You are correct in that it does not change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat and if the magus wants to touch them he can totally still touch the subject WITH HIS HAND to discharge the spell.
Nothing in any of the rules allows the magus to deliver touch spells through his weapon without an attack at full AC.
If it did reach based magi would be able to buff party members at reach without having dealing damage to them.
The way I read this, the General Rules of Touch Spells in Combat are still in effect IN ADDITION TO the Specific Rules of Spellstrike.
Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185)
Magus: Can a magus use spellstrike (page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
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.
I see it as both rules are in effect. The Specific Rules of Spellstrike do not supersede the General Rules of Touch Spells, but rather they are BOTH active.
|
litterally forgetting you are holding it. "i'm gonna climb" ok. your spell discharged. "crap, i forgot". thats howby being absent minded. combats over and you fix dinner and forget you had the spell in hand. making a climb check while holding a spell and not thinking about it. making a heal check on someone. MAYBE (RAW no, but i could almost see an argument for) standing up from prone.
How do you unintentionally touch someone or something in-game?
No, those are things you told the DM you're doing. You would actively tell the DM I'm going to make a Heal check on Mr. Hurtguy over there, I'm fixing dinner, etc.
How do you UNINTENTIONALLY touch something or someone in-game?
No, you intended to touch that and simply forgot you were holding a charge.
You unintentionally touch things by not actually meaning to touch them. I.E. them touching you, even though you're trying to avoid being touched
How?
You fall prone. You touch the ground.You are grappled.
The friendly strange shake your hand.
You fail to save against "Beguiling gift" .
And so on and on.
|
|
so why do you think they developers included the "if you miss you still hold the charge" rule if it never works unless you miss touch ac?Because if you whiff and hit nothing but air, you've touched nothing, and you still hold the charge.
"Whiff" has no meaning in Pathfinder. So stop referencing something that doesn't exist.
|
|
So if someone gets bull rushed into you, and you are holding a charge, does the charge go off?RAW no. keepin on PURE RAW nothing will ever make you unintentionally discharge a touch.
The logic you've set forth is nothing you intentionally do, unintentionally touches things. so that whole line is invalid. they intend for you to cast a spell 1sth thing in the morning and walk around with it all day. you never use that hand for anything else. not eating, drinking, picking up objects, petting a cat. nothing.
so car accidents cant ever happen because they intentionally scape paint with the other guy
or the game say "you miss, you get to try again" which it does with the whole "you still hold the charge if you miss with an attack"
Held charges aren't held in your hand. Nowhere the rules says that, and you can discharge them with a kick, a nudge, or even licking someone (work better if you are a toad with a tongue attack).
|
|
Why do players use Armor and Shields if nothing ever hits them? Isn't the point of armor and shields to make sure that weapons that hit you don't actually hit your skin, muscular tissue, and vital organs?
Have you noticed that if you make a normal attack you aren't making a touch attack?
What's the point of having Flat-footed AC if nothing ever hits the armor/shield?
Rule wise you either hit or miss. You can play with the optional rules where armor gives you DR, or you can play other games where the protective effect of armor is depicted differently, but in standard Pathfinder armor make more difficult to hit you.
|
|
The rules are not describing every corner case and they aren't a physics model of how a universe runs.
A spell charge doesn't go off when the holder touches the air, assuming that air is a suitable environment for said holder.
The rules can't state all the common sense cases. There are times where the Pathfinder rules are poorly written, this is the case with a spell charge and a weapon attack when the weapon attack fails to hit total AC but does hit touch AC. Here, the rules are silent when they shouldn't be as it isn't clear cut. The rules try to represent the sword of the attacker clanging on the shield of the defender, this is legitimate ground to wonder whether a charge goes off. Narration is to be aided by the rules, not the other way around. The shield does block block the sword, this point isn't debatable. How the rules model this block is what is debated.
Discussing whether the medium around the caster discharges the spell is a fallacy, namely reductio ad absurdum.
- Also, we have no idea whether matter in-universe is made of the same stuff that matter in our universe is made of. Talk of molecules, atoms, particles is therefore irrelevant -The rules are grey at best so it is the purview of the G.M. to make a ruling. Either way, it isn't homebrew at all.
The rules speak very loudly:
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.
