Why can't you persist touch spells?

[RoboEmperor]

Spells with a fixed or personal range can have their duration increased to 24 hours. Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged. You don't need to maintain concentration on persistent detect spells (such as detect magic or detect thoughts) for you to be aware of the mere presence or absence of the subject detected, but gaining additional information requires concentration as normal. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot six levels higher than the spell's actual level.


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. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. 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 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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. 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 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.

1. The above quotes suggests spells with a range of touch are discharge effects.
2. Persistent Spell doesn't work with discharge effects.
3. Therefore all spells with the range of touch cannot be persisted.
Am I wrong?

Original 1st Post
This came up in several of the DMM:Persist threads because of Ocular Spell and Reach Spell, so I'm making a new thread for it.

Is there a rule saying touch spells are not fixed ranged spells?

As I understand it, there is no direct rule, and touch spells are not fixed ranged because the range of the spell changes with the creature's reach and the position of your opponent. So a large creature's maximum range of a touch spell is 10ft but it can also be 5ft or 0ft, and a gargantuan creature's maximum range of a touch spell is 20ft but it can also be 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, while a medium creature's maximum range of a touch spell is 5ft but it can also be 0ft.

By this logic though, any spell whose range changes due to Ocular Spell and Reach Spell still does not qualify for Persistent Spell because although their maximum range is fixed at 60ft or 30ft, just like melee touch spells, because the range can change to 25ft, 20ft, 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, they are not fixed ranged spells so they cannot be persisted.

But then again Mass Lesser Vigor is 20ft (no touch), and it can also affect creatures at 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, and can be persisted (can it? The FAQ says it can, but FAQ isn't RAW)

My other understanding is that all touch spells, both melee and ranged, are effects that discharge since you can hold the spell in your hand indefinitely, and therefore cannot be persisted as well. In which case Ocular Spell and Reach Spell again fails to allow a spell to qualify for Persistent Spell.

My third understanding is that we are going by the 3.0 FAQ's official ruling that touch spells are not fixed ranged.

Am I wrong here? Is there a rule specifically calling out melee touch spells as not fixed range?

[AvatarVecna]

I like how when you bring up the 3.5 FAQ, you follow the usual line of "FAQ isn't RAW", but then when bringing up your 3.0 FAQ, you ask if we should treat it as RAW. But excuse me, I'm being a bit of an ass, let's get into the actual RAW/RAI stuff.

1) Persistent Spell, per 3.5, can be applied to a spell that meets the following rules:
This spell is not instantaneous
This spell cannot be discharged
This spell has a range that is either fixed or "Personal"

The first point is clear what doesn't apply, as is the second part of the third rule. Where the issues lie is in what counts as "a spell that can be discharged" and "a spell with a fixed range".

Mechanically speaking, a spell that can be Discharged will have an indication of that in their duration (the "(D)" thing you see on occasion). Melee and ranged touch attacks have the option to hold the charge (in which case they become dischargeable), but this is a circumstantial dischargeability, and whether it makes them mechanically a "Dischargeable" spell is unclear because the designers are a bit infamous for using mechanical words for fluff in ways that make things tricky to interpret.

To put it plainly, having a fixed range means that the spell's range doesn't inherently fluctuate over time. Close, Medium, and Long range spells will have greater range the higher your Caster Level is, while spells like Bless and Lesser Vigor will not. Furthermore, these spells can also have their range altered by CL-increasing effects (items, spells, or what have you), which would - again - not affect fixed range spells like Bless or Lessor Vigor. Under this definition of "Fixed range spells", I don't believe that "Range: Touch" spells qualify because how far you can reach to touch somebody can fluctuate with size, which can be affected by items, spells, and whatnot. In fact, spells that alter your size/reach (or even character height, and thus fluff reach) are even more common than spells that increase your CL. How far you can reach out to touch somebody is too variable to consider "fixed".

And that's why Ocular Spell or Reach Spell become necessary. Ocular Spell changes the range of a non-Personal spell to "60 ft", while Reach Spell changes the range of a "Range: Touch" spell to 30 ft. Both of these are fixed ranges that do not vary, and make those spells legal targets for Persistent Spell.

