Blood Component Substitution and spells which require touch

[SuzuPazuzu]

The 12th-level Sorcerer feat Blood Component Substitution allows you to replace all somatic components with blood components, and removes the manipulate trait entirely from such spells (APG pg. 140.)

The core rulebook states, with regards to somatic components, "spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component" (CRB pg. 303.)

How do these interact? If you remove the somatic components from a spell which requires you to touch the target, would you fail to cast the spell, or would it cast without requiring physical touch?

Additionally, and as a secondary question, the wording of Blood Component Substitution states "you can replace all verbal, material, or somatic spellcasting components with a blood component." The use of 'or' in this sentence reads literally to me as 'you may replace all components of a certain type' rather than 'you may replace any and all components of any of these types.' However, I would intuit that the intent is the latter.

Thanks for the input in advance.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

What a fascinating interaction... I could really see this one going either way for what it matters. It's easy to argue either of "Must touch = can't negate manipulation trait" and "Replace somatic = no manipulation regardless what you do with your hands." I would argue that for a 12th level feat, losing HP to avoid AoO is hardly an overpowered scenario and would be inclined to let even touch spells ignore somatics, however, what the character is actually doing in the fiction is almost as important to me as balance.

If we accept the premise that touching a person always requires somatics (and thus manipulate trait), even though some forms of hand-contact (punching, grappling) are merely attacks with no manipulate trait, we either have to say that blood components reduce the 'gesturing' to an attack-like effect... or perhaps split the difference and go with an interesting and thematic premise like "You don't need to touch them, but you do need to splash a little blood on them, so you're counting as touching them in the moment through your glowing blood" which can easily be shuffled into the casting actions of the substitution.

--

As for your second question, whatever the phrasing of the feat, I can't see it forcing you to pick only one type of component substitution, even if the 'or' sounds a little funny there. To me it says "X, Y, or Z, whichever are present in the spell you cast" and the feat makes no mention of picking only one of the items.

[Baarogue]

>Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component.
>You can't use blood components to replace any required part of a spell's cost.

as for your second question, the first sentence of BCS says
>You can bypass the need for incantations and gestures by drawing energy directly from your blood

"and"

I read the "or" in the later sentence as "whichever are present in the spell" so nobody can argue "but the spell doesn't have ALL those components so BCS doesn't work", not a directive to pick only one

[breithauptclan]

Looking at this from a perspective of playing a game that is meant to be fun, entertaining, and have cool abilities that do useful things:

You still have to touch the target. But touching the target doesn't re-add the manipulate trait and cause the spell to provoke reactions.

After all, punching someone (unarmed Strike with a fist) doesn't provoke reactions either even though it does require touching them.

[SuzuPazuzu]

Baarogue wrote:

>Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component.

>You can't use blood components to replace any required part of a spell's cost.

As I understand it, the touch requirement as per the rules on somatic components is *not* a cost (cost having its own specific designation in the spell description,) so this excerpt of the feat would not apply in this interaction.

breithauptclan wrote:

After all, punching someone (unarmed Strike with a fist) doesn't provoke reactions either even though it does require touching them.

One could argue that the difference is that making a Strike is an offensive action that must be defended against, but reaching out to touch somebody is more reactable. But ultimately I agree with you, and Sibelius Eos Owm's opinion that you could reflavour the lack of mechanical touching, as it's better for player enjoyment and not unbalanced.

RAW it just ends up being an interesting interaction in the rules to me that I can't 100% be satisfied with either way.

[breithauptclan]

SuzuPazuzu wrote:

One could argue that the difference is that making a Strike is an offensive action that must be defended against, but reaching out to touch somebody is more reactable.

Counterargument being that touching someone with a spell effect is also an offensive action that must be defended against. You can touch someone just as quickly as you can punch them - lacking damage doesn't mean that it is slow. And anyone who sees your glowing spell-ridden hand coming towards them is going to be spending at least as much time avoiding it as they would spend trying to duck a haymaker.