Okay, in opposite order:
Do touch attacks automatically break through stone shield.
No. It is a Cover bonus to AC and would apply to your Touch AC. And even if struck, it is not in contact with your body and would not transfer any damage.
Is there a feat that makes it so you can just roll against touch ac with melee weapons?
There are ways, yes.
It is also possible to just target Touch AC with your Spellstrike if you give up dealing normal damage in addition to your Spell damage. It doesn't sound like that happened here, though.I might have it wrong, but I thought that with spell strike you had to hit with the weapon to cast a touch spell.
Yes. If you decide to make your Spellstrike as a normal attack and it misses their normal AC, it does not connect with their Touch AC. The attack misses, but the spell is not discharged. If they had attacks left they could choose to make those as Touch attacks to make sure their spell lands. That might be what happened here?
He said that he stabbed into the rock and cast a shocking grasp through the stone, into me(He was gratuitous enough to let the stone shield eat 15 damage of the damage) shattering the stone shield and knocking me "down"(I'm a sacred fist, orc warpreist.).
Unless that was purely a flavorful description of the events that shouldn't have happened. It is a separate structure and would discharge the spell on itself, leaving you unharmed. Additionally, as it has Hardness 8 (and energy attacks deal half damage to objects) it would have soaked 46 points of damage.
My friend rolled a 2+8 with a +1 from blessed for the attack..... I let out a sigh of relief...... before the dm told him to roll for his touch attack.
If the Magus had attacks left (as part of their Spell Combat), used one those, and specifically said they targeted Touch AC, this would be legal. Otherwise your GM needs to read up on how the Magus works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TLDR: Read this guide, make your Magus player and your GM read it too: GRICK'S GUIDE TO TOUCH SPELLS, SPELLSTRIKE AND SPELL COMBAT
Is there a feat that makes it so you can just roll against touch ac with melee weapons?There are ways, yes.
It is also possible to just target Touch AC with your Spellstrike if you give up dealing normal damage in addition to your Spell damage. It doesn't sound like that happened here, though.
It is possible to target Touch AC with your SPELL, but "Spellstrike" always targets regular AC . Wonderstell is correct though that if the attack misses regular AC then the entire attack is considered a miss - both the weapon damage and the spell damage.
I might have it wrong, but I thought that with spell strike you had to hit with the weapon to cast a touch spell.Yes. If you decide to make your Spellstrike as a normal attack and it misses their normal AC, it does not connect with their Touch AC. The attack misses, but the spell is not discharged.
This is correct.
If they had attacks left they could choose to make those as Touch attacks to make sure their spell lands. That might be what happened here?
This is not.
When you cast a Touch spell you get 1 Free-Action touch attack to deliver that spell. This touch attack must be used during the round in which the spell is cast or the free-action is lost. On following rounds you can continue to attempt to deliver the touch attack as a Standard Action, but no more Free Actions. Alternatively, you may use unarmed strikes or natural attacks to deliver the attack, any hit will deliver the spell as well as deal damage. These Unarmed/Natural attacks are not free actions though.
If you are a Magus, you get 2 advantages from the Spellstrike ability. First, you can deliver your touch spell with Weapon attacks instead of Natural attacks, which lets you do what an unarmed build or natural attack build could do by making attacks that deal weapon damage and spell damage. The second thing is that you can substitute in a Weapon attack in place of any Touch attack from casting a spell. So in the round when you cast the spell instead of getting a Free Action touch attack you get a Free Action weapon attack.
The important thing to know here is that once the PC has cast the spell and attempted their Free Action TouchWeapon attack, any more attacks made during the round are regular weapon attacks. You do not get any more Touch attacks during that round, even if you have more iterative attacks. Any subsequent attacks would be weapon attacks made against regular AC.
The short version of this though is that - as Wonderstell said - the Magus should not have hit you with their Spellstrike.
So the spell attack can be done using a weapon or a touch attack, Not knowing what he rolled or what armor you have (shocking grasp gets a +3 vs metal armor), it's very possible he "Failed by less than 4", which According to the description of Stone shield, would cause the spell to hit the stone shield. As previously mentioned, it would have absorbed 16 points of damage from the shocking grasp. 8 due to the hardness, and 15 due to it's hit points, both doubled due to it being hit by a spell.
any left over damage would dissipate and not harm anything.
This sounds like a case of a GM being more interested in thematic storytelling, than what the rules actually are.
I don't know you or your group, but I get the impression that most of you might be new to the game, and perhaps might benefit from more low level play and avoiding character complications like Mythic spheres, that way you can learn rules slowly.
It is possible to target Touch AC with your SPELL, but "Spellstrike" always targets regular AC .There are ways, yes.
It is also possible to just target Touch AC with your Spellstrike if you give up dealing normal damage in addition to your Spell damage. It doesn't sound like that happened here, though.
Spellstrike has no such stipulation. If you want to deal weapon damage in addition to the spell you target regular AC. But if you just want to land the spell charge then you are free to forgo the weapon damage and target touch AC.
If they had attacks left they could choose to make those as Touch attacks to make sure their spell lands. That might be what happened here?This is not.
See the above. If your first attack targeting normal AC misses on a 15 on the d20, the smartest move is to try your luck on the Touch AC with your second attack. (Assuming they're using Spell Combat as well)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstrike has no such stipulation. If you want to deal weapon damage in addition to the spell you target regular AC. But if you just want to land the spell charge then you are free to forgo the weapon damage and target touch AC.It is possible to target Touch AC with your SPELL, but "Spellstrike" always targets regular AC .There are ways, yes.
It is also possible to just target Touch AC with your Spellstrike if you give up dealing normal damage in addition to your Spell damage. It doesn't sound like that happened here, though.
You are missing how Spellstrike works:
Spellstrike (Su): 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.
Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.
If you use Spellstrike you are using your weapon and do a melee attack.
Otherwise, you aren't using Spellstrike and do a touch attack.You can't use Spellstrike but revert back to a touch attack when delivering the attack.
Spellstrike isn't Spell Combat, BTW. A lot of people confuse the two.
See the above. If your first attack targeting normal AC misses on a 15 on the d20, the smartest move is to try your luck on the Touch AC with your second attack. (Assuming they're using Spell Combat as well)If they had attacks left they could choose to make those as Touch attacks to make sure their spell lands. That might be what happened here?This is not.
Actually, when using Spell Combat, you either cast your spell as the first thing and use its free touch attack, at full bonus (minus the Spellcombat modifier), for your first attack, or you cast the spell at the end of the iterative attacks, and again attack at full bonus minus the Spell Combat modifiers.