You are making a normal attack and if it misses you are still holding the charge. Very clear. If they meant if you miss but hit touch AC the spell discharge they would have written it differently.
|
|
I think suggesting that the DM has zero agency in describing an attack as hitting and clanging off armor and shields is absolutely absurd, especially when it's 1 AC under the target's total AC. The fact that Name Violation is suggesting that no attacks with weapons will ever clang off armor and shields and every miss is a whiff even vs. FF AC is ridiculous rainbow unicorn garbage meant for small children.
And as for Touch Attacks hitting air molecules, rain, and being unusable underwater, that's equally absurd. This game isn't played in the vacuum of space. Go play Starfinder if you're going to be that ridiculous.
The GM can describe it how he like. That shouldn't and wouldn't give that description a game effect if you follow the rules.
The weapon is treated as an extension of the Magus’s body, as illustrated in the FAQ, where the Magus spellstrikes and misses, holds the charge, drops the weapon, picks up a new weapon (Without discharging the spell upon the weapon) and attempts to make an attack to deliver the spell using the new weapon.
It also says in the FAQ that the General Rules of Touch Spells in Combat are not changed, the only change is that now you can make melee weapon attacks in place of melee touch attacks.
So if the weapon (any weapon he picks up) is an extension of the Magus’s body, it stands to reason that if the Magus touches you with his body or the weapon, intentionally or unintentionally, the spell will discharge per the General Rules. Suggesting that the Magus has to cause 1 pt of damage with the weapon before the Touch Spell can go through the weapon and discharge fails the logic test, in my mind.
A mace-wielding Magus hits AC 25 vs. a guy in Plate Armor AC 26 right square in the chest. CLANG! But he didn’t cause 1 pt of damage so the spell doesn’t discharge.
A mace-wielding Magus hits AC 27 vs. a guy in Plate Armor AC 26 right square in the chest and causes rolls a 1 on the 1d6, causing 1 pt of Bludgeoning damage. CLANG! But NOW the spell discharges. He really rattled him good didn’t he!
Doesn’t make any sense.
Maybe the Magus should’ve rolled to Touch him with his hand instead.
I think the thing Ryze Kuja is missing is that Spellstrike makes a distinction between the weapon and the hand.
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, . 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 (even that same weapon) with that hand , and then attempt to . However, if the magus touches anything (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
I'm going to repeat that last sentence again since it's the important part:
However, if the magus touches anything (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
The weapon doesn't get unintentional touch attacks, it's the PERSON who does. If the PERSON accidently or unintentionally touches something then the spell discharges, but there is no such clause for the weapon.
In order to discharge the spell through the weapon you must hit your opponent using a WEAPON ATTACK. If that WEAPON ATTACK hits then then the spell is discharged through the weapon, but if that WEAPON ATTACK misses then the spell does not discharge.
The Magus gets some benefits, they can pick up weapons without discharging the spell unintentionally. They can swap weapons - they could juggle them even - without discharging the spell, but the weapons themselves don't hold the charge.
Does that make sense?
The rules speak very loudly:
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.You are making a normal attack and if it misses you are still holding the charge. Very clear. If they meant if you miss but hit...
I understand what you are saying, I do not think it is clear. Another passage of this very same rule is in contradiction with the one you have high-lighted,
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
which when combined with the existence of the principle of touch AC makes it reasonable by the rules to have the spell go off if the attack makes contact.
It is even called touch AC.These two points cannot be reconciled, one of them has to give. Which will is in the hands of the G.M.
- How I would decide on the ruling is a matter of precedence in the rules, seeing which is the one of higher order, trumping the one of lower order because I think consistency in how these rulings are made is what matters for a game quality -
@MrCharisma, what about unarmed strikes such as with the Esoteric archetype of the Magus?
- Genuine question trying to abstract from the example, I am not taking either side -
I think the thing Ryze Kuja is missing is that Spellstrike makes a distinction between the weapon and the hand.
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, . 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 (even that same weapon) with that hand , and then attempt to . However, if the magus touches anything (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
I'm going to repeat that last sentence again since it's the important part:
However, if the magus touches anything (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.The weapon doesn't get unintentional touch attacks, it's the PERSON...
