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
No, you didn't Unintentionally do that. You intentionally shook his hand, but you forgot you were holding a charge. Big difference.
|
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?
But that's not the actual point.
Your trying to set up aside arguments and a backdoor while avoiding the point.
That is not a magus making an attack roll, missing and still holding the charge.
No ifs, no buts.
1 or 2. Yes or no. On or off. Hit or miss.
Stop trying to muddle the point
Where are those called shot rules to hit my hands ac?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
Ok, you avoid the shopkeep's called shot on your hand, and back out of the store. Now there's a swarm of street-urchin children in dirty, tattered clothing, "Jeepers mister, your armor sure looks swell! Are you a knight? Are you gonna save the city?" as they attempt to rifle through your pockets. Would that discharge the touch spell?
|
|
Ok, you avoid the shopkeep's called shot on your hand, and back out of the store. Now there's a swarm of street-urchin children in dirty, tattered clothing, "Jeepers mister, your armor sure looks swell! Are you a knight? Are you gonna save the city?" as they attempt to rifle through your pockets. Would that discharge the touch spell?Where are those called shot rules to hit my hands ac?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
this is just deflecting and avoiding the argument.
your still just building strawmen that are irrelevant to the discussion. it just shows you've realized your argument holds no weight and are clutchng at straws.
Rules only plz. kthnx
un·in·ten·tion·al
/ˌəninˈten(t)SH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
not done on purpose.
there is no rule that says a miss touches. end of story
so if the BBEG punches a cleric holding a charge on a heal, do they get healed? no
Ok, you avoid the shopkeep's called shot on your hand, and back out of the store. Now there's a swarm of street-urchin children in dirty, tattered clothing, "Jeepers mister, your armor sure looks swell! Are you a knight? Are you gonna save the city?" as they attempt to rifle through your pockets. Would that discharge the touch spell?Where are those called shot rules to hit my hands ac?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
this is just deflecting and avoiding the argument.
your still just building strawmen that are irrelevant to the discussion. it just shows you've realized your argument holds no weight and are clutchng at straws.
Rules only plz. kthnx
un·in·ten·tion·al
/ˌəninˈten(t)SH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
not done on purpose.there is no rule that says a miss touches. end of story
so if the BBEG punches a cleric holding a charge on a heal, do they get healed? no
Yes, you just touched the Cleric.
|
|
this is like arguing with a brick wall with its fingers in its ears.
obviously you're never going to accept anyone else's reasoning, despite several people explaining you're wrong and adding a bunch of extra assumptions to a binary problem.
you appear to only have a single locked in unwavering viewpoint that wont let things like actual rule change it.
no attacks can ever be held. the gm always says you itch your nose after casting a spell. just as valid GM advocacy.
You touched him. You satisfied the condition of "if anyone touches you, the spell discharges".
You touched him. You satisfied the condition of "if anyone touches you, the spell discharges".he touched you =/= you touch him
2020: CONCENT IS NOT OPTIONAL
YOU ITCHED YOUR NOSE AGAIN
The "if you touch anything or anyone, even unintentionally, the spell discharges" rule has nothing to do with a Touch Attack. It's conditional upon being touched by anything or anyone, or you touching anything or anyone. You can discharge the spell by retrieving a potion or picking up a weapon (unless you're a Magus), you don't need to roll a Touch Attack to satisfy this condition.
|
|
The "if you touch anything or anyone, even unintentionally, the spell discharges" rule has nothing to do with a Touch Attack. It's conditional upon being touched by anything or anyone, or you touching anything or anyone. You can discharge the spell by retrieving a potion or picking up a weapon (unless you're a Magus), you don't need to roll a Touch Attack to satisfy this condition.You touched him. You satisfied the condition of "if anyone touches you, the spell discharges".he touched you =/= you touch him
2020: CONCENT IS NOT OPTIONAL
YOU ITCHED YOUR NOSE AGAIN
back to the actual argument
does the attack hit ac? no then hold the charge.
does anything say an attack that doesnt hit AC still touches them? no
Before we get back to the actual argument, let's address that you proved my point that DM agency can indeed discharge touch spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is medication for accidental discharge.
please quote the faq portion that says thatAnd the FAQ confirms that if a Magus misses with the attack and clangs off the armor/shield, he has the option to discharge the spell through the weapon like a normal touch attack.