A Magus hasn't a switch to turn Spellstrike on/off mid-action.
Au contraire, you are the one who is mistaken about Spellstrike.
"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 (1). Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell (2). If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell."
Spellstrike has two immediate benefits.
1: You can now deliver touch spells through your weapon rather than requiring an empty hand.
2: In place of the free melee touch attack as part of casting a spell, you may make a weapon attack.
Spellstrike does not, in any way, force you to make attacks targeting normal AC if you deliver touch spells through your weapon. It is entirely within your ability to target touch AC with the charge held in your weapon. Just as if you held the charge in your hand.
If you are successful, the melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. And what is the "normal damage" of a touch attack? Nada.
I repeat, absolutely nowhere is it stated that you must target normal AC.
Deciding that the Magus is unable to target touch AC with Spellstrike is definitely trying to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
just wanted to remind.
that there are arcana to make any attacks until end of turn to resolve as touch attacks. but idk if the said magus had said arcana.
|
|
Au contraire, you are the one who is mistaken about Spellstrike.
"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 (1). Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell (2). If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell."
Spellstrike has two immediate benefits.
1: You can now deliver touch spells through your weapon rather than requiring an empty hand.
2: In place of the free melee touch attack as part of casting a spell, you may make a weapon attack.Spellstrike does not, in any way, force you to make attacks targeting normal AC if you deliver touch spells through your weapon. It is entirely within your ability to target touch AC with the charge held in your weapon. Just as if you held the charge in your hand.
If you are successful, the melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. And what is the "normal damage" of a touch attack? Nada.
I repeat, absolutely nowhere is it stated that you must target normal AC.Deciding that the Magus is unable to target touch AC with Spellstrike is definitely trying to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
1) You can use Spellstike, you are not forced to use it, but if you use Spellstrike you make a melee attack, not a touch attack.
Spellstrike isn't something that you use automatically and can revert to a touch attack, it is something you use if you want.2) You can't make a touch attack coming from a spell as an iterative attack. To make the touch attack you either cast the spell and use the free attack as your first attack after casting, or hold it and use it in the following rounds.
Spellstrike allows you to bypass that limit, but you go back to 1).
There isn't technically anything letting you deliver with the weapon as a touch to only deal the spell damage. There's nothing stopping you from touching with your empty hand that is actually still holding the spell, but that can't be done as part of an iterative.
The sticking point is whether or not spell strike lets you deliver like you would with a hand with a sword, and not with the specific method its explicitly describes. There is a trade off in that delivering with the sword (and with all bonuses e.g. enhancement, weapon focus, etc. that entails) requires you to hit normal AC if you want to hit during an iterative attack. That said, nothing about spell strike makes it harder over normal touch spell delivery, it only is harder relative to the very powerful ability that magus is given.
The option to deliver with a touch sword strike for only spell damage isn't RAW. That also said, it doesn't make much of a difference to houserule and allow this, as above, it just gives them sword specific bonuses to delivering the spell alone, and there are better versions of this that many magi get at later level anyway allowing you to still deal sword damage. Personally, I wouldn't allow it because it you're that desperate to hit and get just the spell off, you can either A, turn off power attack; B, stop spell combating and taking -2+; C, look for other to hit bonuses; or D, just deliver with your hand and "thematically describe yourself grazing with the sword to deliver the spell".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) You can use Spellstike, you are not forced to use it, but if you use Spellstrike you make a melee attack, not a touch attack.
A melee attack, yes. And "melee touch attack" is a subcategory of "melee attacks". You are still performing a melee attack when you choose to target touch AC.
If a couple of kids are playing tag, are you of the opinion that they can't roll to hit touch AC and must instead beat each other into unconsciousness? That's the crux of the issue, really. If you don't share my view that you can choose to target touch AC in place of a normal attack, then I have no way to convince you.
I would have linked some posts to back me up but it appears as if Paizo has deleted the entirety of the "Ask Sean k Reynolds" thread. Which, if I express myself modestly, was a very rash move.
|
|
1) You can use Spellstike, you are not forced to use it, but if you use Spellstrike you make a melee attack, not a touch attack.A melee attack, yes. And "melee touch attack" is a subcategory of "melee attacks". You are still performing a melee attack when you choose to target touch AC.
If a couple of kids are playing tag, are you of the opinion that they can't roll to hit touch AC and must instead beat each other into unconsciousness? That's the crux of the issue, really. If you don't share my view that you can choose to target touch AC in place of a normal attack, then I have no way to convince you.
I would have linked some posts to back me up but it appears as if Paizo has deleted the entirety of the "Ask Sean k Reynolds" thread. Which, if I express myself modestly, was a very rash move.
1) FAQ
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.
2) Check the CRB. Touch attacks are a subcategory of the attacks, there is not a touch subcategory of melee attacks.
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)].
The rules say explicitly when you can make a touch attack, they don't use melee attacks for melee touch attacks.
3) You mean this one:
Ask SeanK Reynolds ALL of Your Questions Here?
Cite away.
Hard to do, as it seems he never answered it.
Like JJ thread Ask James Jacobs ALL your Questions Here it wasn't initiated by SKR.
1: You can now deliver touch spells through your weapon rather than requiring an empty hand.
2: In place of the free melee touch attack as part of casting a spell, you may make a weapon attack.
You've broken down spellstrike incorrectly.
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. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
"...he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."
If the magus wants to deliver a touch spell through their weapon, it must be made as part of a melee attack. Not a touch melee attack, but a melee attack. That of course means targeting normal AC. If you are targeting touch AC (without something like Accurate Strike arcana) then you are not using spellstrike and the weapon is not involved.
Further, while the round you cast the touch spell gives you a free attack that the magus can use spellstrike or normal touch attack rules, future turn iteratives cannot optionally use a touch attack as part of the iteratives. touch attacks with a held charge require a standard action, and thus cannot be combined with a full attack or spell combat action. Spellstrike does not change this. Which also means this
The attack misses, but the spell is not discharged. If they had attacks left they could choose to make those as Touch attacks to make sure their spell lands.
is not correct. The turn they cast the spell they get one free attack, which is either a spellstrike attack or a normal touch attack. Any iteratives they get from spell combat cannot be converted to touch attacks as the other attacks from spell combat are "...attacks with his melee weapon." Those iteratives can, and will, deliver the spell through spellstrike, but of course targeting normal AC.