It makes sense if the attack misses, as in completely whiffs the target. But if you connect with the target and clang off the armor without causing weapon damage, that’s still technically a miss. However you still made contact with the target’s breastplate and didn’t cause any weapon damage per se, but you still Touched. To me, the illogical part of this is that the spell doesn’t discharge until you cause 1pt of damage.
The FAQ says:
Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat.
So no General Rules for touch rules have been changed. The weapon is treated like an extension of the Magus’s body. Why does a Magus have to draw 1hp worth of blood with the weapon before any touch spell can pass through?
@MrCharisma, what about unarmed strikes such as with the Esoteric archetype of the Magus?
- Genuine question trying to abstract from the example, I am not taking either side -
Honestly I was just trying to find something that might help Ryze.
The Esoteric Magus follows the same rules that any caster follows with touch spells. The only difference is that they can convert the free touch attack into a free melee attack on the round they cast the spell. Besides that it's all covered in the regular rules for Touch Spells ...
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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.
At this point we're probably back where we were, but the actual rule states that if the attack misses you're still holding the charge.
Okay let’s say you’re fighting a monster with a 15 Touch AC and has 4 Natural Armor from having a thick hide, so 19 AC total.
The Magus casts Shocking Grasp and hits AC18, which defeats the Touch AC of the target, so he touches the target with the weapon (in theory), but doesn’t slice through the thick skin enough to get to the muscular tissue for actual HP damage. Even though the weapon touched the skin, scratched the Natural Armor, but didn’t actually cause HP damage, so the spell doesn’t travel from the Magus’s hand through the weapon and discharge on the target.
Next attack, the Magus still has Shocking Grasp charged, hits AC 19, rolls a 1 for damage, hits the target’s skin, cuts through the thick hide, causes 1 point of damage, and now the spell can travel through the weapon and discharge.
This is bad logic even from PFM standards.
|
Okay let’s say you’re fighting a monster with a 15 Touch AC and has 4 Natural Armor from having a thick hide, so 19 AC total.
The Magus casts Shocking Grasp and hits AC18, which defeats the Touch AC of the target, so he touches the target with the weapon (in theory), but doesn’t slice through the thick skin enough to get to the muscular tissue for actual HP damage. Even though the weapon touched the skin, scratched the Natural Armor, but didn’t actually cause HP damage, so the spell doesn’t travel from the Magus’s hand through the weapon and discharge on the target.
Next attack, the Magus still has Shocking Grasp charged, hits AC 19, rolls a 1 for damage, hits the target’s skin, cuts through the thick hide, causes 1 point of damage, and now the spell can travel through the weapon and discharge.
This is bad logic even from PFM standards.
theory is great, but rules state if you miss, you hold charge. no matter how you try to fanagle it
That's how the rules work.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
That's how Attack Rolls work. The Magus doesn't change that.
Touch Attacks
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armorbracers of armor.
To target Touch AC you make a "Touch Attack Roll". It's decided before you make the roll whether you're targeting Touch AC or Regular AC (or Flat-footed AC or whatever).
There's nothing in the rules that says:
If your result fails to hit the target' Armour Class but equals or beats the target’s Touch Armor Class you have touched them with your weapon.
A hit is a hit and a miss is a miss, there's no partial hit in Pathfinder.
theory is great, but rules state if you miss, you hold charge. no matter how you try to fanagle itOkay let’s say you’re fighting a monster with a 15 Touch AC and has 4 Natural Armor from having a thick hide, so 19 AC total.
The Magus casts Shocking Grasp and hits AC18, which defeats the Touch AC of the target, so he touches the target with the weapon (in theory), but doesn’t slice through the thick skin enough to get to the muscular tissue for actual HP damage. Even though the weapon touched the skin, scratched the Natural Armor, but didn’t actually cause HP damage, so the spell doesn’t travel from the Magus’s hand through the weapon and discharge on the target.
Next attack, the Magus still has Shocking Grasp charged, hits AC 19, rolls a 1 for damage, hits the target’s skin, cuts through the thick hide, causes 1 point of damage, and now the spell can travel through the weapon and discharge.
This is bad logic even from PFM standards.
