Produce Flame + Natural attacks

[Yogibear41]

If a druid (or other character) casts produce flame then proceeds to do a natural attack routine, can each natural attack also trigger the Produce flame damage, in the same way an unarmed strike/natural attack can deliver a touch spell, can one attack per round deliver the spell, or can produce flame not be used in this fashion?

[Kurald Galain]

Produce Flame is weirdly worded.

There are similar spells like Frostbite and Chill Touch that do work the way you describe (i.e. they can be used in a full attack and will proc multiple times). Produce Flame technically doesn't (because it is "range 0" instead of "range touch") but it would be reasonable for the GM to rule that yes, it works the same.

[Darg]

The range is only for the range at which you create the effect (otherwise you wouldn't be able to throw it. No, it would not apply to natural attacks because the spell specifically specifies hand. Just like you need a hand to cast somatic spells, you'd need a hand to benefit from this spell. Some magic effects can make others irrelevant.

[Harrow]

Produce Flame doesn't work quite how you expect it should. By my reading, it isn't an attack at all, but a buff spell. That "Range: 0 ft" entry makes me think that you hit yourself with Produce Flame, which gives you fire that you can use for light or attacking. Think of it almost like a spell that grants a claw attack. It's just that, instead of granting a natural weapon, it grants a touch attack. From how I understand how touch attack works, that should trigger any time you make a successful natural attack.

I'd even go so far as to say that you could put it on a potion or use share spells to have it on your animal companion whenever you cast it on yourself. As for needing hands... by a strict, bucket-healing interpretation of RAW, yeah. But if my DM actually ruled that at a table, I would expect a better explanation for their ruling than, "Well, this flavor-text says..."

[Darg]

Produce Flame doesn't work quite how you expect it should. By my reading, it isn't an attack at all, but a buff spell. That "Range: 0 ft" entry makes me think that you hit yourself with Produce Flame, which gives you fire that you can use for light or attacking. Think of it almost like a spell that grants a claw attack. It's just that, instead of granting a natural weapon, it grants a touch attack. From how I understand how touch attack works, that should trigger any time you make a successful natural attack.

I'd even go so far as to say that you could put it on a potion or use share spells to have it on your animal companion whenever you cast it on yourself. As for needing hands... by a strict, bucket-healing interpretation of RAW, yeah. But if my DM actually ruled that at a table, I would expect a better explanation for their ruling than, "Well, this flavor-text says..."

You can say it's flavor text, but it isn't. It has a functional purpose. "Effect: Flame in your palm" is pretty specific. Range of 0 ft just means that it produces the effect up to 0 ft from where your character is. A range of 5 ft is any adjacent square. Touch attacks do nothing but touch a target. What a touch does is defined by specific rules. The only general rule for what you are thinking of is for touch spells (by extension SLAs). Produce Flame is not a touch spell. Touch spells have specific rules that vary from a spell like Produce Flame. Produce Flame produces a specific effect that works exactly as the description details. You can rule it differently; however it would go against the permissive nature of the rules.

[Kurald Galain]

The only general rule for what you are thinking of is for touch spells (by extension SLAs). Produce Flame is not a touch spell.
PF isn't a touch spell, but PF acts exactly like a touch spell in almost every way. That the designers omitted the "touch" range looks more like an oversight than a deliberate attempt to make things different.

[ciopo]

my take: hurling it functions as a thrown weapon, with the exception of targeting touch ac instead of normal ac. Therefore, hurling it allows you to do iteratives.
by extension to that, using it to deal melee touch attack will also allow iteratives, and if you happen to have natural attacks, on a full attack you can also do those as secondaries, just like if you were holding a thrown weapon but using it to do melee attacks

[Darg]

PF isn't a touch spell, but PF acts exactly like a touch spell in almost every way. That the designers omitted the "touch" range looks more like an oversight than a deliberate attempt to make things different.

Except it doesn't. You don't hold the charge, you can throw it, it has a duration, you can't accidently discharge it, and you don't get a free touch attack in the same round you cast the spell. Major differences here.

[loky1109]

my take: hurling it functions as a thrown weapon, with the exception of targeting touch ac instead of normal ac. Therefore, hurling it allows you to do iteratives.
by extension to that, using it to deal melee touch attack will also allow iteratives, and if you happen to have natural attacks, on a full attack you can also do those as secondaries, just like if you were holding a thrown weapon but using it to do melee attacks
You wrote thought I had no time to write.