As a side note
...the charge held in your weapon. Just as if you held the charge in your hand.
This is a thematically fitting description, but is not a RAW accurate description. Charges are not stored in a weapon, or a specific hand. Touch spell charges are held by a character. If a magus misses with spellstrike, they can next turn attempt a touch attack with their free hand (taking a standard action) to deliver the spell. Because the charge is not stored in the weapon but is held by the character. Similarly if the magus had a bite attack, or some other form of natural attack, the charge could be delivered through those even though the previous turns spellstrike with a manufactured weapon failed.
You are mostly correct.
The part were you are wrong is where the charge is held. Normally the charge is held in your hand and touching anything with the hand will discharge the spell, regardless of whether you intended that. With spellstrike the charge is held in the weapon and touching anything with the weapon will discharge the spell, regardless of whether you intended that.
If a magus misses their spellstrike the charge is held in the weapon and they can attempt a touch attack with their weapon to deliver the spell as a standard action as normal. They can also do spell combat as normal trying to deliver the spell, and cast a spell at the end.
Once you start to make a full attack unless you have a way to turn the attack into a touch attack it will do the normal rules for attacks.
Can you provide a rules citation to show that the charge is held in the weapon? If you can I will gladly ackowledge that what I have said above, and what I am about to state below is incorrect.
I will reiterate that a charge is not held in a specific hand (or weapon). The rule is that unintentionally touching something discharges the spell. The rule is NOT unintentionally touching something with the hand (or weapon) where the charge is held discharges it. Eg, I cannot cast a touch spell with my right hand and safely open a door with my left hand. Likewise I cannot cast a spell, miss with my spellstrike attack, then open a door with my left hand. In both cases, opening the door will discharge the spell.
In no cases does accidentally touching my weapon to something discharge the spell.
Note that in this FAQ the example the PDT talks about even discusses the magus being disarmed, and then picking up the weapon while still holding the charge in their hand - that is they don't refer to the charge in their weapon. And that the magus could even grab another weapon (without discharging the spell) and use the new weapon with spellstrike (again indicating that the charge is NOT stored in the original weapon).
With spellstrike a magus is never required to deliver a charge through their weapon. They can make attacks with their weapon and choose not to deliver a held charge. So an accidental touch with the weapon will also not discharge the spell.
The cited FAQ is problematic in one way, in that it does talk about a charge held in that hand. But I chalk that up to writing style as opposed to a rules change specifically for the magus, because the second sentance of the FAQ states: "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 we look at the normal rules for touch spells in combat. The normal rules are that the charge is not held in a specific hand. Spellstrike changes the normal rules to:
1) Allow a magus to deploy a spell through a weapon.
2) Handle weapons without discharging a stored charge.
All other rules regarding touch spells remain unaltered.
3) You mean this one:
Ask Sean K Reynolds ALL of Your Questions Here?
Oh no no no, not that one. The official one had several thousands of posts it it. Tens of thousands. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that thread as it has been a source of many rules clarifications.
As for the rest of your post, it will be a complete waste of time to engage with you if you refuse to answer my question.
Either you concede that those hypothetical kids aren't bludgeoning each other to death, or if you are of the opposite opinion, you've ceased to be someone worth arguing with. Simple as that.
@bbangerter
Uh. You weren't aware that the charge is done with a hand?
The FAQ you linked literally says that the disarmed Magus is holding the charge in their hand. You can absolutely hold the charge in your right hand and open a door with your left. This is one of those things that are so obvious that the rules aren't explicit.
I can disprove the other thing you said but it's important that you understand that why yes, you are actually holding the charge in one hand.
|
|
@bbangerter
Uh. You weren't aware that the charge is done with a hand?
The FAQ you linked literally says that the disarmed Magus is holding the charge in their hand. You can absolutely hold the charge in your right hand and open a door with your left. This is one of those things that are so obvious that the rules aren't explicit.
I can disprove the other thing you said but it's important that you understand that why yes, you are actually holding the charge in one hand.
The only place where it is said that the charge is held in a specific location is this FAQ, and it says it incidentally. And it specifically says that it is held in a hand.
Where a charge is held has always been unclear. It is possible that it is meant to be held in a specific limb, but certainly, it is not limited to a hand, as we have plenty of creatures that use other kinds of limbs to deliver spell touch attacks.
Do you have some reference to this elusive SKR thread?
Because, in years of reading this forum I have never seen it.
People have cited SKR for years, so I am surprised that I never encountered a link directing me to this thread, which, you say, was the source of many rule clarifications
@bbangerter
Uh. You weren't aware that the charge is done with a hand?
The FAQ you linked literally says that the disarmed Magus is holding the charge in their hand. You can absolutely hold the charge in your right hand and open a door with your left. This is one of those things that are so obvious that the rules aren't explicit.
I can disprove the other thing you said but it's important that you understand that why yes, you are actually holding the charge in one hand.
Uh, you should actually read all of my comments before responding.
The cited FAQ is problematic in one way, in that it does talk about a charge held in that hand. But I chalk that up to writing style as opposed to a rules change specifically for the magus.
Let me clarify on that further. The rules are usually written in a converstational style of writing. This FAQ is, IMO, quite clearly a conversational style.
But aside from that, if the charge is held in a specific hand, how does this work?
Holding the Charge: ...Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge...
If I use an unarmed strike am I limited to only punches to deliver the charge? If I'm not limited to only punches, how do I deliver a held charge through a kick when the charge is in my hand?
For a natural attack can I only deliver held charges if I use a natural attack that is associated with a natural weapon at the end of an arm like a claw? Or if I can bite natural attack and deliver a held charge, how does that work if the charge is in my hand? Given the holding the charge rules do not specify that the attack can only be delivered with an unarmed punch/or hand equivalent natural weapon, the only conclusion is that the charge is not held in the hand (or at best case for your argument it can be moved from limb to limb to other body part at the casters whim). But the "at best case" then completely ignores the unintentional discharge part of the holding the charge rules.
Let also look more closely at that part of the holding the charge rules
...If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges...
Where is the specification of "If you touch anything with that hand"? That is an incredibly important detail to leave out if it is specific to a hand. If fact that detail is so important, that if that were indeed the intended design, that line of text could have been omitted entirely. Because either then I can't use unarmed strikes or natural weapons in the way holding the charge describes (putting it in conflict with other parts of the held charge rules) OR I can choose to move the charge to another part of my body at will, so if I wanted to use the hand that was currently holding the charge I could simply move the held charge to my knee while I used the hand (making the rule completely pointless).