[Cosi]

The argument that touch spells are not of fixed range because you could have a different reach is stupid. Your reach is not itself a function of anything. It is fixed for whatever size you are (and whatever reach-modifying abilities you have). Saying that touch is not fixed because you could have a larger reach is like saying personal is not fixed because you could be a different person.

[RoboEmperor]

I like how when you bring up the 3.5 FAQ, you follow the usual line of "FAQ isn't RAW", but then when bringing up your 3.0 FAQ, you ask if we should treat it as RAW. But excuse me, I'm being a bit of an ass, let's get into the actual RAW/RAI stuff.

Venger chewed my head off for mentioning the FAQ in a RAW debate, but in all of my searching, I could only find the "touch isn't fixed" in the 3.0 FAQ, so I mentioned it.

[tyckspoon]

Mechanically speaking, a spell that can be Discharged will have an indication of that in their duration (the "(D)" thing you see on occasion). Melee and ranged touch attacks have the option to hold the charge (in which case they become dischargeable), but this is a circumstantial dischargeability, and whether it makes them mechanically a "Dischargeable" spell is unclear because the designers are a bit infamous for using mechanical words for fluff in ways that make things tricky to interpret.


That's for Dismissable spells, where the caster can voluntarily end the duration early. Dischargeable usually means the spell is terminated for some effect, and AFAIK will usually actually use the phrasing 'discharge to do X, this ends the duration of the spell' or very similar. There aren't that many spells I can recall where it's questionable as to what it means to be 'dischargeable'.

[heavyfuel]

The argument that touch spell are of fixed range because you could have a different reach is perfectly valid and sensible. Your reach is vital when deciding whether or not a target can be affected by the spell. It is variable depending on what size, items, class features, feats, spells you have (and whatever reach-modifying abilities you have modify your touch distance, making the range not fixed). Saying that touch is not fixed because you could have a larger reach has absolutely nothing to do with saying personal is not fixed because you could be a different person since the language used is "'personal' or fixed", two different categories.

Every time I see someone arguing Touch spells are fixed I can't help but imagine the Steve Jackson's Munchkin arguing for it. It's willful misreading/misinterpretation of the rules to serve one's purpose, much like people arguing that Ring of Evasion counts for things that require Evasion (even though the Ring only let's avoid damage as if you had Evasion) or that you can Persist and then Extend a spell (arguing that a Persisted spell now has a normal duration of 24hrs). :smallsigh:

Anyway, Persisting Touch spell can be done by jumping through a very small hoop, but people insist this hoop should be ignored in the name of power. Just ask your DM and see if they're fine with it, and go crazy (or not, when every DM says you can't make Persistomancers even stronger than they already are)

[RoboEmperor]

Anyway, Persisting Touch spell can be done by jumping through a very small hoop, but people insist this hoop should be ignored in the name of power. Just ask your DM and see if they're fine with it, and go crazy (or not, when every DM says you can't make Persistomancers even stronger than they already are)

I'm on the side of "You can't persist both melee and ranged touch spells even with ocular spell and reach spell", but I'm gonna see what people are saying first.

[Nifft]

AFAICT, the best interpretation of the "fixed" range clause is that you can Persist a spell which originates from you over an area, and the spell's area is (for some reason) specified in the Range field.

This means stuff like detect magic which is effectively a Personal spell, but which isn't written as such (for some reason).

IMHO that means Rays don't qualify -- and thus in my games Occular Spell does not permit qualification.

[Mato]

The argument that touch spells are not of fixed range because you could have a different reach is stupid.Much like this third strawman of a topic designed to bury someonnoone11's argument with Segev.

But the word touch that we are discussing is a ranged entry, not a type of attack, and so you need to read page 126 of the rule's compendium. This is also where it states that in order to touch an opponent with a spell you must make a successful touch attack and allows you to hold the charge on any spell with a range entry of touch.

The three thoughts about why touch is not some kind of fixed value come from.
A. Touch is variable value entry, much like close/medium/long except it's based on the creature's reach instead of their caster level.
B. Touch is a separate entry from personal and expressed unchanging values which means it is not the same as them.
C. Just for noone11, the 3.0 FAQ did not allow touch spells with the 3.0 versions of persist spell. :smallsmile:

To me it's not worth arguing about online since you can use reach or ocular spell to give them a fixed range anyway. You can even load up a bunch of spells into spell storing arrows and buff your self using attack actions in core without needing persistent spell.

