single round.

These are general magic rules, not a part of specific spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would disagree. A touch range spell is a touch attack even if used on an ally.

The rules allow you to automatically succeed, sure, but that doesn't change the nature of it being a touch attack. A Coup de Grace automatically hits without an attack roll, but you can be sure it is still an attack.

Using Spell Storing armor to get two buffs in a round seems more like creative use rather than abuse. It helps action economy that one round, but it costs the same resources, and its just the one round until after combat is over and you can "fill" the armor again.

Liberty's Edge

dynilath wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn.

I referred the Reach CLW as an example that attack roll is not always an harmful attack.

A touch spell from ally is an auto-hit touch attack, but it is not an "attack" described in the Invisibility spell.

If you go purely by the rules, since no Attack role is made, you could say that you can't do it...but logically that argument is pretty weak.

As much as I do not like using weapon Spell Storing this way, I would allow it. After all, if it was a ring you could do it (but it would cost you a standard action). However, since it does require an attack roll to activate, I would require that an attack action be used. You would need to use a standard action or full round action to activate a spell on yourself and 1 attack would be utilized to do so.

If this was a home game, I would adjust the item ability so that spell storing could be used on the wielder as a standard action in the same way as any other magic item that needs to be activated. I think that is more than fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JDLPF wrote:

This is why having some semi-permanent method of gaining a flying speed is useful, since you are not considered flat-footed while flying.

Yep, that's right. You need to be flying to avoid falling.

That doesn't mean you can't be flat-footed it means that your not flat-footed simply based off of the fact that you are flying.


Snowlilly wrote:

Reach CLW lacks the specific exemption from to-hit rolls that touch spells to willing targets have.

there is another rule entry which implies a friendly touch is an auto-hit attack.

Quote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.


That still leaves the problem of not being allowed immediate actions while flat-footed.


Khudzlin wrote:
That still leaves the problem of not being allowed immediate actions while flat-footed.

falling

Quote:
A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall.

immediate action

Quote:
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

=P


RedDogMT wrote:

If you go purely by the rules, since no Attack role is made, you could say that you can't do it...but logically that argument is pretty weak.

As much as I do not like using weapon Spell Storing this way, I would allow it. After all, if it was a ring you could do it (but it would cost you a standard action). However, since it does require an attack roll to activate, I would require that an attack action be used. You would need to use a standard action or full round action to activate a spell on yourself and 1 attack would be utilized to do so.

If this was a home game, I would adjust the item ability so that spell storing could be used on the wielder as a standard action in the same way as any other magic item that needs to be activated. I think that is more than fair.

I'm trying to understand your answer. Can a character cast a buff on themselves (standard action) and trigger a second buff (swift action) from the armor?


dynilath wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
That still leaves the problem of not being allowed immediate actions while flat-footed.

falling

Quote:
A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall.

immediate action

Quote:
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
=P

You could be falling without being flat-footed.


Samasboy1 wrote:
I would disagree. A touch range spell is a touch attack even if used on an ally.
Quote:
an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Spells are only attacks if they target or include opponents.


dynilath wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
That still leaves the problem of not being allowed immediate actions while flat-footed.

falling

Quote:
A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall.

immediate action

Quote:
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
=P

Funny thing - immediate actions use Feather Fall as an example of actions that can be taken.


Snowlilly wrote:
Spells are only attacks if they target or include opponents.
Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe

i think it is just effective for Invisibility spell.


dynilath wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Spells are only attacks if they target or include opponents.
Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe
i think it is just effective for Invisibility spell.

Unless you can find an alternate definition within RAW, we are left with the dictionary definition of "attack".

Quote:
take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.

Emphasis mine.

Interestingly enough, this agrees with the definition from Invisibility. Attack is an action taken against an opponent. Attack is not an action you take against yourself.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

You most certainly CAN attack yourself. See the Confusion spell, result 51-75. However, doing so is at least a standard action or part of a full attack action. IMHO, YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:


Spells are only attacks if they target or include opponents.

That's fine, cause opponent isn't a defined word. Your opponent is who you say it is.


Snowlilly wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
I would disagree. A touch range spell is a touch attack even if used on an ally.
Quote:
an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Spells are only attacks if they target or include opponents.

What is an "opponent" mechanically?

This game is very ambiguous with the term. Really, a spell at touch range is only an automatic hit against a willing target.

So, if someone were to target you with a cure light wounds and you decided you were unwilling, it would require a touch attack. Why can't you then decide to target yourself, and declare yourself unwilling?

And if you won't allow that, why can't someone in your party target you with invisibility, and you declare yourself unwilling and make them roll an attack roll?

I personally think it works just fine, mechanically. Not all "touch" range spells are offensive, and not all attack rolls are offensive either. Is this intended? Probably not.