So we have a clear basic rule in "Holding the charge" that makes no mention of specific hands. And we have a FAQ written in a conversational tone that incidentally refers to a charge held in a hand in a question that isn't even specifcally about how held charges work. Which of those rules do you think holds the most weight of how held charges work?
Understand, I think the rules around held charges have some problematic issues. The FAQ is also problematic in its word choice. So I understand where you are coming from in your argument. But the FAQ and the CRB rules have to be reconiled in some fashion. And I'm not going to simply ignore rules because of tangential commententary in a FAQ.
Now, what is the other thing you believe I am wrong on, and what is your evidence?
Ok i never played a magus (and don't attract me to used) my question since you guys are talking about the special ability: is this special ability allow you to do touch attack in the same action of the full attack whit weapon? Because I don't understand what are guys arguing with all this
|
|
Ok i never played a magus (and don't attract me to used) my question since you guys are talking about the special ability: is this special ability allow you to do touch attack in the same action of the full attack whit weapon? Because I don't understand what are guys arguing with all this
If you use Spell combat, but not Spellstrike, you can deliver your spell as a touch attack.
If you use Spell combat and Spellstrike, your free touch attack becomes a free melee attack in addition to your normal iterative attacks.
Wow, this thread exploded.
@Wonderstell If you really think your interpretation of Spellstrike is correct I recommend you make a thread about it. Yes we're already on the rules forum but you would get input from everyone in the know by posting it in a thread with a more relevant title. I feel like this thread has been a fairly accurate preview of how that will go though, so whether that would be a useful exercise or not is entirely up to you to decide.
|
|
Post-FAQ unarmed strike refered to all limbs always.
Only for unarmed attacks. Magic fang still targets a specific claw, bite, or another specific natural attack.
A pity we don't have a 7th edition of the CRB with the "slightly updated" version of the +he spell.
Holding the charge only works if the limb storing the charge is not touching anything. If you store the charge in all your limbs and you touch the floor then you discharge the spell.Normally, you can only deliver touch attack using unarmed strike. Spellstrike says you now use your weapon. Thus the charge is held by the weapon and not your fist. You cannot deliver the spell with a thrown attack because the spell still requires it be a "melee hit" unless you have an ability that changes that (Ex: Ranged Spellstrike).
Yes, that always was a problem with "if you touch anything the spell discharge". You touch the atmosphere, you touch your clothes, you touch your shield, you touch your gauntlets.
RAW as unplayable, a cleric in full plate will discharge his touch spells as soon as he cast them. Technically, even holding his holy symbol for spells with a divine focus will discharge them. :-)
So, AFAIK, people always read that as "if you touch something new and different after casting the spell, it discharges".
Ok i see the problem here, tell me are you touching the stone shield because stone shield act like the spell shield you don't actually have contact whit it it give you cover so when the magus use the shocking grasp the spell don't hit you directly since you are adjacent but not touching the shield. Second the stone shield never say that it's act as a conductor of electricity damage so it's impossible to give you damage from the spell even is it's a touch attack, third the spell have a 5 feet of applications of the spell this means that you mostly are 10 feet to the magus he needs to move 5 feet to reach you
And lastly how can you use spell strike after declare a normal attack?
|
|
A 1-inch-thick slab of stone springs up from the ground, interposing itself between you and an opponent of your choice. The stone shield provides you with cover from that enemy until the beginning of your next turn, granting you a +4 bonus to Armor Class and a +2 bonus on Reflex saving throws.
Cover is a rules-specific term:
Cover
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 195
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Cover and Reflex Saves: Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
The spell creates a stone wall in one specific direction (it appears between you and an opponent).
It is in no way connected to you, hitting it doesn't transmit the leftover damage to you.It works even against touch attacks as it is an interposed obstacle, not a shield or armor.
It stacks with armor, shield, and any other defensive benefit besides a cover bonus to AC.
Considering Anonimagus post, with an attack total of 11, the attack should have missed and damaged the stone shield even assuming it was against touch AC.
His minimum AC, unless his dexterity is lower than 10, was 14 (10 +4 cover bonus) even disregarding deflection bonuses.
My impression is that the GM misread the spell text, thinking it was some kind of shield and that it was held by Anonimagus character.
Seeing how the characters seem to be 4-5 level (a maximized Magus Kensai with an attack bonus of +8, maybe +10 if he was using spell combat), he doing enough damage with a Shocking grasp to destroy the Stone shield seems improbable. As energy attacks are halved against objects it would require 46 points of damage.
You cast most touch spells using your hands. You hold the charge as long as you don't touch anything. If you that it is held in your body, well you cannot hold the charge because you are touching the ground, so the only way it can work is if you hold the charge in your hand.
The rules originally refered to "unarmed strike" as just a single limb, not every limb. That was changed via FAQ of Magic Fang.
Which is also why if you cast a touch spell while wearing a gauntlet or a glove your gauntlet/gloves get fried correct? :)
This is one of those problematic areas of the rules for held charges. If you get shot with an arrow does that mean you unintentionally touched something? What if someone grapples you? Surely if you are being grappled a natural human reflex is to use your hands to try and get your grappler off?
From context, and years of multitides of people playing the game, while there are certainly some differences in how people play, there appear to be a couple of unwritten rules regarding held charges:
1) Things you are already touching at the time you cast the spell don't count as touching something unintentionally (else goodbye gloves of storing)
2) Walking around does not discharge the spell.
3) To discharge the spell it has to be an action the character holding the charge takes. That is, if a monk punches you, your spell is not discharged because they successfully attacked you. If you punch the monk then it will be discharged. (see for example FAQs on deflecting attacks with crane wing or deflect arrows - charges are not expended in these situations even though to deflect something you would clearly have to touch it or be touched by it).
As for storing the charge in the magus weapon, this is wrong. I'm not sure if you missed my explanation why above or not. But I'll do the TLDR version here.
Based on the FAQ, the magus can lose his weapon and still deliver the charge through a normal touch attack, or by equipping an entirely different weapon. If the charge is held in the weapon, the charge would be inaccessible until the magus recovered the original weapon.
You cast most touch spells using your hands. You hold the charge as long as you don't touch anything. If you that it is held in your body, well you cannot hold the charge because you are touching the ground, so the only way it can work is if you hold the charge in your hand.
The rules originally refered to "unarmed strike" as just a single limb, not every limb. That was changed via FAQ of Magic Fang.