[Anthrowhale]

By this logic though, any spell whose range changes due to Ocular Spell and Reach Spell still does not qualify for Persistent Spell because although their maximum range is fixed at 60ft or 30ft, just like melee touch spells, because the range can change to 25ft, 20ft, 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, they are not fixed ranged spells so they cannot be persisted.

When listed in a spell description range (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range) is the maximum distance at which a spell's effects can extend. There are parametric ranges where the parameter is size or caster level and there are fixed ranges with a specified unparameterized range. Touch range spells are parameterized by size while ocular/reach spells have a fixed range. Hence persistent ocular spells are a thing.



But then again Mass Lesser Vigor is 20ft (no touch), and it can also affect creatures at 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, and can be persisted (can it? The FAQ says it can, but FAQ isn't RAW)

Yes, because the maximum distance at which the spell can have an effect is fixed.



My other understanding is that all touch spells, both melee and ranged, are effects that discharge since you can hold the spell in your hand indefinitely, and therefore cannot be persisted as well. In which case Ocular Spell and Reach Spell again fails to allow a spell to qualify for Persistent Spell.

Do you have evidence?


My third understanding is that we are going by the 3.0 FAQ's official ruling that touch spells are not fixed ranged.
Again, touch spells have a range parameterized by size so they are not fixed range.

[RoboEmperor]

Do you have evidence?

1. Persistent Spell doesn't work with spells that discharge. It's in the feat description.
2. All touch spells, melee and ranged, are held in the hand and then discharged because you can hold the charge indefinitely and "discharge" the spell later. Rules directly say the spells "discharge".
3. Therefore all touch spells cannot be persisted because they are discharge effects.
4. Therefore ocular spell and reach spell don't do anything, because despite being fixed ranged, they are discharge effects.

Is literally all the "evidence" I have. So I wrote it on my first post and seeing what people's opinions of it are.

[Endarire]

You can persist touch spells if your GM allows. As GM, I've allowed it. Our games have not been notably less balanced due to it.

This is one of many 3.x rules ambiguities that you must clear with your GM if you intend to use it.

Also, remember, that for a fixed range spell like prayer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prayer.htm), the X feet (40', 50', etc.) is a set number, but your size category can change. Thus, 40' from a Medium creature is different than 40' from a Huge creature since a bigger creature occupies more squares.

Persistent Spell's intent is probably to allow very specific spells and deny others. (Bless is probably intended, but not acid arrow.) What that means in game is up to your GM.

[Anthrowhale]

1. Persistent Spell doesn't work with spells that discharge. It's in the feat description.
2. All touch spells, melee and ranged, are held in the hand and then discharged because you can hold the charge indefinitely and "discharge" the spell later. Rules directly say the spells "discharge".
3. Therefore all touch spells cannot be persisted because they are discharge effects.
4. Therefore ocular spell and reach spell don't do anything, because despite being fixed ranged, they are discharge effects.

Is literally all the "evidence" I have. So I wrote it on my first post and seeing what people's opinions of it are.

Do you have a reference for (2)?

[RoboEmperor]

Do you have a reference for (2)?


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. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. 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 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. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. 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 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.

So you will always discharge the spell whether you hold it or not, and whether it's melee or ranged. So ocular spell and reach spell fails.

This seems to be my strongest argument. Perhaps I should 1st post it.

[Venger]

Venger chewed my head off for mentioning the FAQ in a RAW debate, but in all of my searching, I could only find the "touch isn't fixed" in the 3.0 FAQ, so I mentioned it.


please don't ever cite the FAQ in a RAW discussion. FAQ≠RAW.


"Chewing your head off," apparently.


So you will always discharge the spell whether you hold it or not, and whether it's melee or ranged. So ocular spell and reach spell fails.
that's not what "discharge" means. it's referring to spells like crown of veils where you have a minor effect going on for x duration, but you can use up the spell and then have a more powerful effect in exchange for ending the spell early. The rationale for exempting these spells is that otherwise you would be able to retain the spell effects for 24 hours.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're conflating touch range spells and spells that require a touch or ranged touch attack. They are not the same thing. The "holding the charge" mechanic does not apply to all spells requiring a touch attack, only to those that have the range entry "touch."