No, there’s conflicting rules here.
|
|
The weapon is treated as an extension of the Magus’s body, as illustrated in the FAQ, where the Magus spellstrikes and misses, holds the charge, drops the weapon, picks up a new weapon (Without discharging the spell upon the weapon) and attempts to make an attack to deliver the spell using the new weapon.
It also says in the FAQ that the General Rules of Touch Spells in Combat are not changed, the only change is that now you can make melee weapon attacks in place of melee touch attacks.
So if the weapon (any weapon he picks up) is an extension of the Magus’s body, it stands to reason that if the Magus touches you with his body or the weapon, intentionally or unintentionally, the spell will discharge per the General Rules. Suggesting that the Magus has to cause 1 pt of damage with the weapon before the Touch Spell can go through the weapon and discharge fails the logic test, in my mind.
Holding the charge and attacking with IUS, a natural weapon, or (for the magus and some arcanist) with a weapon is a tradeoff. You get to make a full attack and deliver the damage of IUS/natural weapon/weapon but you deliver the spell only if you actually hit the target with the IUS/natural weapon/weapon. Doing damage is optional, the spell will be delivered even if DR stop the physical attack damage.
|
|
The rules speak very loudly:
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.You are making a normal attack and if it misses you are still holding the charge. Very clear. If they meant if you miss but hit...I understand what you are saying, I do not think it is clear. Another passage of this very same rule is in contradiction with the one you have high-lighted,
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.which when combined with the existence of the principle of touch AC makes it reasonable by the rules to have the spell go off if the attack makes contact.
It is even called touch AC.These two points cannot be reconciled, one of them has to give. Which will is in the hands of the G.M.
- How I would decide on the ruling is a matter of precedence in the rules, seeing which is the one of higher order, trumping the one of lower order because I think consistency in how these rulings are made is what matters for a game quality -
You reconcile it following the rules. You instead start with the assumption that there is a discrepancy and refuse to see how they work.
In other games, you can hit the armor without damaging the guy wearing it, in Pathfinder you either hit or you miss.
If you try to reconcile the idea that there are different degrees of hits when there isn't an explicit rule stating that, you generate only troubles in the interpretation of the rules.
What's the purpose of this rule: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."?
There is no purpose, unless it's to allow the GM to impose bad comedy. That rule is a relic that should never be applied. If you're punched by a monk, you don't get to zap them for free. If you're touching your sword, your spell does not zap your sword. If you're wearing gloves, the spell does not zap your gloves. If you open a door, your spell does not zap the door. If you try to hit someone with your sword but fail to penetrate their armor, you do not get to zap them with Spellstrike.
|
|
What's the purpose of this rule: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."?There is no purpose, unless it's to allow the GM to impose bad comedy. That rule is a relic that should never be applied. If you're punched by a monk, you don't get to zap them for free. If you're touching your sword, your spell does not zap your sword. If you're wearing gloves, the spell does not zap your gloves. If you open a door, your spell does not zap the door. If you try to hit someone with your sword but fail to penetrate their armor, you do not get to zap them with Spellstrike.
Read the FAQ. The spell zaps a potion if you touch it, like it zaps a weapon if you aren't a magus, like it zaps a door handle if you open it, and so on. That generates problems, as you touch the terrain with every step you take, but the FAQ gives a possible solution as it implies somehow that the spell is held in a specific part of the body, as it says "if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal."
While it is only implied in the FAQ and never spelled anywhere in the rules AFAIK, it is not a bad rule, it reduces the problems with holding a 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.
You guys keep quoting this---^ as the rules we're supposed to go with, and this is a general rule for Unarmed and Natural attacks in the Holding the Charge section. You're extrapolating the Unarmed/Natural Attack rules to how a weapon would work.
And then you're completely ignoring this conflicting rule-----v in the same rule.
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.
Meanwhile, we have an FAQ that treats the weapon like an extension of the Magus's body, and says----v ....
Magus: Can a magus use spellstrike (page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?
Yes. , the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
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.
.....stating that the General Rules of Touch Spells in Combat are unchanged and still in effect in addition to the specific rules of Spellstrike, and the only difference being now there's a weapon involved in the equation.
