You were. "If the discharge occurs in any other way, fizzle." That's disrupting the spell, not discharging it.
Um...
...If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges....
Hold a single charge .. Discharge once
Hold multiple charges .. Discharge multiple timesThis is not disruption.
And, except for positive/negative energy spells, there aren't a whole lot of touch spells that HAVE invalid targets. Objects can suffer energy damage, RAW. And the RAW expressly states "If you touch anything, or anyone, even unintentionally".
Interesting claim.
Cure Light Wounds: not +/- energy, and anything that is not a creature is not a valid target.Frostbite: not +/- energy, and anything that is not a creature is not a valid target.
Vampiric Touch: not +/- energy, and anything that is not a living creature is not a valid target.
Seems to be 3/3 can have invalid targets. Chill Touch is negative energy, so is not part of your "aren't a whole lot" list of spells. I think your claim is not holding up well. Still, I only looked at the four spells I listed.
Please, PLEASE, explain to me HOW you UNINTENTIONALLY use an action. PLEASE.
I never said "unintentionally use an action".
and upthread you wrote...
"Even unintentionally" This is a clear line. Yes, if you cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp, and a monk punches you, YES, you've just discharged into the monk. It doesn't matter if you like it. It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense. That's expressly what the rules say.
You are holding the charge when the enemy hits you. Discharge. You spent no action discharging.
Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unintentional discharge of touch spells is one of the more undefined things in pathfinder.
I think it is fairly obvious that being hit by an attack, whether that attack is with a weapon, unarmed, or with natural weapons will not discharge the spell into the attacker. I will admit that I don't know of any single sentence I can use to 'prove' that, but it seems pretty clear to me based on how all of the rules work.
In my opinion, what the unintentional touch rule is designed to do is limit the actions you can perform while holding a charge. For example, if you are holding a charge and go to open a door, the spell will discharge. Obviously your character did 'intend' to open the door, but even if they didn't intend to discharge the spell it will discharge. Basically any action involving physically manipulating items, the environment or another character will cause the spell to discharge. You have to do the 'touching' though, someone touching you is a completely different thing.
What happens when the spell discharges depends greatly on what the spell was and what you touched. If the spell target in invalid for what you are touching, it will basically just dissipate harmlessly, the charge is gone, but the spell doesn't have any effect. If the touched object or creature is a valid target of the spell, it will have its normal effect.
The purpose of this is to make holding a charge more difficult and prevent something like 'I'll cast a shocking grasp right after I wake up and hold the charge until I need it.' That would be a very feasible option if only an intentional touch attack would discharge the spell.
As I said, I don't know of any single place where the rules simply state any of the above, but I am fairly certain that if Paizo were to issue clarification on this it would pretty much line up with what I have written.
Holding the Charge is a place where the rules break down completely if you get too pedantic.
If you cast a touch spell from a wand or staff does the spell discharge into the item you used to cast it?
Unless you are flying does the spell discharge into the ground?
Does the spell discharge into a held shield or weapon? Worn armor?
We know gauntlets and gloves won't discharge touch spells, there is a FAQ that deals with that specific issue, but PDT failed to address the more general issues when they had the subject under review.
FIRST of all, "I was saying that you must take an action to discharge the spell with good effects." Guess what? THAT is called "taking an action." Since you can UNINTENTIONALLY discharge an item, please. Explain to me HOW you can take an UNINTENTIONAL action. So, how about you read your own information before trying to "call me out" on things that, in fact, were in direct response to something you said?
I went back and checked every post I made on this thread. Those words do not occur in my posts except when quoting someone else. That is why I questioned your statement.
If you still feel that I did, please cite with a quote so I can see what you think is me saying so.
CURE LIGHT WOUNDS IS POSITIVE ENERGY!!! LOOK AT THE SPELL! HECK, HERE:
"When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures[...]" How is that NOT positive energy?
My bad. Reading fail. :(
That leaves the count to 2/2 of non +/- spells,Vampiric Touch SHOULD be negative, but it's UNTYPED. The "living creature touched" target is only applicable when you CAST the spell and use it immediately. After that, the "Holding the Charge" rules take over. A weapon is a valid target for untyped damage.
Should be, but isn't. Therefore it counts.
Not sure how "holding a charge" causes an invalid target to be affected. Sounds like a house rule to me.Weapons are valid targets for all kinds of damage. Not all kinds of spell target entries.
Targeting is a function of casting. If holding a charge is not targeting, then the spell is cast and cannot be dissipated. Can't have it both ways.
/cevah
"I was not saying you must use your hands.
I was saying that you must take an action to discharge the spell with good effects.
Any other form of discharge fails to grant the effects, and instead apply a fizzle."Here you go, exact block of text. I'm sorry that you can't read what you wrote, but hey.
From this you parse "you can take an UNINTENTIONAL action"?
You are reading much more into what I wrote that what I put in. That word is not even in my text."Not sure how "holding a charge" causes an invalid target to be affected. Sounds like a house rule to me."
Not a house rule. You *cast* a spell. The spell, itself, has valid and invalid targets. After that, after you start holding the charge, it's just a nebulous wad of energy that you're storing in your body. A hunk of metal or wood isn't an invalid target for non-typed damage.
I don't agree. No point spending more text here.
/cevah
Found the problem:
I was saying that you must take an action to discharge the spell.
vs.
I was saying that you must take an action to discharge the spell with good effects.
Those three words, with good effects, change it from all possible discharges to just those leading to satisfactory results. Those four spells explicitly have an action you must perform to get those effects. Being discharged by someone touching the caster does not lead to satisfactory results, as indicated by the line after which was: Any other form of discharge fails to grant the effects, and instead apply a fizzle. That line would not make sense if the first list was about all possible discharges.
/cevah