More succinctly: you can't hold the charge on a ray.

[Celestia]

It's because if you touch yourself for that long, you'll go blind.

[RoboEmperor]

"Chewing your head off," apparently.


that's not what "discharge" means. it's referring to spells like crown of veils where you have a minor effect going on for x duration, but you can use up the spell and then have a more powerful effect in exchange for ending the spell early. The rationale for exempting these spells is that otherwise you would be able to retain the spell effects for 24 hours.

What proof do you have to claim that persistent spell is referring to that kind of "discharge" and not the touch spell "discharge" or both?


You're conflating touch range spells and spells that require a touch or ranged touch attack. They are not the same thing. The "holding the charge" mechanic does not apply to all spells requiring a touch attack, only to those that have the range entry "touch."

More succinctly: you can't hold the charge on a ray.

Yeah i was searching for the rules saying exactly this. Do you happen to have a source for this? d20srd is all i got atm.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah i was searching for the rules saying exactly this. Do you happen to have a source for this? d20srd is all i got atm.

It's the section you're quoting. Note the formatting; that's a header with 2 subsections not 3 separate sections.

[RoboEmperor]

It's the section you're quoting. Note the formatting; that's a header with 2 subsections not 3 separate sections.

The section doesn't specify whether you can hold the charge of melee touch or ranged touch. It just says hold the charge of touch spells. It says there are two types of touch spells:melee and ranged, and that you can hold the charge of touch spells.

[Venger]

What proof do you have to claim that persistent spell is referring to that kind of "discharge" and not the touch spell "discharge" or both?

What proof do you have of whatever it is you're claiming?

If it meant touch spells, which you hold a charge to, then it would've said so. It doesn't. Consequently, it's referring to spells like heart of water or what have you that you can discharge to end the effect for a stronger power up.


The section doesn't specify whether you can hold the charge of melee touch or ranged touch. It just says hold the charge of touch spells. It says there are two types of touch spells:melee and ranged, and that you can hold the charge of touch spells.

If it says you can hold the charge on touch spells, then that's what you can hold the charge on. It doesn't say you can hold the charge on rays, so you can't.

[RoboEmperor]

What proof do you have of whatever it is you're claiming?

None, so it's up for interpretation unless one of us has definitive proof.


If it meant touch spells, which you hold a charge to, then it would've said so. It doesn't. Consequently, it's referring to spells like heart of water or what have you that you can discharge to end the effect for a stronger power up.

The FRCS errata included the touch spells. So either the reprint thought it was redundant because the "discharge" clause covered it, WotC has terrible inter-department communication, or touch spells are now legal to be persisted. (edit: it included spells with a range of touch, so doesn't help my argument about ranged touch)


If it says you can hold the charge on touch spells, then that's what you can hold the charge on. It doesn't say you can hold the charge on rays, so you can't.

It says once you hold the charge, you can make touch attacks, and under touch attacks it says there are two types:melee and ranged.

I'm not saying i'm correct, but I am asking for some more solid evidence than different interpretations of that same paragraph I quoted.

[Arael666]

According to the SRD, there are 7 different types of ranges for spells: Personal, Touch, Close, Medium, Long, Unlimited, Range Expressed in Feet.

The persistent spell feat says exactly this: "Spells with a fixed or personal range can have their duration increased to 24 hours"

The feat was clearly mentioning the specific range definitions, as in, not the dictionary definition of said words, but the player's handbook definition of said range (otherwise it would be a lot easier and less time consuming to write "Spells that have a fixed range can have their duration increased to 24 hours", because personal would be included in that definition, as well as touch). So, by "spells with a fixed range" the designers were specifying the spells with "range expressed in feet".

The designers only wrote the way they did to shorten the whole phrase (and maybe make it sound better), so, instead of saying "Spells with range expressed in feet and personal range have their duration increased to 24 hours" they chose to make the original statement. If the designers meant for it to include the touch range spells they would have included it in the feat description and it would be like this: "Spells with a fixed, personal or touch range can have their duration increased to 24 hours".