We need to comb through these rules before you'd agree with anything I say about this. You're not going to like what I say as proof :P
It hinges upon the "unintentional touch" rule, the Magus's weapon being treated as an extension of his own body, the "Melee Attack as a Melee Touch Attack" verbiage from the FAQ, the General Touch Spells in Combat + the Specific Rules of Spellstrike being in effect, and this:
Shocking Grasp +3 to Attack Roll for Magus vs. Metal-wearing targets.
^--------- This FAQ illustrates that the weapon is being charged with Electricity from the spell Shocking Grasp to the point that it provides a +3 to the attack roll with the weapon.
Shocking Grasp
School evocation [electricity]; Level bloodrager 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1; Elemental School air 1, metal 1
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, SEFFECT
Range touch
Target creature or object touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yesDESCRIPTION
Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal).
Ryze, your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that a GM can rule that a miss still touches the enemy if it beats their Touch AC ... well 80% of the GMs in this thread have said that they do NOT rule this way, so if you're relying on that you're gonna have a rough time.
I'm also curious why you'd want this to be a rule? A Magus with a low hit-chance has a ~95% chance to hit at least once by level 8 or so, which means you're extremely unlikely to finish the turn without using your Shocking Grasp. If you allow them to discharge the spell on a miss you're basically just lowering their chance to crit with the spell, which is lowering their overall damage output.
EDIT: Let's forget that part, it'll only confuse things.
Ryze, your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that a GM can rule that a miss still touches the enemy if it beats their Touch AC ... well 80% of the GMs in this thread hve said that they do NOT rule this way, so if you're relying on that you're gonna have a rough time.
I'm also curious why you'd want this to be a rule? A Magus with a low hit-chance has a ~95% chance to hit at least once by level 8 or so, which means you're extremely unlikely to finish the turn without using your Shocking Grasp. If you allow them to discharge the spell on a miss you're basically just lowering their chance to crit with the spell, which is lowering their overall damage output.EDIT: Let's forget that part, it'll only confuse things.
Because it's the proper rules. You cannot touch someone with a Touch Spell charged. And for a Magus, or a Psychic Warrior with a Psicrystal Warblade Staff, you can't touch their weapon either.
If your GM causes any part of the environment to touch you while a Touch Spell is active, it discharges.
This is actually more of a burden for PC's who keep their charge on them all day, which PsyWars do all the time; they put multiple Hammer charges on their Psicrystal Warblade. Magus could do the same thing with Frostbite and Chill Touch charges.
Ryze, your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that a GM can rule that a miss still touches the enemy if it beats their Touch AC ... well 80% of the GMs in this thread hve said that they do NOT rule this way, so if you're relying on that you're gonna have a rough time.Because it's the proper rules. You cannot touch someone with a Touch Spell charged. And for a Magus, or a Psychic Warrior with a Psicrystal Warblade Staff, you can't touch their weapon either.
Except that this is the point of contention for this enture thread. We contend that this is NOT true, and ask you to prove that it is. Your proof so far has been "The GM can rule it this way", which while true doesn't stop us from saying "The GM can rule NOT this way". Since we have a majority of GMs disagreeing with you it doesn't hold as a rule.
So the question is: besides "GMs can", and besides the FAQ you've already quoted (because we've quoted it back at you and clearly disagree on what it means), is there anything in the rules that EXPLICIY states that a Miss is treated as a touch?
Ryze, your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that a GM can rule that a miss still touches the enemy if it beats their Touch AC ... well 80% of the GMs in this thread hve said that they do NOT rule this way, so if you're relying on that you're gonna have a rough time.Because it's the proper rules. You cannot touch someone with a Touch Spell charged. And for a Magus, or a Psychic Warrior with a Psicrystal Warblade Staff, you can't touch their weapon either.Except that this is the point of contention for this enture thread. We contend that this is NOT true, and ask you to prove that it is. Your proof so far has been "The GM can rule it this way", which while true doesn't stop us from saying "The GM can rule NOT this way". Since we have a majority of GMs disagreeing with you it doesn't hold as a rule.
So the question is: besides "GMs can", and besides the FAQ you've already quoted (because we've quoted it back at you and clearly disagree on what it means), is there anything in the rules that EXPLICIY states that a Miss is treated as a touch?
No, I’ve never said that misses are touches. I addressed this at least 3 times now, I’m pretty sure.
I'm super confused. What are we arguing about then?