Which is also why if you cast a touch spell while wearing a gauntlet or a glove your gauntlet/gloves get fried correct? :)
This is one of those problematic areas of the rules for held charges. If you get shot with an arrow does that mean you unintentionally touched something? What if someone grapples you? Surely if you are being grappled a natural human reflex is to use your hands to try and get your grappler off?
From context, and years of multitides of people playing the game, while there are certainly some differences in how people play, there appear to be a couple of unwritten rules regarding held charges:
1) Things you are already touching at the time you cast the spell don't count as touching something unintentionally (else goodbye gloves of storing)
2) Walking around does not discharge the spell.
3) To discharge the spell it has to be an action the character holding the charge takes. That is, if a monk punches you, your spell is not discharged because they successfully attacked you. If you punch the monk then it will be discharged. (see for example FAQs on deflecting attacks with crane wing or deflect arrows - charges are not expended in these situations even though to deflect something you would clearly have to touch it or be touched by it).As for storing the charge in the magus weapon, this is wrong. I'm not sure if you missed my explanation why above or not. But I'll do the TLDR version here.
Based on the FAQ, the magus can lose his weapon and still deliver the charge through a normal touch attack, or by equipping an entirely different weapon. If the...
Ok but what is this have to do with the problem of this thread. I think that the discussion about spell strike don have nothing to do to solve the problem that anonimagus is asking, what he is asking practically do a magus can destroy/conduit a shocking grasp in a spell that give you cover and damage/kill you whit the remaining damage of the spell
Ok but what is this have to do with the problem of this thread. I think that the discussion about spell strike don have nothing to do to solve the problem that anonimagus is asking, what he is asking practically do a magus can destroy/conduit a shocking grasp in a spell that give you cover and damage/kill you whit the remaining damage of the spell
I and others have already provided an answer to that question. This thread has since meandered, as threads are wont to do, into other minutiae of the rules.
Edit: Minor correction. There are two copies of this thread that are waiting to be merged into one thread by an admin. My response to the OPs question currently lies in the other copy.
|
|
Ok but what is this have to do with the problem of this thread. I think that the discussion about spell strike don have nothing to do to solve the problem that anonimagus is asking, what he is asking practically do a magus can destroy/conduit a shocking grasp in a spell that give you cover and damage/kill you whit the remaining damage of the spell
You can find an exhaustive reply just above the post by Temperans you cited, here.
The only consideration it lacks is that if Anonimagus character did wear a metal armor, the Kensai would have had a +3 to hit.
Several posts in this thread had partial answers.
Short version: if what Anonimagus said is correct, the GM made several errors, probably by misreading or misremembering the spell.
Wow, this thread exploded.
Ugh, yeah. Zero motivation to return to a thread and start bickering when there's been 10+ posts.
@Wonderstell If you really think your interpretation of Spellstrike is correct I recommend you make a thread about it. Yes we're already on the rules forum but you would get input from everyone in the know by posting it in a thread with a more relevant title. I feel like this thread has been a fairly accurate preview of how that will go though, so whether that would be a useful exercise or not is entirely up to you to decide.
Nah, I realized far too late that the point of contention didn't lie with Spellstrike but with far more basic interactions of the rules. Making an additional thread would be pointless as its only purpose would be to convince people that do not want to be convinced. It would be like arguing with he-who-shall-not-be-named about teamwork feats and the "own ally" FAQ.
===
Do you have some reference to this elusive SKR thread?
Because, in years of reading this forum I have never seen it.
Okay, assuming you're not taking me for a ride I'll give you some circumstantial evidence.
Sean K Reynolds in 2016 telling us how many post he has made on the paizo forums: "11,072 posts (11,086 including aliases)"
Sean K Reynold's posts right now: "7,563 posts (7,577 including aliases)"
As you can see, that's a huge discrepancy. I'm extremely surprised they choose to delete it when they could have just locked it.
|
|
Do you have some reference to this elusive SKR thread?
Because, in years of reading this forum I have never seen it.Okay, assuming you're not taking me for a ride I'll give you some circumstantial evidence.
Sean K Reynolds in 2016 telling us how many post he has made on the paizo forums: "11,072 posts (11,086 including aliases)"
Sean K Reynold's posts right now: "7,563 posts (7,577 including aliases)"As you can see, that's a huge discrepancy. I'm extremely surprised they choose to delete it when they could have just locked it.
It shows that 3,000+ posts by Sean were deleted, not that they were in a specific thread.
Knowing how deleted posts go, i.e., if a post is deleted, all the posts citing it are deleted, I suspect a decent number of these posts are about posts that were deleted for other reasons.All is possible, but I am surprised at never having encountered a post directing me to an SKR replies thread.
BTW, from that thread, another reason why the number can be different:
We likely see posts made on non-public messageboards like RPG Superstar judges' forums and the Pathfinder Society venture-officer boards included in our totals when we look at them, but they may not be included in Sara Marie's totals. That's the only thing I can think of that would account for that difference in post counts. I haven't had that many of my posts removed, even over the course of 10 years.It probably is missing a small number of posts, since my account tells me I have95369537 including aliases and Moreland has 10,716. Cosmo's seems to match the number listed on his account, though, so Moreland actually has a pretty big lead over Cosmo if the account number is accurate.
SKR has been an RPG Superstar judge for years, so he could have posted a lot of stuff in that non-public messageboard. The same for all internal stuff discussed by the staff.
It shows that 3,000+ posts by Sean were deleted, not that they were in a specific thread.
Knowing how deleted posts go, i.e., if a post is deleted, all the posts citing it are deleted, I suspect a decent number of these posts are about posts that were deleted for other reasons.
3000 is a large number of posts to have been deleted. I wonder if we have any other Paizo staff members posts counts to compare against?
It seems likely that at 3000+ deleted posts that entire threads would have been deleted, but... I don't ever recall seeing an active "Ask all your questions of SKR". And a relative comparison with other Paizo staff might reveal if 3000 is in the ballpark or not.
I do have half a dozen of SKR's posts favorited, but that is a small sample size, and they were all in separate threads. If any of his posts were deleted my favorites would have also disappeared. A quick glance at them I don't seem to be missing anything that I felt was worth favoriting, but my memory isn't good enough to be sure something isn't missing over the time I've been on these forums.
|
|
It shows that 3,000+ posts by Sean were deleted, not that they were in a specific thread.
Knowing how deleted posts go, i.e., if a post is deleted, all the posts citing it are deleted, I suspect a decent number of these posts are about posts that were deleted for other reasons.
