[3.5] Being hit when holding a charged touch spell

[Hormenius]

Hello, on touch spells the Player's Handbook 1 states as follows.


PHB141: ""Holding the charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (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.


My question is therefore, what happens if you are hit by an opponent whilst holding the charge.

More specifically, if the spell descriptor has as target "Creature touched".

1. What happens if an opponent succeeds on a natural attack on the player holding a charge?

2. Would the same happen if an opponent were to hit the player with a melee weapon?

3. What about arrows?

Likewise if the spell targets "Object touched":

4. What happens if an opponent succeeds on a natural attack on the player holding a charge?

5. Would the same happen if an opponent were to hit the player with a melee weapon?

6. What about arrows?

---------------------------
My reasoning:

If the target is a creature touched I believe the charge should discharge and affect the attacker if he hits a player holding a charge with a natural weapon, as the player would be discharge the spell automatically if he hit with a natural attack. (PHB142). As the player is now touching someone, unintentionally.

However I do not believe that such a spell would affect an opponent attacking with a weapon, whether it be a melee or ranged weapon, as the spell is not designed to affect objects at all. In the same way attacking with a weapon will not discharge the spell.

If the spell is targeting an object I believe the situation would be the same but opposite, a weapon or arrow that hits the player would discharge the spell on the weapon/arrow. However a creature touching the player directly would be unaffected, as would the spell.

What do you think?

[Crake]

You can actually deliver touch spells with a natural attack or unarmed strike, but you need to hit the target's normal AC instead of their touch AC. But otherwise, the charge is typically held in a hand, or other kind of appendage. If you get bitten in the leg by a wolf, the spell doesn't discharge out of your leg, otherwise any spell with range touch that affected objects would immediately discharge into gear you're wearing.

[ahenobarbi]

I think spells don't discharge when some creature or object hits you. As pointed out by Crake that would make spells affecting "object touched" useless (spell would immediately discharge to affect gear you are touching).

[Jigokuro]

But then what of gloves? most adventures fill all their item slots fairly fast; would a wizard not be able to use touch spells while wearing gloves of dex +2?

[Hormenius]

You can actually deliver touch spells with a natural attack or unarmed strike, but you need to hit the target's normal AC instead of their touch AC. But otherwise, the charge is typically held in a hand, or other kind of appendage. If you get bitten in the leg by a wolf, the spell doesn't discharge out of your leg, otherwise any spell with range touch that affected objects would immediately discharge into gear you're wearing.

That is a good point, but where does it say you are holding the charge in one hand? And how would that logic work with the fact that you could kick as an unarmed strike? Or slam, or bite, or "wing it" as natural attack? I've been under the impression that a charged spell behaves very much in the same way as a object or creature charged with electricity in the real world. i.e. The charge distributes itself evenly around the outer surface of the object.


But then what of gloves? most adventures fill all their item slots fairly fast; would a wizard not be able to use touch spells while wearing gloves of dex +2?

If it charges as electricity in the real world, then the gloves would be no hindrance,(nor would any other gear you are wearing) as the gloves would be in direct contact with the caster as he was charging up. Thus the gloves would be charged as well.

However how is that any different from holding a sword in that same hand... What would cause the gloves to be a conductor of magic, when a sword is not? On the other hand, the fact that you only need a touch attack in order to discharge a spell support the claim that armor is not a hindrance for a touch spell.

One could start to argue about contact surface though, a chest armor or glove has the majority of its surface in direct contact with you or other armor that by induction is in contact with you. Whilst a sword on the other hand is only touching you at the hilt and thus the magic has to travel through a relatively long stretch of "dead" metal.

[Andreaz]

For simplicity's sake, assume "creature or object touched" means you touched through your own action, and that it doesn't require actual skin contact, just contact, as anything the guy might be wearing is effectively the guy.

The game was written by relatively normal people with relatively normal expectations of who'll read them. There's no need to treat everything like a devil's contract's fine letters.

[Hormenius]

For simplicity's sake, assume "creature or object touched" means you touched through your own action, and that it doesn't require actual skin contact, just contact, as anything the guy might be wearing is effectively the guy.

The game was written by relatively normal people with relatively normal expectations of who'll read them. There's no need to treat everything like a devil's contract's fine letters.

I must agree with you on that, the reason I'm asking in the first place is that as spell casters are rather squishy in the first place, could the holding of a charged spell be used as a defensive move as well as an offensive move.

On one side you cannot cast any other spells while holding a charge. On the other hand a semi-intelligent monster might think twice about attacking you again if it took 1d10 Con damage the last time it took a nibble from you.

[chainlink]

1. Attack resolved as normal. Charge not spent.
2. see #1
3. see #1
4. see #1
5. see #1
6. see #1

Something touching you is not you making a melee touch attack. Please stop choking the cat-girl, she has done nothing to you.

[chainlink]

I must agree with you on that, the reason I'm asking in the first place is that as spell casters are rather squishy in the first place, could the holding of a charged spell be used as a defensive move as well as an offensive move.

