Not unless you're a Magus.Haste: Haste says a hasted creature can make an additional attack during a full attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, but what about other sorts of attacks like unarmed strikes?
Unarmed strikes and other attacks that work via full attacks (such as mystic bolts, kinetic blade, and flame blade) all allow an extra attack with haste. However, single attacks such as incorporeal touch attacks or melee touch spells delivered round by round after holding the charge do not.Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.Appreciate the clarification. Very interesting.
So, this means you can't Full Attack with a spell like Chill Touch, if I'm reading this correctly. Not opposed to it, I just thought that a lot of guides and stuff argued otherwise.
Also a Blade Adept Arcanist. Spellstrike just got a lot more value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused with how this doesn't make the magus obsolete after round 1.
Because Magus treats the charged touch as a melee attack instead thus works with haste.
So when a Magus used Chill Touch or whatever, they can haste it up.
I'm confused with how this doesn't make the magus obsolete after round 1.
FAQ says "making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it is a standard action. It cannot be used with a full attack." Magus isn't planning on delivering a touch attack by touching something, spellstrike delivers a touch attack by hitting something.
The magus delivers touch spells with weapons, you could always full attack with weapons.
An example on the second FAQ would be helpful.
Assume a 12th level Wizard attacks and misses with Chill Touch.
What are their options on the next round?
I think the new FAQ says if they make a touch attack to deliver it, that is a standard action so they can only make one attack.
How about if they have Improved Unarmed Strike (IUS)? Can they do a full round attack with IUS to get two attempts to discharge it? If they hit twice, does that discharge twice?
If we have answers to that it should allow us to extrapolate to the Magus case. It also keeps it to things that are just in the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reading the gist of the FAQ as: "You can use haste with anything you can full attack with; you cannot full attack with finger pokes."
If you have some other means of delivering touch spells that isn't a finger poke, and that thing is a thing you can full attack with, go for it.
I'm reading the gist of the FAQ as: "You can use haste with anything you can full attack with; you cannot full attack with finger pokes."
If you have some other means of delivering touch attacks that isn't a finger poke, and that thing is a thing you can full attack with, go for it.
I believe my own interpretation agrees with your description. I've had a discussion with others in my area and not everyone agrees on how to apply the Touch Spells part of this FAQ. I'm seeing some others here who would also disagree with it.
Some questions I have remaining that I would take an answer from anyone on, preferably with a rules quote:
Improvised Weapons: they don't normally count for the extra attack, correct, since they are not a true "manufactured weapon"? You do still get the +1 to attack though, right? What feat[s] [if any] could you take to get the extra attack? {Catch Off-Guard, Throw Anything do not appear to make the weapon a manufactured weapon by my interpretation}
Gunslingers will get their extra ranged touch attack, but a Scorching Ray will not get an extra attack, true? Haste only works on spells that have melee touch attack, and only if you have improved unarmed strike or are a Magus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extra hugs for Rysky!!
Improvised Weapons: they don't normally count for the extra attack, correct, since they are not a true "manufactured weapon"?
Per the FAQ an improvised weapon would count as an "other attack that works via full attack" so you'd get an extra attack.
With both this FAQ and the FAQ that almost always when "weapons" are mentioned its supposed to be read "manufactured weapon" in mind, are we sure any weapons exist that are neither manufactured nor natural?
I am specifically thinking about various spells that create a "ray" weapon for you, does it break anything in the game if you consider those manufactured? Because I'm currently under the impression they might be. They still wouldn't interact with haste of course, as you usually can't full-attack with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, for instance, there is one FAQ question on the queue right now that might take more time to answer than the rest of the pressing section of the queue combined, and that one is much less likely to get a quick answer, since if we somehow wound up with enough time (an unrealistic dream, true), it's probably better overall to have answered all the other ones.
Oh dear, that's probably the bardic masterpiece FAQ isn't it :(
|
The Magus can make a full attack with the weapon and use spellstrike to use the held spell with one of those attacks. He can also use the touch attack as one of his attacks in a full attack without spell strike. (He is considered armed when holding the spell and attacking with it)
The thing that is clarified is that the spell itself does not gain any extra attacks from Haste, for spells like Chill Touch or Produce Flame.
So even if the caster misses on the first touch attempt, still does not get more than one attack due to Haste or high BAB?
