What stops a mount from being affected by a held touch spell?


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do touch spells interact with mounts?
If I'm already touching them by being mounted, doesn't that mean that they get hit automatically with any touch spell that I cast?

If that is true, what can I do about it?


You're supposed to hold the touch with a designated limb (generally your right or left hand, but it could be your Prehensile hair etc.), so you cannot deliver it to your mount by accident unless you touch it with it.


Thanks, can you link me to the srd or page number for that? I didn't see it in the touch information.


I have a hard time linking stuff from my phone, I'm trying to look for the reference so I can do it. I hope someone else does it for me because I suck at finding the references.

Scarab Sages

Joseph Stracener wrote:

How do touch spells interact with mounts?

If I'm already touching them by being mounted, doesn't that mean that they get hit automatically with any touch spell that I cast?

If that is true, what can I do about it?

No, you have to choose the target, then touch it. If they are unwilling, this is a melee touch attack. A willing target would still have the motions of a melee touch attack even if they allowed your strike to connect without resistance.

So even if you are grappling or riding your target, if you attempt a touch attack, that still requires an attack for melee touch as normal (which auto-hits with no saves if they are willing).

If you are asking in regard to unwilling targets that you are riding, that is a grey area, and I'd ask the GM in that case, since that really isn't well covered. I supposed I'd probably consider it grappling, for the purposes for determining an attack roll.

Grand Lodge

I'd also consider this similarly to the drain energy of a vampire.

a vampire punches you : you get negative level
you punch a vampire face with your fist : no negative levels.

as long as your "appendice" holding the charge does not touch anything, you keep the charge


The rules are pretty confusing. "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." It only makes sense to me if 'touch' means 'make a touch attack'. Otherwise you'd be discharging your spells automatically on anyone who bites or grapples you. Or you'd be discharging them into your clothes or the floor.


I think, but I cannot remember where I read it, that you have to decide which of your limbs you are using for holding the charge, that would mean that only things that you touched with that limb would count as touched.
It might have been something about the Prehensile Hair hex, because I remember reading it about the time I picked that hex. But I have an awful memory to recall where I read or hear things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically from what I understand, the devs have admitted that the whole accidental touch thing is just a leftover from 3.5 they didn't remove because they didn't think about all the consequences it would cause.

For the most part, you should just ignore the accidental discharge part because it makes things more confusing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

I think, but I cannot remember where I read it, that you have to decide which of your limbs you are using for holding the charge, that would mean that only things that you touched with that limb would count as touched.

It might have been something about the Prehensile Hair hex, because I remember reading it about the time I picked that hex. But I have an awful memory to recall where I read or hear things.
Closest I remember is the Magus FAQ:
Quote:

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.

Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.


Since you are already touching your mount the spell does not trigger. The spell triggers when you touch something not if you are touching something. Presumably you were touching your mount when you cast the spell so the touch took place before the spell so is not triggered. Otherwise touch spells would be impossible because you are already touching your gear. The rule also states that the spell is discharged when you touch something not when you are touched.

Silver Crusade

Claxon wrote:

Basically from what I understand, the devs have admitted that the whole accidental touch thing is just a leftover from 3.5 they didn't remove because they didn't think about all the consequences it would cause.

For the most part, you should just ignore the accidental discharge part because it makes things more confusing.

Yeah, every time that rule has been brought it's been promptly ignored.


I think it's implicit that the held touch is held in a specific part of the body chosen when the spell is cast, generally the hand (there's an FAQ on the magus spellstrike that refers to their ability to pick up another weapon "with that hand" without discharging the spell), but I don't think it's made explicit anywhere and may not be consistently adhered to.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

There is disputation on holding a charge. See threads like

this one
this one
this one

and many more.


SlimGauge wrote:

There is disputation on holding a charge. See threads like

this one
this one
this one

and many more.

And in all those threads no one has ever quoted a rule (that I've seen) that a held charge is assigned to a particular appendage of the body. Thus, it is not in fact a rule (unless of course someone can finally provide such a rules quote).


I've clicked the FAQ button, this seems to come up a lot.


Joseph Stracener wrote:

I've clicked the FAQ button, this seems to come up a lot.

Never mind:

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster.

Sean K Reynolds
Designer

"and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. "

Sweet, that's what I needed to know :D


Joseph Stracener wrote:
Joseph Stracener wrote:

I've clicked the FAQ button, this seems to come up a lot.

Never mind:

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster.

Sean K Reynolds
Designer

"and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. "

Sweet, that's what I needed to know :D

That is a liberally applied view point of a loosely worded answer regarding spellstrike.

Spellstrike wrote:


At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

Meaning the magus could also pick up the weapon with his other hand, or draw a different weapon with either hand, and still deliver the spell with a weapon attack from that weapon. Not any weapon he is holding in that hand, or the limb that holds the charge. ANY weapon he attacks with can deliver the spell. That includes his boot blade and armor spikes.


bbangerter wrote:
Joseph Stracener wrote:
Joseph Stracener wrote:

I've clicked the FAQ button, this seems to come up a lot.

Never mind:

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster.

Sean K Reynolds
Designer

"and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. "

Sweet, that's what I needed to know :D

That is a liberally applied view point of a loosely worded answer regarding spellstrike.

Spellstrike wrote:


This implies that a normal spellcaster holds the charge in his hand
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
Meaning the magus could also pick up the weapon with his other hand, or draw a different weapon with either hand, and still deliver the spell with a weapon attack from that weapon. Not any weapon he is holding in that hand, or the limb that holds the charge. ANY weapon he attacks with can deliver the spell. That includes his boot blade and armor spikes.

This implies that normal (humanoid) spellcasters hold the charge in their hands and that only the charge is only lost if their hand touches something else.

This means that I can have a mounted spellcaster guiding with knees to charge an enemy, and then reach forward and discharge the spell into an enemy with a touch attack at the end of the charge.

Grand Lodge

The same thing that's stopping me from "stealing" a beneficial touch spell you cast by readying to touch you when you cast a touch spell.


Joseph Stracener wrote:


This implies that normal (humanoid) spellcasters hold the charge in their hands and that only the charge is only lost if their hand touches something else.

This means that I can have a mounted spellcaster guiding with knees to charge an enemy, and then reach forward and discharge the spell into an enemy with a touch attack at the end of the charge.

No it doesn't, because a spell caster could be holding a charge and kick you (as an unarmed attack) and deliver the spell as part of that kick attack (targeting normal AC instead of touch AC). They could also head butt you, elbow you, knee you, etc. All of those unarmed strikes would also deliver the held charge if they are successful.

What stops the spell from being discharged into your mount is a implied rule that things you are currently touching don't get zapped.

This is why those magic gloves you are wearing don't get zapped when you cast a touch spell. Or why the magic rings you are wearing don't get zapped. Or the weapon you are holding when not a magus, or your clerics holy symbol, the wizards staff, etc.

The argument that the charge is held in hand, and that's why your mount doesn't get zapped doesn't work because there are plenty of other objects that might be worn or held in your hand that also aren't getting zapped.


Or the ground you are standing on, or the wind that is blowing by your face, etc...

There is still the 'touching' vs 'being touched' aspect that isn't fully laid out in the rules, but most people seem to accept that held charges don't discharge when you are struck by a creature.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What stops a mount from being affected by a held touch spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
Bluffing against Confess spell
Limitations of Disguise Self