I think you're falsely assuming my logic as "if you defeat an enemy's Touch AC with an attack, but miss their total AC, then you automatically hit the target's armor/shield and the DM must allow it." And I've never said that, ever.By your logic you'll never satisfy the line "if the attack misses you still hold the charge".
Think of it binary. Yes or no. Hit or miss.
Did you hit? Yes spell happens. Did you miss? Hold the charge. Full stop.
No you hit, but...
No circumstances. Yes or not, hit or miss, black or white. No shades of gray in between.
This is Ryze Kuja's 2nd post in this thread.
So no, Ryze wasn't trying to argue that this always happens, but that if a GM rules it a certain way you COULD expend the charge.
(Sorry Ryze, I really did miss this distinction. I skimmed the first page or so because this thread has been hurtling along at breakneck speed right from the beginning.)
Anyway long story short, yes a GM can rule that way if they wish - refer to Rule 0, or Rule 1 - whichever one says "The GM Decides" - they can rule however they want a out anything really.
However that would be the GM introducing what's known as a "House Rule". It's not a rule written in any Pathfinder book.
As far as the Rules Forum is concerned that isn't a rule.
Ok, you avoid the shopkeep's called shot on your hand, and back out of the store. Now there's a swarm of street-urchin children in dirty, tattered clothing, "Jeepers mister, your armor sure looks swell! Are you a knight? Are you gonna save the city?" as they attempt to rifle through your pockets. Would that discharge the touch spell?
In your games, if a caster has a held charge, do you discharge the spell if he gets shot by an arrow? Gets hit by an enemy melee weapon? Someone spits on said caster?
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.
In your games, if the GM describes an attack as ripping open an opponents gut, does that character automatically die of "gut rot" some time in the future if they receive no healing? (Such wounds were generally fatal in medieval times).
If the GM describes an attack as shattering a creature bones, is that creature now limited in its movement speed (assuming a leg bone) or its capacity to attack (assuming an arm bone)?
In your games, if a caster has a held charge, do you discharge the spell if he gets shot by an arrow? Gets hit by an enemy melee weapon? Someone spits on said caster?
Ok, you avoid the shopkeep's called shot on your hand, and back out of the store. Now there's a swarm of street-urchin children in dirty, tattered clothing, "Jeepers mister, your armor sure looks swell! Are you a knight? Are you gonna save the city?" as they attempt to rifle through your pockets. Would that discharge the touch spell?
Oh yeah that's definitely not a rule.
Being attacked doesn't trigger a Touch Spell, it only triggers if you instigate the touch.
A Trip/Disarm/Grapple doesn't trigger your spell, though escaping a Grapple is going to be difficult without discharging it.
The idea of "unintentionally" triggering a touch spell is basialy if the character and/or player forgets that their hand is charged.
|
|
In your games, if a caster has a held charge, do you discharge the spell if he gets shot by an arrow? Gets hit by an enemy melee weapon? Someone spits on said caster?
Ok, you avoid the shopkeep's called shot on your hand, and back out of the store. Now there's a swarm of street-urchin children in dirty, tattered clothing, "Jeepers mister, your armor sure looks swell! Are you a knight? Are you gonna save the city?" as they attempt to rifle through your pockets. Would that discharge the touch spell?
just quoting the answer from earlier
Yes, you just touched the Cleric.so if the BBEG punches a cleric holding a charge on a heal, do they get healed? no
Being attacked doesn't trigger a Touch Spell, it only triggers if you instigate the touch.
A Trip/Disarm/Grapple doesn't trigger your spell, though escaping a Grapple is going to be difficult without discharging it.
The idea of "unintentionally" triggering a touch spell is basialy if the character and/or player forgets that their hand is charged.
Could you please provide an explanation/justification/quote about those three statements as those are answers to the questions I wanted to ask but I do not know how you reach those answers.
If Anja holds a charge, empty handed and Barnaby tries to slap her, they spar for a few instants then Barnaby finds a way inside Anja's blocks and lands his palm on her face, does it discharge the spell?
- What I've described above is in rules terms two persons, both competent with unarmed strikes, Barnaby performing an attack on Anja while Anja is holding a charge -
If the charge goes off, does it go off during one the blocks - since Anja would then deliberately be looking for contact in order to block? Does it go off when the palm makes contact with Anja's face?
If it doesn't go off, what makes it different than if it was Anja, holding the charge, facing a few blocks from Barnaby before being able to slap him in the face?