====================================
Now this is when you guys say Misses are Misses, no punches or weapon attacks ever hit armor and shields per the rules. And that's when I say the DM has agency to describe the combat environment as weapons clanging off armor and shields, which satisfy the "if you unintentionally touch anything or anyone, the spell discharges" clause. If the PC touches anything in-game, he does so intentionally. The "unintentionally touching things" rule is 100% entirely generated by DM intrusions where the game world/environment acts upon the PC.
Round and round we go.
|
|
LOL, seriously?
Read the text after the piece you shouted: "the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell."
Melee attack, not touch attack.
Now this is when you guys say Misses are Misses, no punches or weapon attacks ever hit armor and shields per the rules. And that's when I say the DM has agency to describe the combat environment as weapons clanging off armor and shields, which satisfy the "if you unintentionally touch anything or anyone, the spell discharges" clause.Round and round we go.
The GM has agency to houserule, but that doesn't change the rules. In the rules, how you describe a miss has no effect. It is a miss.
I question if you are so used to play with houserules that you can't recognize anymore that they are houserule or if you are trolling.
LOL, seriously?
Read the text after the piece you shouted: "the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell."Melee attack, not touch attack.
Now this is when you guys say Misses are Misses, no punches or weapon attacks ever hit armor and shields per the rules. And that's when I say the DM has agency to describe the combat environment as weapons clanging off armor and shields, which satisfy the "if you unintentionally touch anything or anyone, the spell discharges" clause.Round and round we go.
The GM has agency to houserule, but that doesn't change the rules. In the rules, how you describe a miss has no effect. It is a miss.
I question if you are so used to play with houserules that you can't recognize anymore that they are houserule or if you are trolling.
I'm not talking about House Rules, and not once have I said anything about House Rules. I have only brought up rules and FAQ's that are conflicting, and there are others who agree with me that these rules should be spelled out better. I think the reason you think I'm talking about House Rules and/or Trolling is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.
Name Violation said Whiff earlier in the conversation than I said Whiff, but you only addressed that with me, saying ""Whiff" has no meaning in Pathfinder. So stop referencing something that doesn't exist." And then a few posts back, you said that touch spells "Zap" people and things.
Have you considered that maybe you're being the troll here?
|
|
It's not Schrödinger's attack roll. A miss doesn't also hit.
In pathfinder, mechanically, every attack that does not hit AC completely avoids touching the opponent. 100%. Anything else is a house rule, and not in the rules
No logical conclusion, no buts, no without x it would hit so it still touches. Complete miss.
An it says if you miss hold the charge.
Anything else is jumping to false logical conclusions attempting to wrongly infer information not stated.
Nothing in the game says if you miss you still touch
It's not Schrödinger's attack roll. A miss doesn't also hit.
In pathfinder, mechanically, every attack that does not hit AC completely avoids touching the opponent. 100%. Anything else is a house rule, and not in the rules
No logical conclusion, no buts, no without x it would hit so it still touches. Complete miss.
An it says if you miss hold the charge.
Anything else is jumping to false logical conclusions attempting to wrongly infer information not stated.
Nothing in the game says if you miss you still touch
The DM has agency in describing combat, and this is what the "unintentional" touching rule applies to. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that you automatically hit touch AC and the DM must allow it.
If you unintentionally touch anyone or anything due to the DM's agency in describing how the game environment interacts with the PC or if the PC makes a poor decision or bad roll, the DM has certain agency with these consequences, and then this rule applies. There's no arguing with the DM, and good luck finding a table that allows you to personally kibosh everything the DM tries to do by casting Summon Rules Lawyer.
If he describes your critical failure of rolling a 1 on a Touch Attack as "you just made the Orc really uncomfortable and now the Orc is taking you to HR", then that's what happens. You go to HR, and you have the option to apologize profusely to the victimized Orc.
|
|
Gm agency is irrelevant in the rules forum.
Gm can always say "rocks fall, everyone dies."
Rules forums isn't about what the gm might feel like doing if he's im a mood.
Rules forums is about what the written rules say.
Rules forum is not about rule 0
You miss, you hold charge
Rules say a 1 missed, not you caress the orc
And yes I'm a LN rules ATTORNEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
DM agency becomes relevant in the rules forum when there's a rule specifically adjudicating their behavior. It's not possible for a player to unintentionally touch anything in-game. Anything you touch in-game is done so intentionally.
|
|
Name Violation said Whiff earlier in the conversation than I said Whiff, but you only addressed that with me, saying ""Whiff" has no meaning in Pathfinder. So stop referencing something that doesn't exist." And then a few posts back, you said that touch spells "Zap" people and things.