[RoboEmperor]

Ok I see what you guys are saying. The whole section starts off with



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.

Alright so my discharge argument works with melee touch, but not rays.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The section doesn't specify whether you can hold the charge of melee touch or ranged touch. It just says hold the charge of touch spells. It says there are two types of touch spells:melee and ranged, and that you can hold the charge of touch spells.

Literally the first sentence of the section establishes that it's talking about spells whose range is touch. The first subsection explains how touch attacks work and -mentions- that ranged touch attacks are a thing. It then establishes the "holding the charge" mechanic as a separate subsection.

Touch attacks and touch spells aren't the same thing. You're fixating on the subsection describing touch attacks and trying to extend that backwards to the rest of the section. That's not how you parse this sort of text.

Edit:

Bah. Stupid swype keyboard makes messages -slooowwwww-

[FreddyNoNose]

1. The above quotes suggests spells with a range of touch are discharge effects.
2. Persistent Spell doesn't work with discharge effects.
3. Therefore all spells with the range of touch cannot be persisted.
Am I wrong?

Original 1st Post
This came up in several of the DMM:Persist threads because of Ocular Spell and Reach Spell, so I'm making a new thread for it.

Is there a rule saying touch spells are not fixed ranged spells?

As I understand it, there is no direct rule, and touch spells are not fixed ranged because the range of the spell changes with the creature's reach and the position of your opponent. So a large creature's maximum range of a touch spell is 10ft but it can also be 5ft or 0ft, and a gargantuan creature's maximum range of a touch spell is 20ft but it can also be 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, while a medium creature's maximum range of a touch spell is 5ft but it can also be 0ft.

By this logic though, any spell whose range changes due to Ocular Spell and Reach Spell still does not qualify for Persistent Spell because although their maximum range is fixed at 60ft or 30ft, just like melee touch spells, because the range can change to 25ft, 20ft, 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, they are not fixed ranged spells so they cannot be persisted.

But then again Mass Lesser Vigor is 20ft (no touch), and it can also affect creatures at 15ft, 10ft, 5ft, and 0ft, and can be persisted (can it? The FAQ says it can, but FAQ isn't RAW)

My other understanding is that all touch spells, both melee and ranged, are effects that discharge since you can hold the spell in your hand indefinitely, and therefore cannot be persisted as well. In which case Ocular Spell and Reach Spell again fails to allow a spell to qualify for Persistent Spell.

My third understanding is that we are going by the 3.0 FAQ's official ruling that touch spells are not fixed ranged.

Am I wrong here? Is there a rule specifically calling out melee touch spells as not fixed range?

Hey, if you are the DM, do it whatever way you want to.

[Anthrowhale]

So you will always discharge the spell whether you hold it or not, and whether it's melee or ranged. So ocular spell and reach spell fails.

This seems to be my strongest argument. Perhaps I should 1st post it.

Others have pointed out that Touch refers to touch range spells as per the first sentence in that section.

In addition, discharge plausibly only refers to spell description duration discharge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration). Applying that to held charge spells is reasonable but questionable enough that it seems like a ask-your-dm thing. Given that you can't hold a ray I don't know a reason why this mechanically matters.

[RoboEmperor]

Others have pointed out that Touch refers to touch range spells as per the first sentence in that section.

In addition, discharge plausibly only refers to spell description duration discharge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration). Applying that to held charge spells is reasonable but questionable enough that it seems like a ask-your-dm thing. Given that you can't hold a ray I don't know a reason why this mechanically matters.

Yup it was my mistake.

At this time I have no arguments against using ocular and reach spell to "cheat" the system to get the spell persisted, so i am at this point conceding that I was wrong.

But there's still seems like a lot of arguments against touch spells being fixed range.

But on the other hand, it seems those arguments are logic based, not RAW based.

[death390]

1. Persistent Spell doesn't work with spells that discharge. It's in the feat description.
2. All touch spells, melee and ranged, are held in the hand and then discharged because you can hold the charge indefinitely and "discharge" the spell later. Rules directly say the spells "discharge".
3. Therefore all touch spells cannot be persisted because they are discharge effects.
4. Therefore ocular spell and reach spell don't do anything, because despite being fixed ranged, they are discharge effects.