However, even if it's unintended, I wouldn't even view it as cheese. You're spending enhancement bonus and prep time in exchange for action economy, and thematically it still works. If you can store a harmful spell to zap someone when they touch it, why can't you store a helpful spell to zap someone when they touch it?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

If the rules talk about attacks they mean opponent/enemy unless they detail yourself (confusion).

You can always use feather fall because falling says you may, if you must call it an exception to "may not use immediate actions while flat foot".

Fly doesn't exempt you from flat foot for all purposes, just for uses of the fly skill.

Liberty's Edge

bitter lily wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:

If you go purely by the rules, since no Attack role is made, you could say that you can't do it...but logically that argument is pretty weak.

As much as I do not like using weapon Spell Storing this way, I would allow it. After all, if it was a ring you could do it (but it would cost you a standard action). However, since it does require an attack roll to activate, I would require that an attack action be used. You would need to use a standard action or full round action to activate a spell on yourself and 1 attack would be utilized to do so.

If this was a home game, I would adjust the item ability so that spell storing could be used on the wielder as a standard action in the same way as any other magic item that needs to be activated. I think that is more than fair.

I'm trying to understand your answer. Can a character cast a buff on themselves (standard action) and trigger a second buff (swift action) from the armor?

No. You would need to 'attack' yourself which requires the use of a standard action (this would be an auto-hit by the way). Since you used the standard action to 'attack' yourself, you could not also cast a spell.

Again, this would be my interpretation based on the rules as best as I can see it.

Your suggested use of a swift action is creative, but I do not see where such a thing is supported by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RedDogMT wrote:

No. You would need to 'attack' yourself which requires the use of a standard action (this would be an auto-hit by the way). Since you used the standard action to 'attack' yourself, you could not also cast a spell.

Again, this would be my interpretation based on the rules as best as I can see it.

Your suggested use of a swift action is creative, but I do not see where such a thing is supported by the rules.

Small nitpick:

Touch spells in combat wrote:
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.

The casting of the spell is a standard action, and then the deliver of it, should it also happen that round, is always a free action no matter how it happens. Whether you touch yourself, an ally, or attempt to touch an unwilling target thus requiring an attack roll, it is a free action that round.

Indeed, if you were to use shocking grasp, the attack made against the enemy as the delivery is a free action attack, and the magus even turns this free action attack into another weapon attack via spellstrike. So there's pretty much nothing on the action economy side of things preventing this interaction.


SlimGauge wrote:
You most certainly CAN attack yourself. See the Confusion spell, result 51-75. However, doing so is at least a standard action or part of a full attack action. IMHO, YMMV.

I should add the caveat "voluntarily."

Confusion is a specific exception with RAW defining the action, outside the characters control, as an attack.

I've seen a few other similar exception with haunts, spells and possession, but all contained specific exceptions and all removed free will from the action.

Samasboy1 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:


Spells are only attacks if they target or include opponents.

That's fine, cause opponent isn't a defined word. Your opponent is who you say it is.

If Pathfinder lacks a specific definition and you are unsure of a words meaning, refer to a dictionary:

Opponent wrote:
someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argument; a rival or adversary.

Sorry, no. It cannot be yourself, you need a second party.

If you're going to insist on a definition for every single word we can keep going.

Johnny_Devo wrote:


This game is very ambiguous with the term. Really, a spell at touch range is only an automatic hit against a willing target.

So, if someone were to target you with a cure light wounds and you decided you were unwilling, it would require a touch attack. Why can't you then decide to target yourself, and declare yourself unwilling?

If you were unwilling, you would not voluntarily take the action.

Magical control, possession, etc. may force the issue, but not self-agency.

James Risner wrote:

If the rules talk about attacks they mean opponent/enemy unless they detail yourself (confusion).

You can always use feather fall because falling says you may, if you must call it an exception to "may not use immediate actions while flat foot".

Fly doesn't exempt you from flat foot for all purposes, just for uses of the fly skill.

The RAW for immediate actions lists Feather Fall as an example.

Bit difficulty to argue you cannot use Feather Fall as an immediate action when Feather Fall is used by the RAW in question as an example of what can be done.


RedDogMT wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
I'm trying to understand your answer. Can a character cast a buff on themselves (standard action) and trigger a second buff (swift action) from the armor?

No. You would need to 'attack' yourself which requires the use of a standard action (this would be an auto-hit by the way). Since you used the standard action to 'attack' yourself, you could not also cast a spell.

Again, this would be my interpretation based on the rules as best as I can see it.

Your suggested use of a swift action is creative, but I do not see where such a thing is supported by the rules.

I just want to distance myself as rapidly as possible from said creativity. I'm incredulous at the very notion. I wasn't sure, however, if you were supporting it.

Lantern Lodge

An attack is simply a type of action where a creature attempts to make contact with a target. There is no reason to assume that a creature is unable to target itself with an attempt to touch, and as a willing target, no roll would be required.