3000 is a large number of posts to have been deleted. I wonder if we have any other Paizo staff members posts counts to compare against?
It seems likely that at 3000+ deleted posts that entire threads would have been deleted, but... I don't ever recall seeing an active "Ask all your questions of SKR". And a relative comparison with other Paizo staff might reveal if 3000 is in the ballpark or not.
I do have half a dozen of SKR's posts favorited, but that is a small sample size, and they were all in separate threads. If any of his posts were deleted my favorites would have also disappeared. A quick glance at them I don't seem to be missing anything that I felt was worth favoriting, but my memory isn't good enough to be sure something isn't missing over the time I've been on these forums.
I have added a bit of stuff after reading the thread Wondersell linked.
There are discrepancies between what we see checking a poster profile and what the poster see, as the stuff he posts on the non-public message boards is not counted on the public page of the poster.
3,000+ posts is a big discrepancy, but SKR was an RPG Superstar judge for years and surely posted a lot in the internal discussion message boards available only to Paizo employees, so it is possible that the difference comes from that.
Deleting a whole thread with replies to rules questions would require some strong motivations. I don't see any reason to do that.
All is possible, but I am surprised at never having encountered a post directing me to an SKR replies thread.
Facepalm
Augh, you are entirely correct Diego! I had mistaken SKR with Mark Seifter and that's why I couldn't find it. The Mark Seifter thread is alive and well, I'm glad to say.====
@bbangerter
Found this, now that I have the actual thread to peruse: The charge is stored in a particular hand, or weapon with spellstrike.
In general, held charges "live" in a particular hand (or weapon with spellstrike). From chill touch "A touch from your hand..."
The generic option to deliver a touch spell by touching is a standard action (from the Magic chapter). However, you could use the option to deliver touch spells through a natural attack or unarmed strike to deliver multiple of them, as long as you get multiple attacks with that limb. So for instance, a monk could deliver tons of chill touch spells in the same round with flurry. They would be against full AC though, of course.
====
Later on, in response to a post regarding the Deliquescent Gloves.
The item appears to be poorly written. In one place it claims to be a pair of gloves, and in another it claims to only cover one hand. It's also ambiguous as to the touch attack part. I guess it depends on whether you would allow someone to poke someone else as a touch attack for no effect.Thanks for your quick response!!
A couple more touch attack questions: do the Deliquescent Gloves allow you to make melee touch attacks whenever you like (doing 1d6 acid damage,) or does it only add 1d6 acid damage to touch attacks that you are granted from other sources (like touch spells)?
If they allow you to make "independent" touch attacks, can you TWF with a weapon in one hand and the gloves in the other?
(bonus question: when you buy the Deliquescent Gloves, do they come in a pair or is there only a single glove?)
I had hoped for a more conclusive statement but it is the last sentence that is of interest. If you allow someone to poke someone else as a touch attack for no effect. That is, is it physically impossible to play tag or not? This is the assumption that makes the Deliquescent Gloves work, and I thought was very commonplace. I've seen it used against Mirror Image.
If you do allow someone to target touch AC "for no effect", then it is possible to choose to target Touch AC with the attacks made as part of Spell Combat to discharge the spell as it is stored in the weapon.
While there is a FAQ that states that a Spell Touch Attack is a standard action, that is not what is happening here. Even a non-magus could try to deliberately "accidentally" discharge the spell with a touch attack, as part of a full-attack or an AoO, as long as they understand it does not count as a Spell Touch Attack.
So a Wizard doing this would not be considered armed (by the spell charge) and would not benefit from any extra stipulations in the spell description, such as Shocking Grasp's +3 vs metal armor.
@bbangerter
Found this, now that I have the actual thread to peruse: The charge is stored in a particular hand, or weapon with spellstrike.
** spoiler omitted **
Some good finds here. While not a post in official capacity, it shows at least one member of the PDT would rule it is in a specific hand. As you note, it does still have some problems with the monk example (or a creature using non-hand natural attacks). So I'm not yet persuaded, but it definately has some weight.
====
Later on, in response to a post regarding the Deliquescent Gloves.
I'm still trying to fully wrap my head around this response from Mark.
I have a couple of issues with it, but walk me through it you if feel I'm missing something.
I guess it depends on whether you would allow someone to poke someone else as a touch attack for no effect.
He does not, to me, appear to be saying you can do this. He phrases it more as a question, tossing it back on a individual GM.
In this sentance he also adds at the end "...for no effect"
So when you state
If you do allow someone to target touch AC "for no effect", then it is possible to choose to target Touch AC with the attacks made as part of Spell Combat to discharge the spell as it is stored in the weapon.
That appears to me to be in conflict. No effect IMO, would be no discharge of the spell, no damage delivered, no mirror images popped, etc. No effect, in my mind, would mean no accidental discharge.
That is, Marks response doesn't appear to be well worded with the second question of the poster.
If they allow you to make "independent" touch attacks, can you TWF with a weapon in one hand and the gloves in the other?
Suggesting the off hand touch is something that maybe a GM could allow, based on the question, suggests it should deal 1d6 damage as that was the point of the question. So "no effect" isn't really no effect. And of course is at odds with the touch attacks require a standard action FAQ.
Though it could also be more specific to the deliquescent gloves. The gloves don't have quite the same workings as a held charge. There is no "accidental" touching clause with the gloves. You can even use a weapon with the gloves without melting the handle of your weapon.
So if Mark himself would allow a touch for no effect (which I don't think he makes his own position on this clear) whether he would rule the same on a held charge, where the rules are a little bit different, is also unclear to me.
That is, is it physically impossible to play tag or not?
The rules neither allow nor disallow this (refering specifically to playing tag and not to be extended to any part of the actual rules we've been discussing). Because outside a GM contrived scenario, whether you can play tag or not has no impact on the actual game play. Playing tag doesn't deal damage, use spell slots, add/remove buffs or conditions, etc. So the rules simply don't care about tag, just like the rules don't care about whether a creature can use an outhouse or not.
|
|
While there is a FAQ that states that a Spell Touch Attack is a standard action, that is not what is happening here. Even a non-magus could try to deliberately "accidentally" discharge the spell with a touch attack, as part of a full-attack or an AoO, as long as they understand it does not count as a Spell Touch Attack.
So a Wizard doing this would not be considered armed (by the spell charge) and would not benefit from any extra stipulations in the spell description, such as Shocking Grasp's +3 vs metal armor.