I used zaps in reply to Matthew Downie that used that therm. He wasn't using it as a game term.
You were using "whiff" in a way that you seemed to intend it as a game term. I hadn't noticed "Name Violation" doing the same, but if he was using "whiff" as a game term, yes, the request of not doing that is directed to him, too.
|
|
DM agency becomes relevant in the rules forum when there's a rule specifically adjudicating their behavior. It's not possible for a player to unintentionally touch anything in-game. Anything you touch in-game is done so intentionally.
Cool. Glad you see the light.
Correct you can't accidentally hit the opponent.Thats rules.
DM agency becomes relevant in the rules forum when there's a rule specifically adjudicating their behavior. It's not possible for a player to unintentionally touch anything in-game. Anything you touch in-game is done so intentionally.Cool. Glad you see the light.
Correct you can't accidentally hit the opponent.
Thats rules.
You unintentionally touch things in the game due to DM agency, smart alec.
litterally forgetting you are holding it. "i'm gonna climb" ok. your spell discharged. "crap, i forgot". thats howby being absent minded. combats over and you fix dinner and forget you had the spell in hand. making a climb check while holding a spell and not thinking about it. making a heal check on someone. MAYBE (RAW no, but i could almost see an argument for) standing up from prone.
How do you unintentionally touch someone or something in-game?
No, those are things you told the DM you're doing. You would actively tell the DM I'm going to make a Heal check on Mr. Hurtguy over there, I'm fixing dinner, etc.
How do you UNINTENTIONALLY touch something or someone in-game?
No, you intended to touch that and simply forgot you were holding a charge.
You unintentionally touch things by not actually meaning to touch them. I.E. them touching you, even though you're trying to avoid being touched
How?
You fall prone. You touch the ground.
You are grappled.
The friendly strange shake your hand.
You fail to save against "Beguiling gift" .
And so on and on.
So you DO acknowledge DM agency can discharge a touch spell.
Dr. Cox says "hhhhHHHHHhhIIIIIIIIIiiinteresting..."
Specific - if you miss, you still hold the charge.
That rule is in the Unarmed/Natural Attack section of Holding the Charge. Unless you're going to formally acknowledge "extrapolation of rules", word for word this rule means nothing to a weapon-wielding Magus.
|
|
That specific rule is in the Unarmed/Natural Attack section of Holding the Charge. Unless you're going to formally acknowledge "extrapolation of rules", word for word this rule means nothing to a weapon-wielding Magus.
Specific - if you miss, you still hold the charge.
Magus works exact same way. That's been explicitly stated, repeatedly.
Magus works exact same way. That's been explicitly stated, repeatedly.That specific rule is in the Unarmed/Natural Attack section of Holding the Charge. Unless you're going to formally acknowledge "extrapolation of rules", word for word this rule means nothing to a weapon-wielding Magus.
Specific - if you miss, you still hold the charge.
No they're pretty different. That's why there are very different rules for Natural Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, and Attacks with a Melee Weapon.
|
|
litterally forgetting you are holding it. "i'm gonna climb" ok. your spell discharged. "crap, i forgot". thats howby being absent minded. combats over and you fix dinner and forget you had the spell in hand. making a climb check while holding a spell and not thinking about it. making a heal check on someone. MAYBE (RAW no, but i could almost see an argument for) standing up from prone.
How do you unintentionally touch someone or something in-game?
No, those are things you told the DM you're doing. You would actively tell the DM I'm going to make a Heal check on Mr. Hurtguy over there, I'm fixing dinner, etc.
How do you UNINTENTIONALLY touch something or someone in-game?
No, you intended to touch that and simply forgot you were holding a charge.
You unintentionally touch things by not actually meaning to touch them. I.E. them touching you, even though you're trying to avoid being touched
How?
You fall prone. You touch the ground.
You are grappled.
The friendly strange shake your hand.
You fail to save against "Beguiling gift" .
And so on and on.So you DO acknowledge DM agency can discharge a touch spell.