Also, keep in mind, the original d20 rules were designed with the expectation that the gm would use common sense. They were not designed to be absolutely strict like the rules in chess are. It was expected that the gm would use the rules as a baseline, and if a questionable situation arose, the gm is supposed to make a ruling based on what makes sense and what would be fun, with the existing rules being merely a baseline tool to make that ruling faster and easier to formulate and implement.

PF seems to be steering for the (sadly in my opinion) more popular style of treating the rules as rock hard and inflexible outside of explicitly considered uses, or upfront houserules. However, they still have lots of these inherited rules and wordings with a more flexible "guidelines" type approach, and this should be accounted for by the gm.

What makes sense for this armor is that who or what touches the outside can be targeted by the stored spell, or trigger the stored spell. Now this, in my opinion, gives the gm two choices, either the wearer must touch the armor on the outside in order to trigger the spell (if they want to allow it), or say that the armor is built to prevent the wearer from being targeted by the spell as a safety feature (if they want to make it offensive only).

I would personally allow it to be used for defensive spells, or even healing spells, that target the wearer, as that would be a very useful and sensible ability, especially if they wearer is a non-caster.


SlimGauge wrote:
You most certainly CAN attack yourself. See the Confusion spell, result 51-75. However, doing so is at least a standard action or part of a full attack action. IMHO, YMMV.

there is another view on the problem:

Can I activate my Spell Storing Armor, when my friend cast Fly on me?


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
An attack is simply a type of action where a creature attempts to make contact with a target.

That is a very creative alternative definition for the word attack.

Do you have RAW to support that definition or did you write it yourself?


From the magic chapter, "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
dynilath wrote:

there is another view on the problem:

Can I activate my Spell Storing Armor, when my friend cast Fly on me?

Did your friend have to make an attack roll to do that ?


dynilath wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
You most certainly CAN attack yourself. See the Confusion spell, result 51-75. However, doing so is at least a standard action or part of a full attack action. IMHO, YMMV.

there is another view on the problem:

Can I activate my Spell Storing Armor, when my friend cast Fly on me?

Given that Fly is a spell with a range of touch, it is most certainly a touch attack for your friend to attempt to cast it on you, therefore you should 100% be able to then use a swift action to release the stored "touch" range spell on him. It can even just so happen to be "fly", because it is a spell with the range of "touch".

I think I'm entirely with DarkLightHitomi here. The armor obviously is designed as "someone is touching it, channel the magic", so how does the armor know whether the "touch" style spell is an offensive one? Likewise, how does the magic and the armor know that you view the person touching you as an "opponent".

Furthermore, aren't YOU the one commanding the armor to release the magic, as a swift action? So what's the difference between a lion hitting you with his claws and you release a shocking grasp and your friend hitting you with a hi-five and you release invisibility? There's only the mechanical definitions of the terms "attack" and "opponent" governing this interaction.

And, given that there exists a "creative alternative definition" that supports this dairy product of an interaction, and given how it's not overpowered in the slightest, I say why not? The mechanics of it have been explained to work just fine, and it thematically works just fine as well.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
dynilath wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
You most certainly CAN attack yourself. See the Confusion spell, result 51-75. However, doing so is at least a standard action or part of a full attack action. IMHO, YMMV.

there is another view on the problem:

Can I activate my Spell Storing Armor, when my friend cast Fly on me?
Given that Fly is a spell with a range of touch, it is most certainly a touch attack for your friend to attempt to cast it on you,

Fly cast on a willing opponent is not, and never has been, an attack.

Attack wrote:
take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.

In so sense of the word is casting a beneficial spell on a willing ally an attack.

Please stop writing your own definitions for the English language. It reduces the entire rule set to meaningless garble as even the most basic conventions of language are discarded for personal convenience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The trouble is that pathfinder doesn't use that definition for attack, or even the same definition for attack within its own set of rules. You can't just bring real-world definitions into this game, or you start breaking everything very quickly.

For example, invisibility breaks whenever you "take aggressive action" as per the English definition, and it also breaks if you attack an ally with something harmful, even if he's willing, so that breaks that definition a little bit. However, it's helpful that this particular definition is found in the core rulebook under magic. Not referenced to a dictionary.

In contrast, a rogue's sneak attack also says "attack" in its conditions, yet supporting rules and FAQs suggest that it only works on something that requires an attack roll, and not something as straightforward as magic missile. In pathfinder, "attack" is a well-documented yet not technically written outright term which is defined as "to roll a d20 to hit".

And when someone tries to touch you and you decide you're unwilling, it requires an attack roll for them to hit you. For example, if you fail your spellcraft check and think that they're lying about the spell being cure light wounds, they'd have to hit an attack roll to get you with it. So I go back again to this: If the logical function of the armor is to channel magic into someone that touches it, and there's mechanical evidence that it's possible for an ally to require an attack roll to hit you AND there's buff and beneficial spells that use the exact same touch rules, what reason is there that this should not work that actually makes sense in world?

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is an attack when the word "attack" is referred? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.