[St Fan]

Just realized: produce flame is a fixed-range spell. Would that mean you can apply Persist Spell to it? Or would the fact each attack reduces the duration by 1 minute places it within the "spells whose effects are discharged" category?

[ciopo]

It is indeed persistable and 1440 uses are plenty for your days need.

[loky1109]

It is indeed persistable and 1440 uses are plenty for your days need.

Actually less unless you somehow manage to use all this 1440 uses in the first ten rounds.

[ciopo]

How do you mean? Reducing the remaining duration by 1 minute per attack made will take a good while to consume them all before the remaining duration elapses

[ixrisor]

How do you mean? Reducing the remaining duration by 1 minute per attack made will take a good while to consume them all before the remaining duration elapses

Specifically, assuming one sleeps for 8 hours and adventures for 16, and that one casts persistent produce flame when they wake up, they can use it 480 times before they start to cut into their adventuring time.

[Karl Aegis]

The Mezzoloth in encounter A19 in Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde has the option of using produce flame to augment it's claw damage if it somehow loses it's +1 trident. You can check out the Mezzoloth in Monster Manual III to confirm.

[ericgrau]

It's weird. I'd allow adding its damage to fist and claw attacks and move on. Getting technical might yield the same answer too, not 100% sure, but it sure is an involved discussion about rules minutia.

[Darg]

It's weird. I'd allow adding its damage to fist and claw attacks and move on. Getting technical might yield the same answer too, not 100% sure, but it sure is an involved discussion about rules minutia.

It's not really minutiae. You have touch spells and spells that are not touch spells. Quite the specific divide.

[icefractal]

I've seen it used to add onto natural attacks, and it seemed logical to everyone at the time, but I'm not sure we were actually RAW there.

[Kurald Galain]

It's not really minutiae. You have touch spells and spells that are not touch spells. Quite the specific divide.

The minutiae are in the spells that require you to touch an enemy but aren't touch spells (and that this category consists of only one spell, namely this one).

[ixrisor]

The minutiae are in the spells that require you to touch an enemy but aren't touch spells (and that this category consists of only one spell, namely this one).

There are a few other spells that grant a touch attack, such as Ice Axe.

[ericgrau]

It's not really minutiae. You have touch spells and spells that are not touch spells. Quite the specific divide.

But is a touch spell a spell with the range of touch, or one that involves a touch attack or other touching? (which also includes spells with a range of touch, but that doesn't mean it excludes other spells)

Taking it further, do melee touches with produce flame provoke attacks of opportunity, since excluding that is under rules that apply to touch spells?

I'd put it under solidly ambiguous, but the intent is probably to make it a touch spell (for rules purposes not the range) and therefore I'd run with that.

[Darg]

But is a touch spell a spell with the range of touch, or one that involves a touch attack or other touching? (which also includes spells with a range of touch, but that doesn't mean it excludes other spells)

Taking it further, do melee touches with produce flame provoke attacks of opportunity, since excluding that is under rules that apply to touch spells?

I'd put it under solidly ambiguous, but the intent is probably to make it a touch spell (for rules purposes not the range) and therefore I'd run with that.

Yes, a touch spell is a spell with a range of touch.


touch spell: A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks.

Produce flame delivers its effect upon casting, not touching the target. The range, effect, and duration lines give it away. As it isn't a touch spell it does not use the rules specifically for touch spells. You cannot hold the charge and therefore cannot make normal attacks with the spell unless the spell allows it. As ixrisor mentioned, Ice Axe functions in a very similar way. Range: 0 ft, Effect: creates something, has duration, and allows you to make touch attacks with the spell. You wouldn't think it functions like a touch spell also would you?


“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 96), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense.

It has nothing to do with being a touch spell and everything to do with being a touch attack spell. So by definition it would not provoke AoOs.

[ericgrau]

So then can you hold the charge on a touch spell such as chill touch and then attack with produce flame round after round, hitting with the effect of both?

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes, a touch spell is a spell with a range of touch.

Produce flame delivers its effect upon casting, not touching the target. The range, effect, and duration lines give it away. As it isn't a touch spell it does not use the rules specifically for touch spells. You cannot hold the charge and therefore cannot make normal attacks with the spell unless the spell allows it. As ixrisor mentioned, Ice Axe functions in a very similar way. Range: 0 ft, Effect: creates something, has duration, and allows you to make touch attacks with the spell. You wouldn't think it functions like a touch spell also would you?

I agree completely, but to be a bit more precise:

A "Touch Spell" requires 2 things:
1) Range: Touch
2) Target: Creature or Object

Produce Flame has none of the two and thus disqualifies.

