[3.5] With Retributive Spell metamagic, do I still need to make attacks?

[Mr Adventurer]

So, Retributive Spell metamagic says that it can be used with spells that target creatures. Touch spells typically target the creature touched, so I assume I can use the feat with them? If so, do I still need to make the touch attack roll?

[Mr Adventurer]

So, to illustrate what I mean:

I could use Retributive Spell with Phantasmal Killer. It's a ranged spell which targets a creature, so it would work without a problem as though I had cast the spell on the creature attacking me.

But my question is if I wanted to use Slay Living with Retributive Spell. Slay Living is a touch-range spell, so normally requires a touch attack to deliver it to a creature. However, it still has the Target line: one creature. Is it an eligible spell to be made Retributive, and if so, do I still need to make the touch attack?

Retributive Spell says "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".

[Trandir]

As far as I know:
The spell that you want to apply retributive spell has to target a creature. "Target: a (living) creature" isn't exactly the same but any DM will probably allow this to work just fine against the legal targets.

This metamagic feat just allow you to do one things: cast a spell and in the next 24h once you are attacked you can cast as an immediate action. This means that you still get to do the touch attack with the modifiers that you have at that moment.
(This is a doubt that I have: the feat says nothing about xp, components ecc... so if a DM is nice you could spend them when you cast the retributive spell and again when it triggers?)

[Mr Adventurer]

As far as I know:
The spell that you want to apply retributive spell has to target a creature. "Target: a (living) creature" isn't exactly the same

What do you mean?

[Trandir]

What do you mean?

That a rulelawyer might say that target: a "living" creature doesn't qualify as taget: a creature.

For me it still qualify but for some, annoying, people it might not.

[Mr Adventurer]

Ah, okay. I don't think I'm worried about that.