Dr. Cox says "hhhhHHHHHhhIIIIIIIIIiiinteresting..."
Yes, if the "GM agency" is part of the tale, completely different from "you rolled 1, you hit your friend", "you miss so your hit clangs on the target armor and has some effect" as you suggested.
Yes, if the "GM agency" is part of the tale, completely different from "you rolled 1, you hit your friend", "you miss so your hit clangs on the target armor and has some effect" as you suggested.litterally forgetting you are holding it. "i'm gonna climb" ok. your spell discharged. "crap, i forgot". thats howby being absent minded. combats over and you fix dinner and forget you had the spell in hand. making a climb check while holding a spell and not thinking about it. making a heal check on someone. MAYBE (RAW no, but i could almost see an argument for) standing up from prone.
How do you unintentionally touch someone or something in-game?
No, those are things you told the DM you're doing. You would actively tell the DM I'm going to make a Heal check on Mr. Hurtguy over there, I'm fixing dinner, etc.
How do you UNINTENTIONALLY touch something or someone in-game?
No, you intended to touch that and simply forgot you were holding a charge.
You unintentionally touch things by not actually meaning to touch them. I.E. them touching you, even though you're trying to avoid being touched
How?
You fall prone. You touch the ground.
You are grappled.
The friendly strange shake your hand.
You fail to save against "Beguiling gift" .
And so on and on.So you DO acknowledge DM agency can discharge a touch spell.
Dr. Cox says "hhhhHHHHHhhIIIIIIIIIiiinteresting..."
Where does it say that in the rules?
|
|
Again, the FAQ
"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.
|
|
There is no granularity.
Only binary.
Hit or miss
Discrarged or held
No kinda hit, no glancing blow, only 2 options.
No descriptive fluff, only rule crunch.
Did you hit or miss. Is the total number of the attack roll equal to or greater than the target number that is AC.
If yes, hit deal regular damage and spell discharges.
If no, miss and hold charge.
Those are the only options
Name Violation, if you're a Magus who is currently Holding a Charge, and a shopkeep comes up and shakes your hand in thanks for spending your gold at his shop, does the touch spell discharge?
|
|
Name Violation, if you're a Magus who is currently Holding a Charge, and a shopkeep comes up and shakes your hand in thanks for spending your gold at his shop, does the touch spell discharge?
That's a strawman comparison.
I refuse to shake his hand, for his own safety.
He touched my hand, killed himself. Its self defense. He ran into my personal space.
If he discharges the spell, he takes the damage.
I'm not missing him with an attack roll
My argument is a miss with an attack roll never hits.
Idgaf about some suicidal shopkeep
But if I have the spell in my hand, and never explicitly discharge it, then shake his hand later because I FORGOT ABOUT THE SPELL then he, GASP, Unintentionally takes damage. Le gasp
Name Violation, if you're a Magus who is currently Holding a Charge, and a shopkeep comes up and shakes your hand in thanks for spending your gold at his shop, does the touch spell discharge?
That's a strawman comparison.
He touched my hand, killed himself. Its self defense. He ran into my personal space.
If he discharges the spell, he takes the damage.
I'm not missing him with an attack roll
My argument is a miss with an attack roll never hits.
Idgaf about some suicidal shopkeep
But if I have the spell in my hand, and never explicitly discharge it, then shake his hand because I FORGOT ABOUT THE SPELL then he, GASP, Unintentionally takes damage. Le gasp
So you, as well as Diego Rossi, acknowledge that DM agency can discharge a Touch Spell.
|
|
So you, as well as Diego Rossi, acknowledge that DM agency can discharge a Touch Spell.Name Violation, if you're a Magus who is currently Holding a Charge, and a shopkeep comes up and shakes your hand in thanks for spending your gold at his shop, does the touch spell discharge?
That's a strawman comparison.
He touched my hand, killed himself. Its self defense. He ran into my personal space.
If he discharges the spell, he takes the damage.
I'm not missing him with an attack roll
My argument is a miss with an attack roll never hits.
Idgaf about some suicidal shopkeep
But if I have the spell in my hand, and never explicitly discharge it, then shake his hand because I FORGOT ABOUT THE SPELL then he, GASP, Unintentionally takes damage. Le gasp
Where are those called shot rules to hit my hands ac?