On one side you cannot cast any other spells while holding a charge. On the other hand a semi-intelligent monster might think twice about attacking you again if it took 1d10 Con damage the last time it took a nibble from you.

Then ready an action to melee touch attack the monster when it tries to nibble on you.

[nedz]

A spell has to be targeted by the caster and this is entirely under their control.

This means that it can only be triggered on the caster's turn, immediate actions excepted.

If this wasn't the case you could ready an action to steal a Cure spell etc.

[Hormenius]

A spell has to be targeted by the caster and this is entirely under their control.

This means that it can only be triggered on the caster's turn, immediate actions excepted.

If this wasn't the case you could ready an action to steal a Cure spell etc.

I must disagree on the first statement there, as it explicitly says in PHB that touching something/someone unintentionally will trigger the spell. (See first post)

If however there is a rule stating what you say next, i.e. that a spell may only be triggered on the casters turn. That would simplify the matter, so if you have a source to solidify that claim I would very much like to see it.


Then ready an action to melee touch attack the monster when it tries to nibble on you.

That is one way to do it, aye. Still, it would interfere with your initiative and hinder you from making normal attacks on your turn. Thus if it is possible, the out of order discharge would still be something different.

[nedz]

Well most touch spells have wording like this

Ghoul Touch
...
Imbuing you with negative energy, this spell allows you to paralyze a single living humanoid for the duration of the spell with a successful melee touch attack.


Also



Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. 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. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity.
...
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
...
So it seems that you can only unintentionally target your allies this way. To target enemies you must make an attack roll.

[Hormenius]

Aye, I think I see your reasoning now, as you need to make an attack roll to hit an opponent, (Either touch, natural or unarmed) this may only happen on your turn, therefore your opponent hitting you is not an attack roll made by you and may not be used to trigger your spell. (If it is not readied.)

I have found a feat that supports your view as well, from Complete Mage p. 47 RETRIBUTIVE SPELL [METAMAGIC]
You can keep a spell in reserve to use when a foe causes you
harm.
Benefit: When you cast a spell modified by this metamagic
feat, the spell has no immediate effect. Any time you are dealt
damage by a melee attack during the next 24 hours (or until
you next prepare or ready your spells), you can choose to
cast the spell on that attacker as an immediate action. Once
activated, a retributive spell disappears (it can only
affect one attacker).
You can apply this feat only to a spell
that targets a creature. A retributive
spell can target only the attacker that
triggered it, even if the spell would
normally allow you to target multiple
creatures.
You can have only one retributive
spell cast at a time. Casting
a second retributive spell
cancels the first (eliminating
it with no effect). If you
prepare or ready spells while
you have a retributive spell
cast, the spell dissipates with
no effect.
A retributive spell uses up a
spell slot one level higher than
the spell's actual level.
The main difference is that this feat would still let you cast other spells as opposed to the holding charge argument.

I've been interpreting that as: Assume your opponent will attempt to avoid you, but all you need to do is touch. Thus in order to hit the opponent, you need to bypass their active evasion attempts and therefore beat the AC. Furthermore when you attack with an unarmed/natural attack you must attack in a very different manner from that of a touch attack, namely you must actively attempt not to hit armor. In normal combat you could of course look at a "slight" miss as a hit to the armor, but that would not make sense in this case (as it would trigger the spell, by my reasoning).
Again by this interpretation, you don't need to hit your evasive opponent if he is touching you, and the spell would therefore hit him in the same way you would hit one of your allies involuntarily.

This is becoming a good discussion, do you have any further insights?

[nedz]

Well there is the following argument:

If you are holding a charge and make an unarmed attack and miss the AC, but beat the touch AC, then you discharge the spell anyway, even though your natural attack did no damage. This seems more realistic, but this would definitely be a house-rule.

The alternative, gameist, reasoning seems to be that you took a chance to do more damage and so there ought to be a cost, otherwise you would always try to do this. But this is just my speculation about RAI, though it does match RAW.

Ed: to make what I was saying clearer.

[Curmudgeon]

I must disagree on the first statement there, as it explicitly says in PHB that touching something/someone unintentionally will trigger the spell.
You've got an unstated premise that's keeping you from following the rules here: i.e., touching is symmetric. In the real world, touching something and being touched by something have the same effect. In the D&D world that's not the case: touching is active only. If you (actively) touch a valid target, even if you don't intend for that action to discharge the spell, the charge still is expended. However, if a dozen valid targets touch you, because you are passive (have taken no action to create that contact) you are not considered to be touching them, and the spell charge remains in your body.

[Hormenius]

Well there is the following argument:

If you are holding a charge and make an unarmed attack and miss the AC, but beat the touch AC, then you discharge the spell anyway, even though your natural attack did no damage. This seems more realistic, but this would definitely be a house-rule.

The alternative, gameist, reasoning seems to be that you took a chance to do more damage and so there ought to be a cost, otherwise you would always try to do this. But this is just my speculation about RAI, though it does match RAW.