- Again, my answers to these questions are «I don't know because the rules are contradictory», I am not taking either side, I can see valid arguments both ways and I only look to be thoroughly convinced -
I think this is turning into semantics, «to touch» meaning both «being in contact with something» and «the actions which have as a consequence contact with something being made».
Is there a dimension of intentionality here? If Anja lies on a table almost naked while holding a charge and Barnaby gives her a massage with his bare hands, does the charge go off?
What of a parry like with the Swashbuckler's? Isn't a parry deliberately seeking contact?
|
|
Being attacked doesn't trigger a Touch Spell, it only triggers if you instigate the touch.
A Trip/Disarm/Grapple doesn't trigger your spell, though escaping a Grapple is going to be difficult without discharging it.
The idea of "unintentionally" triggering a touch spell is basialy if the character and/or player forgets that their hand is charged.
Could you please provide an explanation/justification/quote about those three statements as those are answers to the questions I wanted to ask but I do not know how you reach those answers.
If Anja holds a charge, empty handed and Barnaby tries to slap her, they spar for a few instants then Barnaby finds a way inside Anja's blocks and lands his palm on her face, does it discharge the spell?
- What I've described above is in rules terms two persons, both competent with unarmed strikes, Barnaby performing an attack on Anja while Anja is holding a charge -If the charge goes off, does it go off during one the blocks - since Anja would then deliberately be looking for contact in order to block? Does it go off when the palm makes contact with Anja's face?
If it doesn't go off, what makes it different than if it was Anja, holding the charge, facing a few blocks from Barnaby before being able to slap him in the face?- Again, my answers to these questions are «I don't know because the rules are contradictory», I am not taking either side, I can see valid arguments both ways and I only look to be thoroughly convinced -
I think this is turning into semantics, «to touch» meaning both «being in contact with something» and «the actions which have as a consequence contact with something being made».
Is there a dimension of intentionality here? If Anja lies on a table almost naked while holding a charge and Barnaby gives her a massage with his bare hands, does the charge go off?
What of a parry like with the Swashbuckler's? Isn't a parry deliberately seeking contact?
im genuinely curious to some of this as well.
and what happens in the rain. would rain hitting you discharge the touch?
or if you suddenly get encased in something
is there a difference between casting a spell under water and crossing from air to water?
what about greater sundering someones gauntlet? thats specifically hitting the gauntlet and the remaining damage transfers to the person. that is a circumstance i could see specifically qualifying as hitting someones hand.
IMHO that could potentially discharge a touch (or i at least would understand that as a ruling)
@Agénor I can answer at least some of that with an FAQ, the rest might have to wait till later. Some of it might be me being wrong, but I'm pretty confident.
(Right down the bottom)
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.
|
Yes, it is semantics, and keeping "holding the charge" usable.
You touch the ground every time you take a step, you constantly touch air while breathing.
When the PDT wrote the already cited FAQ about the magus, they wrote:
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.
So they assumed/stated that the charge is held in a specific hand, not all the body. On the other hand, an held charge can be delivered by a creature without hands and that uses its paws to walk, like a cat familiar.
So it is possible to "store" the held spell in different parts of the body.Mundane acts like breathing or swimming don't trigger the held spell (or it would be a useless rule).
If we accept the theory that it is held in a specific part of the body, touching the person holding the spell will not trigger it (but at the same time, triggering it by touching something involuntarily become very improbable) unless you target the specific part of the body (and that will require some kind of attack roll or check).
So, it is not a well-written rule, but the part on how it works when making an attack with IUS or natural weapons or weapon (for the magus), is clear. If you hit with the normal attack the spell is delivered, if you miss with the normal attack the spell isn't delivered.
If the GM describes the attack in a way that allows the spell to be delivered while the normal attack is missed he is not following the rules.
If he wants a GM can play combat without rolling any dice, simply describing it as he feels it will go, dictating what spells are consumed, how much damage is received and dealt, and so on. If he and the players enjoy that, more power to them. Simply it isn't Pathfinder, it is storytelling.
Can you move the charge from one body part to another? It would make some sense as a rule if when you cast a spell the charge appears in your spellcasting hand, and that hand must remain empty and not be used for anything until you want to discharge the spell.
If you could move the charge around your body freely, then you could just move it away from your free hand when opening a door, in which case the 'accidental touch' rule need never be applied.
Player: "I open the door."
GM: "That will discharge your held spell."
Player: "No, I move the charge to my teeth before doing so."