Is literally all the "evidence" I have. So I wrote it on my first post and seeing what people's opinions of it are.

ok EVERY spell is discharged at time of casting, the discharge in the case of persistant spells are those that last for a single instant of the effect. spells such as magecraft which only affect ONE craft check. this is an example of a non-persistable spell due to the fact it only takes effect ONCE. another would be true strike, it only affects ONE attack roll.

a touch range spell is not a discharge spell by nature, you could not persist shocking grasp. the reason why is that it is a discharge spell with instant duration that happens ONCE. instant duration spells are a type of discharge spell, that happens only affects the casting once.

as others have pointed out the DURATION section of a spell will have a (D) in almost all cases of discharge spells.

[Khedrac]

as others have pointed out the DURATION section of a spell will have a (D) in almost all cases of discharge spells.
This isn't actually true, consider Heart of Earth which is one of the classic dischargable spells, the Duration entry reads "1 hour/level (D) or until expended".
The (D) very specifically means "Dismissable" which is a different thing to discharging a spell.

One question I would raise this that spells which can be discharged for a boost (like HoE) are, I think, a fairly new concept - did any of them exist before Persistent Spell was written? If not, we have to read the "discharge" clause as applying to things like touch spells which do not have to be discharged when cast.

[Nifft]

One question I would raise this that spells which can be discharged for a boost (like HoE) are, I think, a fairly new concept - did any of them exist before Persistent Spell was written? If not, we have to read the "discharge" clause as applying to things like touch spells which do not have to be discharged when cast.

Yep, and they're primarily defensive.

Here's one example: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I'm surprised there's so much misconception about the (D) in a spell's duration, there's very clear RAW that it means Dismissible with absolutely no ambiguity or reference to spells that are discharged:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration


(D) Dismissible
If the Duration line ends with "(D)," you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell’s effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell’s verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn.

[death390]

I'm surprised there's so much misconception about the (D) in a spell's duration, there's very clear RAW that it means Dismissible with absolutely no ambiguity or reference to spells that are discharged:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration

thanks i had forgotten exactly what it meant, thanks for the link.

from that same link

"Discharge

Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged. "

[magicalmagicman]

thanks i had forgotten exactly what it meant, thanks for the link.

from that same link

"Discharge

Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged. "

So a spell that lasts indefinitely on your hand until it touches something isn't a spell that lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged?

I'm confused.

[skunk3]

According to the SRD, there are 7 different types of ranges for spells: Personal, Touch, Close, Medium, Long, Unlimited, Range Expressed in Feet.

The persistent spell feat says exactly this: "Spells with a fixed or personal range can have their duration increased to 24 hours"

The feat was clearly mentioning the specific range definitions, as in, not the dictionary definition of said words, but the player's handbook definition of said range (otherwise it would be a lot easier and less time consuming to write "Spells that have a fixed range can have their duration increased to 24 hours", because personal would be included in that definition, as well as touch). So, by "spells with a fixed range" the designers were specifying the spells with "range expressed in feet".

The designers only wrote the way they did to shorten the whole phrase (and maybe make it sound better), so, instead of saying "Spells with range expressed in feet and personal range have their duration increased to 24 hours" they chose to make the original statement. If the designers meant for it to include the touch range spells they would have included it in the feat description and it would be like this: "Spells with a fixed, personal or touch range can have their duration increased to 24 hours".

^ This. End of argument.

[Khedrac]

Yep, and they're primarily defensive.

Here's one example: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm

Thank-you.

[Cosi]

But the word touch that we are discussing is a ranged entry, not a type of attack, and so you need to read page 126 of the rule's compendium. This is also where it states that in order to touch an opponent with a spell you must make a successful touch attack and allows you to hold the charge on any spell with a range entry of touch.

Sure. That's a passably compelling argument for "touch spells can't be persisted". But it's a different argument from "touch spells have variable range".


The feat was clearly mentioning the specific range definitions, as in, not the dictionary definition of said words, but the player's handbook definition of said range (otherwise it would be a lot easier and less time consuming to write "Spells that have a fixed range can have their duration increased to 24 hours", because personal would be included in that definition, as well as touch). So, by "spells with a fixed range" the designers were specifying the spells with "range expressed in feet".