Correct. The touch attempt is a part of the "casting a touch spell" standard action and not a full attack action. Haste only gives the extra attack if you full attack. Magus would be the exception to the rule here because they can cast a spell in a full attack action as part of their class features.
|
I would like to point out that Holding the Charge says that you can touch a friend as a Standard Action, enemies require an attack roll and the attack is considered "armed" nowhere does it say it requires a standard action.
So, unless the spell itself says it can only be discharged once per round..
If it takes a Standard Action to touch a single willing target what does that tell you?
We now have a FAQ that says touching an enemy is a standard action. The one posted in this very thread.
Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.
It tells me that it takes a standard action to touch a willing target. The other part says it takes an attack roll to touch an enemy. An attack roll can be made as a standard action, or as part of a full attack.If it takes a Standard Action to touch a single willing target what does that tell you?I would like to point out that Holding the Charge says that you can touch a friend as a Standard Action, enemies require an attack roll and the attack is considered "armed" nowhere does it say it requires a standard action.
So, unless the spell itself says it can only be discharged once per round..
So are you going to just continue ignoring the FAQ in this very thread?
It seems like the
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action.
part of the FAQ generated by this very thread is incredibly clear and unambiguous. Like I don't think it could be possible to state that in a way that is less open to creative interpretation.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If it takes a Standard Action to touch a single willing target what does that tell you?It tells me that it takes a standard action to touch a willing target. The other part says it takes an attack roll to touch an enemy. An attack roll can be made as a standard action, or as part of a full attack.
No, an attack roll is something you can do in a full attack.
A touch attack roll is something that requires a standard action known as "attack action".Not really relevant, as we have a FAQ that says any other interpretation is wrong and as such a house rule.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part should be an Errata, not a FAQ
It's only errata if they say "Well we intended it to work this way, but that was bad idea so it now works this way".
Just because you don't read the rule the way it was written and the way others read it, doesn't make it errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part should be an Errata, not a FAQIt's only errata if they say "Well we intended it to work this way, but that was bad idea so it now works this way".
Just because you don't read the rule the way it was written and the way others read it, doesn't make it errata.
I think "the way it was written" is a bit too far. Like the FAQ says, the PDT concluded that the Core Rulebook is absent of direct mention beyond "round after round". While in the absence of a direct statement it might default into a standard action, that's not particularly clear. So it's more that the book didn't clearly say anything so it needed a FAQ. Nobody was "right" or "wrong" or "misreading".
I just thought that a lot of guides and stuff argued otherwise.I find most guides are wrong about many things.
Saying they argued otherwise doesn't mean I said they were right.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think "the way it was written" is a bit too far ... Nobody was "right" or "wrong" or "misreading".
Fair
I maybe reacted too strongly to "it should be Errata". Your clarification here is sort of my point. PDT read the rules and came to the conclusion they meant this. Someone else came to a different conclusion. It's only Errata when the conclusion the rules give or the intended conclusion is something the PDT wants to change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errata is wording is changing.
FAQ without errata is telling us how the PDT says it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think trying to maintain a distinction between FAQ and Errata is doomed to be ultimately fruitless.
From our perspective we're basically saying is "Hey Paizo, this seems wrong, unclear, or confusing, what's up with it?" and whatever avenue they choose to provide an answer is more or less the same value to us.
In 2017 since so much of the information about the game (if not the game itself) is online, it's kind of more helpful for the PDT to say "Okay, here's how this works" rather than simply saying "on page [whatever], it should read [this] and not [that]" which is the form errata generally takes.
I mean, the fact that the FAQ is a website and the errata is a PDF makes the former a lot more accessible.
|
|
I think trying to maintain a distinction between FAQ and Errata is doomed to be ultimately fruitless.
<Snip>
I have to agree that arguing over what is a FAQ and what is Errata is a distinction without a difference.
And just to muddy the waters more, suppose we have a multi classed Monk/Caster with Flurry of blows holding a charge. Misses with the first unarmed strike, but hits with a subsequent one?
What happens to the charge?
so delivering held charges with IUS or natural attacks isn't changed, each attack can deliver a charge of the spell.
all this FAQ did was clarifying that touch is a new kind of standard action attack, similar to the attack action standard action.
|
|
I have always known that a held spell would be a Standard action to attack with. I have, in another thread, pointed to three different parts of the section that eludes to this.
The clarification of this, in this FAQ, is nice, but it isn't a change from what is already there.
The only real question is if a Magus can replace a held spell in place of casting one.