But if you can't move the charge around your body, it's weird that you can deliver touch spells through natural attacks such as bites, and unarmed strikes such as kicks.
Can you move the charge from one body part to another?
It's not that the charge is attached to one part of your body, it is actually partly about intention.
Once you're "charged" with a spell the rule is that you can't touch anything or anyone.
Let's say you're an alchemist with 2 vestigal arms, 2 claws and a bite, wings, 2 tentacles and a tail. You can't use any of those things to touch another creature or item or whatever else that you're not wearing without discharging the spell. Any natural attack, unarmed strike (eg. headbutt or knee the enemy) or combat maneuver will discharge it if you hit (ok probably not a feint).
Magi change this in that they can swap weapons without discharging the spell. I don't think this is actually in the rules, but it's in the FAQ which is considered a rules source, so yay Magi.
However you can walk, you can swim, you can probably climb if you have a climb-speed (not 100% on that one). You won't lose the charge if enemies hit you with arrows, melee weapons, natural weapons, combat maneuvers.
Is this realistic? Not especially, but it's only a problem when you dig into it (like we are).
I have the same problem with Invisibility vs Greater Invisibility. They're the same spell except:
1. Invisibility lasts 10 times longer.
2. Invisibility has more conditions about what actions end the spell.
3. Invisibility is 1 spell level lower.
This makes no sense in a real-world scenario, but it's perfect for balancing a game. Which is fine.
It's not that the charge is attached to one part of your body, it is actually partly about intention.
The rules say intention doesn't matter. So maybe it's more that it's discharged in two different ways:
It discharges if you touch anything not covered by special exceptions with the hand that's holding the charge (such as any wall you try to climb with both hands) OR if you strike someone violently with any part of your body.
Anyway, given the choice between, "Ignore this rule," and the possibility of, "Sorry, by my understanding of this rule, the spell will be discharged into the wand you cast it from," I will continue to prefer the former.
I can think of one scenario where you possibly could, in fact, unintentionally touch someone. Maybe. What do you suppose happens if, while holding the charge of a spell, you walk forward and find yourself encountering a foe who was hidden from you (either by invisibility or hide in plain sight)?
Also, not to add any fuel to any fires, there are instances in the rules where an attack that misses can still have an effect, and that is Mirror Image, which states an attack that misses by 5 or less destroys a Mirror Image due to a 'near miss'. I'm not trying to extrapolate any rules from that outside of the ones that are specific for the spell, nor am I saying destroying a Mirror Image would discharge a touch spell; in fact, if even mentioning this is not relevant, I apologize.
But I thought it might be.
There will obviously be table variance as to how this rule "if you touch anything or anyone, even unintentionally, the spell will discharge" is implemented. An extremely strict reading, as earlier suggested: air molecules, rain, the common cold, or underwater casting; would render Touch Spells completely unusable. An extremely loose reading, also as earlier suggested, where nothing can possibly unintentionally touch you, even if someone gets Bull Rushed into you, renders this rule obsolete. I think you should find a happy medium, and expect table variance.
The rules say intention doesn't matter. So maybe it's more that it's discharged in two different ways:
It discharges if you touch anything not covered by special exceptions with the hand that's holding the charge (such as any wall you try to climb with both hands) OR if you strike someone violently with any part of your body.
Yeah I can see that. That's not a bad interpretation actually, hmmm...
I can think of one scenario where you possibly could, in fact, unintentionally touch someone. Maybe. What do you suppose happens if, while holding the charge of a spell, you walk forward and find yourself encountering a foe who was hidden from you (either by invisibility or hide in plain sight)?
I could be wrong about this (and correct me if I am) but I think in that scenario you'd still have the 50% miss chance. Would you regard that as an attack thing? We're getting into a lot of variant rules now so it might take a little while to weap my head round it all.
Regardless Mirror Image is actually hitting something - you hit the image. It has specific rules about how to handle that situation, and tells you what to do with touch spells.
There will obviously be table variance as to how this rule "if you touch anything or anyone, even unintentionally, the spell will discharge" is implemented. An extremely strict reading, as earlier suggested: air molecules, rain, the common cold, or underwater casting; would render Touch Spells completely unusable. An extremely loose reading, also as earlier suggested, where nothing can possibly unintentionally touch you, even if someone gets Bull Rushed into you, renders this rule obsolete. I think you should find a happy medium, and expect table variance.
Honestly, yeah I can agree with that.