No. Your argument is stupid. If the designers meant "personal and range expressed in feat", they would have said that. Frankly, the fact that they did not is evidence for touch being allowed, not against it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

1. Touch range varies depending on reach, and is therefore not a fixed range. A medium-size caster's touch range spells have a range of five feet. If that same character has Enlarge Person or Righteous Might or Expansion or any number of other effects that make him large size, his touch range spells have a range of ten feet. That spell range is not fixed, it varies depending on the caster's reach.

2. The FAQ clearly stated the RAI, which is 100% in agreement with the RAW.

3. Arael666's argument regarding reference to range categories is flawless when taken in combination with the above two items.

[Arael666]

No. Your argument is stupid. If the designers meant "personal and range expressed in feat", they would have said that. Frankly, the fact that they did not is evidence for touch being allowed, not against it.

The 3.0 version of the feat seems to agree with me, since it used comprehend languages and detect magic as examples of "fixed range spells" (both spells have range expressed in feat). Also, it specifically barred touch spells from being persisted.

Edit: Also, be mindful when you call someone's argument stupid. Some people might take offense, since you can't express intonation through written text

[Cosi]

If Touch isn't a fixed range because you could be affected by enlarge person, isn't any range that isn't 60ft also not a fixed range because the spell could have Ocular Spell applied to it.


The 3.0 version of the feat seems to agree with me, since it used comprehend languages and detect magic as examples of "fixed range spells" (both spells have range expressed in feat). Also, it specifically barred touch spells from being persisted.

I'm not saying your logic reaches the wrong conclusion. I'm saying it is bad logic. You have a set A (the set of spells that can be persisted). It is comprised of the unions of sets B (spells that have "fixed range") and C (spells that have Personal range). We want to know if set D (spells that have Touch range) is in set B. Your observation that personal seems like it could totally be a fixed range, but it's included separately, doesn't imply anything about what things are "fixed range" (properly, C not being a subset of B doesn't tell you anything about D being a subset of B unless D is a subset of C).

Now, it could happen that touch spells are not fixed range. That is totally a thing that you could be true. But your argument is not a good reason to believe that is the case. Or it could happen that touch spells can't be persisted for some other reason (for example, it has been suggested that all touch spells are dischargable, and therefore not eligible for Persistent Spell regardless of their range). But your argument is still wrong, because it is not valid.

[Arael666]

If Touch isn't a fixed range because you could be affected by enlarge person, isn't any range that isn't 60ft also not a fixed range because the spell could have Ocular Spell applied to it.



I'm not saying your logic reaches the wrong conclusion. I'm saying it is bad logic. You have a set A (the set of spells that can be persisted). It is comprised of the unions of sets B (spells that have "fixed range") and C (spells that have Personal range). We want to know if set D (spells that have Touch range) is in set B. Your observation that personal seems like it could totally be a fixed range, but it's included separately, doesn't imply anything about what things are "fixed range" (properly, C not being a subset of B doesn't tell you anything about D being a subset of B unless D is a subset of C).

Now, it could happen that touch spells are not fixed range. That is totally a thing that you could be true. But your argument is not a good reason to believe that is the case. Or it could happen that touch spells can't be persisted for some other reason (for example, it has been suggested that all touch spells are discharged, and therefore not eligible for Persistent Spell regardless of their range). But your argument is still wrong, because it is not valid.

It might be bad logic because I wasn't trying to use pure logic to make my argument, that would be pure RAW and my statement was clearly drawing from RAI, as you can see I argued about what the designers "intentions" were. I know people on this forum love to argue from a pure RAW perspective, especially when it suits their views and even more so when it makes characters more powerful, but I digress.

So, my point is that often enough the designers forget to mention the specific game term, but that should not be used as an excuse for us players to suddenly ignore what the term means specifically and start using the dictionary definition or arguing semantics, specially when the evidence points so overwhelmingly to what term the game designer meat to be mentioned (previous versions of the feat and my previous explanation).

[Cosi]

It might be bad logic because I wasn't trying to use pure logic to make my argument, that would be pure RAW and my statement was clearly drawing from RAI, as you can see I argued about what the designers "intentions" were. I know people on this forum love to argue from a pure RAW perspective, especially when it suits their views and even more so when it makes characters more powerful, but I digress.