I am reasonably sure that there is a reply to that, a fairly angry one, probably by SKR, stating that you can't mook attacks by doing them "accidentally".
I am reasonably sure that there is a reply to that, a fairly angry one, probably by SKR, stating that you can't mook attacks by doing them "accidentally".
I would definately consider getting a non-attack attack to deal extra damage to an enemy an abuse of the accidental discharge rules.
I'm still trying to fully wrap my head around this response from Mark.
'Well technically you are not granted a touch attack. So unless you (the GM) would allow someone to poke an enemy (i.e. target touch AC with a normal attack) the gloves can't be used by themselves to touch enemies for dmg.'
That appears to me to be in conflict. No effect IMO, would be no discharge of the spell, no damage delivered, no mirror images popped, etc. No effect, in my mind, would mean no accidental discharge.
That is not what is meant by "for no effect". From context we can deduce that Mark Seifter is saying that the "touch attack for no effect" (poking) would get the 1d6 Acid dmg rider effect from the gloves. That's the question he is answering.
What it is referring to is the choice to make a touch attack out of a normal attack, which is an attack that by itself has "no effect". But since rider effects such as the Deliquescent Gloves would apply it is clear that a spell would be discharged.
***
===
I am reasonably sure that there is a reply to that, a fairly angry one, probably by SKR, stating that you can't mook attacks by doing them "accidentally".
I'm not sure what you're saying. "Mook attacks by doing them 'accidentally'"?
===
I would definately consider getting a non-attack attack to deal extra damage to an enemy an abuse of the accidental discharge rules.
I am fairly certain that you would have been adamant that opening a door with a held charge was rules lawyering until 6 hours ago, so forgive me for not putting much value to this opinion.
The issue is that the gloves doesn't actually give you a "Touch Attack" which you could use to deal the 1d6 acid dmg. But it seems intended that you can now touch enemies for dmg. Mark recognizes this and says (paraphrased):
I follow that, that makes sense. If the rules allow you to make a touch attack while not having a held charge, then you could do a touch attack with the gloves to deliver the acid damage.
I don't think Marks comments on a deliquiscent glove actually do anything (for or against) your point of view on where a held charge is stored. Mark still has not said whether a "no effect" touch attack is allowed to be made or not. Nor do the rules comment on whether a game of "tag" is allowed or not for the reasons I noted above.
(You can ignore the next two paragraphs, they aren't really related to the main issue we are discussing, just my thoughts on Marks comments related more specifically to the gloves).
Unrelated, given the poor writing on the gloves, I would rule that they grant the ability to make a touch attack. Which would be an armed touch attack, as opposed to a theoretical non-held-charge touch attack that would probably provoke just like an unarmed strike (without IUS) provokes.
Also as a side note, if Mark were to comment on that today I would expect him to reference the making a touch attack is a standard action FAQ, so you could not make a touch attack as a off hand attack using TWF. His original opinion was made in 2015. The standard action touch attack FAQ was made in 2017. But that still would not say whether you could deliver a "no effect" touch attack as a standard action either. Only that if your GM allows a "no effect" touch attack, it would (probably) require a standard action. The FAQ of course says a held-charge touch attack is a standard, so its possible a "no effect" one could be allowed as iteratives, though that would certainly be very inconsistant.
I am reasonably sure that there is a reply to that, a fairly angry one, probably by SKR, stating that you can't mook attacks by doing them "accidentally".I'm not sure what you're saying. "Mook attacks by doing them 'accidentally'"?
Unless I misunderstood Diego, I believe he means SKR railed against the idea that you could "accidentally" deliver a held charge to an enemy by doing something that isn't part of the normal attack roll required to deliver a touch attack.
But back to the main issue.
Let's say I accept Mark's view that charges are held in a specific hand, and even better the rest of the PDT has weighed in and confirmed this is the correct intention of how the held charge rules should work.
Would it be fair for me to ask any of the following questions:
1) If a held charge is held in a specific limb, can I later as a free (or non-action) move the charge to a different limb?
a1) If I cannot move the charge different limb, this doesn't present a problem for a monk doing a flurry as they can choose to use the same limb repeatedly, but is this intended to affect say a dragon, that assigns a held charge to its left claw. Do only attacks with the left claw now deliver the charge, and other claw/bite/wing/tail attacks are unable to deliver the held charge?
a2) Given the magus spellstrike FAQ, if a magus can also optionally assign the held charge to their weapon, how they can be disarmed (losing the weapon with the held charge) and then grab a different weapon and subsequently deliver the held charge through the new weapon?
b1) If a spellcaster is able to move the charge to a different limb at will, what does this mean for the accidental discharge rules. For example, wizard casts shocking grasp and fails to deliver. Enemy he was fighting dies to the fighter, so the wizard now wants to climb a rope to get to an upper level. Can the wizard move the held charge to his head, climb up the rope without discharging the held charge, and upon reaching the top, move the charge back to his hand and continue fighting up there? In other words, if a character can move the charge at will, should we simply strike the accidental discharge rule from the game since it doesn't actually affect the game in anyway, or prevent a character from doing anything they would normally do?
b2) Given the magus spellstrike FAQ, can a character move a charge to another limb/weapon as a non-action? Or can they only move the charge on their own turn?
If you believe any of those questions are not fair questions to ask or expect an answer to, can you explain why?
Now, it could be the PDT does indeed intend for the the charge to be held in a specific hand, and that they consequently failed to consider, or at the very least did not deign to answer any of those questions above.
But given they have not provided any such rulings, that is the crux of my issue that, RAW, if a held charge is not held in a specific hand, then you end up with several unresolved questions as to how it actually works. By my reasoning, if your reading of the rules creates conflicts with other rules (or results in other rules not actually having any affect on the game at all) then that reading is probably incorrect.
There are a few rules that suffered from that issue. Prone shooter pre-faq I'm looking at you, and just recently a discusion I had with Derklord whether an "exact time of level up" actually had any consequences.
It might be the held charge rules are just a big mess that should have gone through an entire rewrite, but as far as RAW goes we don't get to speculate on that. We have to reconcile the rules in some fashion.
Given all that, I have no issue accepting Marks opinion as a strong candidate for RAI. I would just like to see some RAW to back that up.
I don't think Marks comments on a deliquiscent glove actually do anything (for or against) your point of view on where a held charge is stored. Mark still has not said whether a "no effect" touch attack is allowed to be made or not. Nor do the rules comment on whether a game of "tag" is allowed or not for the reasons I noted above.