Ed: to make what I was saying clearer.
To the first part, that would certainly be a house rule, and I don't think I would use that in my campaigns at it would be too much of a hassle to always remember to compare the touch AC as well. Then again I would assume that the way you attack with an unarmed or natural attack must be inherently different from attacking with a weapon. From a "realistic" point of view, if you attack unarmed you really don't want to punch the bad-guys steel plate, so you would go to extreme lengths to avoid that, (taking a -4 penalty), thus the way I interpret this means that if you miss with an unarmed strike you will also miss the villain completely, and not strike his armor.

On the second part, aye, to keep the game balanced every substantial gain should require a corresponding risk or penalty. But, I will argue that the above does indeed maintain balance.

1st. In order to have a charged spell, you must use a standard action to cast it. The rules explicitly state that you are allowed a touch attack on that same turn.
2nd. If you miss on that attack or choose not to make it. You may hold the charge indefinitely. Holding the charge of an offensive spell infers the following penalties.
- You may not touch any external creature (or object). (I would not allow a character to change weapons for instance, or retrieve and drink a potion.)
- You may not cast any other spell, that being a touch, personal or ranged without loosing the charge you are holding.

The question is, (from a gameist perspective): Do these penalties balance that you may potentially deal one auto hit per round on a non-intelligent opponent, regardless of their touch AC? I assume here that intelligent opponents will only touch a charged character once, then learn. The same way a player would not touch the poison coated kobold twice. (see below)


You've got an unstated premise that's keeping you from following the rules here: i.e., touching is symmetric. In the real world, touching something and being touched by something have the same effect. In the D&D world that's not the case: touching is active only. If you (actively) touch a valid target, even if you don't intend for that action to discharge the spell, the charge still is expended. However, if a dozen valid targets touch you, because you are passive (have taken no action to create that contact) you are not considered to be touching them, and the spell charge remains in your body.

Indeed you are correct, that is my base assumption. Also I do agree that the asymmetric assumption is certainly the established convention(as this thread has shown), however is that assumption founded in the rules?

Thus my original questions above has changed over the course of this thread:
It is now more a question of whether this is a valid alternative interpretation of the touch rules. It is clearly not the norm, and it is clearly not the intention of the game authors. (Hence we have agreed that it is not RAI.) However that is not as important as whether it actually interferes with any other rules.

So my question to you then becomes, where does it say touching is asymmetric? And remember if you touch a kobold wearing an armor smeared with contact poison. You take the damage.

[Curmudgeon]

Indeed you are correct, that is my base assumption. Also I do agree that the asymmetric assumption is certainly the established convention(as this thread has shown), however is that assumption founded in the rules?
The asymmetry comes from requiring a successful attack roll to touch an unwilling target, because the rules doe not allow you to make an attack roll when an otherwise valid target instead touches you.

[nedz]

The question is, (from a gameist perspective): Do these penalties balance that you may potentially deal one auto hit per round on a non-intelligent opponent, regardless of their touch AC? I assume here that intelligent opponents will only touch a charged character once, then learn. The same way a player would not touch the poison coated kobold twice. (see below)
...
So my question to you then becomes, where does it say touching is asymmetric? And remember if you touch a kobold wearing an armor smeared with contact poison. You take the damage.

Well the kobold is a trap; but you might choose to touch him twice, even knowing the cost, if you have to stop him doing something else. You have had the option of taking counter measures, such as having Delay Poison cast on you, but maybe that wasn't possible. You get a similar situation with Fireshield.

Ideally you would be able to take a penalty to hit so as to hit him, whilst avoiding the armour, but the rules don't support called shots: you need the counter spell.

[Hormenius]

Ok, wonderful I have no more questions, thank you for your insights. :smallsmile:

[Lapak]

The most reasonable explanation for the asymmetric rules - as far as I can see - is that the touch spell is imbued into a particular body part when you cast it. I'm picturing something along the lines of 'crackling energy field around your casting hand' here. Somebody hitting you (in the face or torso or leg) does not discharge the spell. Walking up a staircase, despite the fact that you're touching lots of things, does not discharge the spell. Only touching something with your charged-up right hand discharges it, but you may do that accidentally if you bump a companion with it or pick up a potion flask absent-mindedly with your charged hand.

This isn't supported by RAW, of course, but it's the main reason I can think of for the way things seem to work.

[Hormenius]

The most reasonable explanation for the asymmetric rules - as far as I can see - is that the touch spell is imbued into a particular body part when you cast it. I'm picturing something along the lines of 'crackling energy field around your casting hand' here. Somebody hitting you (in the face or torso or leg) does not discharge the spell. Walking up a staircase, despite the fact that you're touching lots of things, does not discharge the spell. Only touching something with your charged-up right hand discharges it, but you may do that accidentally if you bump a companion with it or pick up a potion flask absent-mindedly with your charged hand.

This isn't supported by RAW, of course, but it's the main reason I can think of for the way things seem to work.

Aye we had that up as well in the above, however that would not explain the fact that you may discharge a spell with any natural attack or unarmed strike. That being a slam, kick, punch or bite. Which doesn't really make sense if the spell was limited to your hands.

[Hormenius]

For future reference, Rules Compendium p. 126 On holding the charge:



You continue holding the charge if something touches you.