RAI arguments are dumb arguments. If you are rendering a decision based on something other than the rules (such as "what you think designers might have meant") you should jump right to making a decision based on whatever produces the best outcome for the game.


So, my point is that often enough the designers forget to mention the specific game term, but that should not be used as an excuse for us players to suddenly ignore what the term means specifically and start using the dictionary definition or arguing semantics, specially when the evidence points so overwhelmingly to what term the game designer meat to be mentioned (previous versions of the feat and my previous explanation).

Yes, it is. Because the rules mean the things they say. Anything else is houseruling, and you should not be making houserules based on your opinion of the intentions of people you have already claimed were too lazy or too stupid to remember what the rules of the game they were writing for were.

[Quertus]

I'm surprised there's so much misconception about the (D) in a spell's duration, there's very clear RAW that it means Dismissible with absolutely no ambiguity or reference to spells that are discharged:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration

Thank you for pointing this out. I am sad that this needed to be pointed out.


RAI arguments are dumb arguments. If you are rendering a decision based on something other than the rules (such as "what you think designers might have meant") you should jump right to making a decision based on whatever produces the best outcome for the game.

Why do you hold this opinion?

Let me be more clear as to the extent of my question. In a game that is actively receiving updates, at a table that plays cutting edge, one will have greater continuity in their games by playing by RAI. In a game where the developers actually communicate their intentions - let alone are sitting at the table with you - it is easy to ascertain RAI.

Sadly, this is not the case in 3.5, at least at most tables. Most people have to make wild guesses as to what the designers intended, and trust those guesses despite a disturbing inability to comprehend the RAW of what is actually written on the page (see reading "(D)" as "Discharge" rather than "Dismiss(able)", or even my own use of RAI as Rules as Intended rather than the more commonly accepted Rules as Interpreted).

So, my question is, do you hold this opinion only of 3.x, in its silent undead glory, or of all attempts to discern RAI in all games? More generally, what is the reason for your position on this matter?

[RoboEmperor]

Thank you for pointing this out. I am sad that this needed to be pointed out.

Post #5 had the clarification. So why did it take up to post #32 for it to take effect? @_@

Confusing.

[zergling.exe]

Post #5 had the clarification. So why did it take up to post #32 for it to take effect? @_@

Confusing.

It has been pointed out more than once, but multiple times people have gone back to saying it's "(D)ischarged".

[skunk3]

I'm in 100% agreement with Arael666. In cases where RAW is ambiguous or lacking, it's generally not difficult to ascertain RAI.

To me it is blatantly obvious that touch spells cannot be persisted. Would I love for them to be persistable? Would it have benefited my characters in the past? Sure... but they aren't persistable. Spells with a range of touch can be modified in a number of ways as people have already pointed out. There's both divine and arcane ways of turning melee touch spells into ranged touch spells as well. RAI arguments are not dumb arguments. Not only is that slightly offensive to the scores of people who regularly participate in RAI discussions, it is *necessary* in 3.5. The 'best outcome for the game' in this case would not be allowing touch spells to be persistent. It would open the door to lots of shenanigans and a little mental roleplay will illustrate this. Just imagine if touch spells COULD BE persisted. Now think of all of the touch spells out there that would qualify. Think of all of the wonky, broken uses of persisting them.

Nobody is arguing that RAI is preferable to RAW 100% of the time, or that we should just houserule everything, but in certain cases in 3.5 RAW simply is not sufficient. In this case, however, I think that RAW is clear enough. Arael666 pointed out the range types. It's an open-and-shut case.

[Arael666]

RAI arguments are dumb arguments. If you are rendering a decision based on something other than the rules (such as "what you think designers might have meant") you should jump right to making a decision based on whatever produces the best outcome for the game

It only is called stupid when people disagree with the consensus in this forum.

I never once saw someone here disagreeing on prestige classes not incurring xp penalty, despite the fact that the text stating this is missing from the 3.5 book. Everyone always claimed that it was present in the 3.0 dmg and it was simply forgotten in the 3.5 dmg, which is a RAI argument.

The same thing happens with the persistant spell feat, if you accept one, you have to accept yhe other on principle, otherwise you're just a hypocrite.