Wait, my point of view? You mean Mark Seifter's statement. In which he was incredibly explicit about where a held charge is stored.
To be honest, I thought your previous reply was just an attempt to save some face when you were directly disproved and I weren't gonna press you on that. I didn't think you were actually gonna keep arguing about where the charge is held. That argument is done and dealt with. I'd be happy to answer your questions to the best of my understanding but I'm afraid you'd just see it as me conceding where the charge is held isn't 100% explicit and then direct the conversation towards minor disagreements.
Oh and yes, Mark did not say whether or not a "no effect" touch attack is allowed to be made or not. That's the important part. He didn't say it wasn't allowed, but instead assigned the decision to individual GMs. What I have tried to explain is how this alternative way of attacking can then be used for different purposes. You wouldn't actually have to "accidentally" discharge the spell if your GM is okay with you targeting touch AC with normal attacks in the first place.
And I choose to disregard your reply to the "tag" question as I considered it an obvious misdirection so that you are not forced to make a commitment in the argumentation. Which I consider cowardly.
|
|
Wondersell, I don't know if you suffer from selective reading or there is another reason, but in that thread, the discussion has a lot more posts than what you cite, and Mark explicitly said that you can't make a touch attack as one of the iterative attacks during a full attack:
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
The problem is that you have PC straight out of the CRB that can have this problem:
- Wizard and sorcerer familiars;
- wildshaped druids.- * -
A greater (or normal) shadow will not get an extra attack if hasted?
The original post
Oh, there's lots of stuff in the CRB that gets confusing for wildshaped druids due to the way it's written for small and medium humanoids. I mean, spells with a teeny radius centered on you when you are a huge elemental can be even trickier.
The shadow attack is a natural attack. AFAIK natural attacks never get iterative.
So we should consider all touch attacks as a kind of natural attack, like getting a claw and using it to attack?
What I was saying is that creatures should definitely not break the rule of making iterative touch attacks, since you had mentioned previously seeing monsters with iterative touch attacks. Natural incorporeal touch attacks follow a different rule than touch spells and are two separate questions.
For touch spells, the relevant text is here
So you get one touch as a free action in the round you cast. But other than that, you can touch one person as a standard action, touch six buddies as a full-round action, or start swinging against regular AC with unarmed attacks or natural weapons that are holding the charge, which follows the normal actions for that.
Touch Spells in Combat
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. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: 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.
Plus, Mark posts are opinions, based on how he would rule at his table, not official answers like SKR were:
Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!How many times JJ was visited by the genie? At this point he should have at least a inherent +3 to all his stats.
Note the post that originated that comment:
In general, held charges "live" in a particular hand (or weapon with spellstrike). From chill touch "A touch from your hand..."
The generic option to deliver a touch spell by touching is a standard action (from the Magic chapter). However, you could use the option to deliver touch spells through a natural attack or unarmed strike to deliver multiple of them, as long as you get multiple attacks with that limb. So for instance, a monk could deliver tons of chill touch spells in the same round with flurry. They would be against full AC though, of course.
So the rules are:
1) you hold the charge in a specific hand.
What happen if you don't have a hand? (wildshaped druid, familiar, snake form eidolon, etc.)
You can change the hand that hold the charge?
What kind of action if it is possible at all?2) You don't get iterative attacks with touch attack.
Mhh, I think that there are several creatures that break that rule.Honestly those are unwritten rules that need to be written. As something implied they work badly.
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
2) That is typically true. See the greater shadow and spectre as examples of 6 BAB creatures with only 1 attack.
Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!
So Mark said explicitly that his opinion of where a charge is held is a personal interpretation. Mark's personal interpretations can be worth more than yours or mine but are still interpretations, not rules.
They aren't FAQs or official rule clarifications.
And I choose to disregard your reply to the "tag" question as I considered it an obvious misdirection so that you are not forced to make a commitment in the argumentation. Which I consider cowardly.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have made no questions about "tag".
I made the following statement
The rules neither allow nor disallow this (refering specifically to playing tag and not to be extended to any part of the actual rules we've been discussing). Because outside a GM contrived scenario, whether you can play tag or not has no impact on the actual game play. Playing tag doesn't deal damage, use spell slots, add/remove buffs or conditions, etc. So the rules simply don't care about tag, just like the rules don't care about whether a creature can use an outhouse or not.
To try and clarify what I'm getting at here:
If a character has a held charge, we don't care about whether the game lets you play tag or not. Because a held charge has written rules about delivering it with a touch attack. The badly written Deliquescent Gloves do not work like a stored charge - regardless of whether non-existing tag rules should be allowed or not. As such, a GM allowing playing tag or not has no impact on the rules regarding held charges.
To be honest, I thought your previous reply was just an attempt to save some face when you were directly disproved and I weren't gonna press you on that.
Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about me. I don't care about "face" on an internet forum. If someone can show me on these forums I am wrong I have no problem admitting it. I have done so before, and will do so again. My previous reply was exactly as it was. I was confused about what Mark was saying about the gloves. You cleared that up for me.
You have quoted zero rules in support of your argument.
You have quoted zero rules about how to handle the problems that arise from your POV (and yes I say yours, Mark may have the same or a similar POV to you, but you are the one I am discussing the issue with). Nor have you even offerred an opinion about how to handle these issues.
You have pointed out the wording in the spellstrike. I recognized and addressed that. We have a difference of opinion on how much weight that holds. /shrug
You have provided a quote from Mark about how he does things in his games. I will reiterate that carries weight for a RAI perspective. And if that personal opinion did not create conflict within the rules that would have been enough for me to accept it as the rule.
The problem may very well be that I am incredibly obstinate. However, given the above, have you considered that you may have unrealistic expectations about how others will respond to your non-rules supported perspective?
Now, if you wish to continue, can you address my arguments instead of assaulting my character or motives?
In truth, I expect we have both laid out the extent of our views, and as Azothath suggests above others will have to read the view points and weigh for themselves how they want their own games to work. But I am open to discussing any new insights or rules references you may discover.
Now to go read Diego's wall of text :)
Honestly, even if that interpretation were correct it wouldn't explicitly follow that allowing iterative touch attacks would automatically allow Spellstrike to target touch AC.
Spellstrike is still specifically a Melee attack, not a Touch attack. You would be able to use your offhand to try to touch an enemy between attacks if you wanted to, but this would not use the weapon's reach, critical threat range or enhancement bonuses , making these "Touch attacks" nothing to do with the Spellstrike ability.