A Touch Spell's effect is cast on the target (while you are holding the charge in the meanwhile before you hit).
Spells like Produce Flame on the other hand bestow the effect on you (range 0ft or personal) and enable you to make touch attacks for their duration.


So then can you hold the charge on a touch spell such as chill touch and then attack with produce flame round after round, hitting with the effect of both?
Depends on the right order to cast em since touch spells stop to work as soon as you cast another spell.

Thus cast Produce Flame first and Chill Touch afterwards.

edit: there are workarounds if you really wanna stack "Touch Spells". Arcane Fusion and Contingency are 2 options that come quick to my mind. I also have a iron chef competition build somewhere which makes use of this in combination with the "Poison Spell" feat (apply poison on your touch spells) to stack multiple poison applications at once per unarmed strike made. A very deadly build

[Darg]

So then can you hold the charge on a touch spell such as chill touch and then attack with produce flame round after round, hitting with the effect of both?

Technically you're trying to touch the target with the flame, not your hand. That said, nothing says you can't attempt to touch the target with your palm with the flame out in front. The difference can be quite important in some cases like a mimic's adhesive. As a DM I wouldn't allow them to work together, but that is just adjudication.

[ericgrau]

That's very possibly not only a literal interpretation of the rules but the intent behind them, and not being overly literal like what happens with some other rules. And also to let people combo a touch spell with it since it's not a touch spell. But I think it's a bit of a silly mistake and as a DM I'd houserule merge it into touch spells, mid game on the fly. I also understand leaving it alone or other partial house rules. Sometimes 3.5e is complex in wonderful ways, and sometimes it's just needlessly complex in pointless ways.

[Darg]

They made produce flame not a touch spell so that you can throw the flame. You can't throw touch spells without the reach spell metamagic.

[Gruftzwerg]

They made produce flame not a touch spell so that you can throw the flame. You can't throw touch spells without the reach spell metamagic.

Maybe that was the reasoning of the author, but imho "Specific Trumps General" would have solved that.

Chill Touch and Shivering Touch are two other examples where the general touch spell rules are altered by the specific spell texts.
So it wouldn't have been any problem to allow a "touch spell" to be cast at range as alternate action/option imho.

[Darg]

Maybe that was the reasoning of the author, but imho "Specific Trumps General" would have solved that.

Chill Touch and Shivering Touch are two other examples where the general touch spell rules are altered by the specific spell texts.
So it wouldn't have been any problem to allow a "touch spell" to be cast at range as alternate action/option imho.

How do those spells alter the general rule? If it's what I think it is for chill touch, the general rules don't say that all touch spells discharge all charges at once or that "or" isn't intended to be read as exclusive as is common parlance. Common parlance says that using "or" between the singular and plural is exclusive. Meaning you can choose between the singular form of the spell and the multi-target form. It's not like they don't know how to write the spell to be like water walk to remove any doubt.

[Gruftzwerg]

How do those spells alter the general rule? If it's what I think it is for chill touch, the general rules don't say that all touch spells discharge all charges at once or that "or" isn't intended to be read as exclusive as is common parlance. Common parlance says that using "or" between the singular and plural is exclusive. Meaning you can choose between the singular form of the spell and the multi-target form. It's not like they don't know how to write the spell to be like water walk to remove any doubt.

Chill Touch:
The general rule sole talks about 1 charge and not multiple charges. The fact that Chill Touch has multiple charges is an exception.

Shivering Touch:
..has a duration and thus you get recharged until the duration expires. Thus also a specific exception.


If Produce Flame would have been a touch spell you could have said:
"... Alternatively you can make a single ranged touch attack instead per round. ..."
This would have trumped the general touch spell rules and the effect would basically do the same as now.

But they didn't go for the "touch spell" option. Dunno if intentional or not. Maybe..

[Darg]

Chill Touch:
The general rule sole talks about 1 charge and not multiple charges. The fact that Chill Touch has multiple charges is an exception.

Where is this in the rules? The touch range entry (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range) only has rules about friendly spells not being able to hold the charge, not harmful ones and touch spells in combat or holding the charge (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell) says nothing about being only able to discharge once.


Shivering Touch:
..has a duration and thus you get recharged until the duration expires. Thus also a specific exception.


So does the Fly spell, but you probably don't make the same ruling there.


If Produce Flame would have been a touch spell you could have said:
"... Alternatively you can make a single ranged touch attack instead per round. ..."
This would have trumped the general touch spell rules and the effect would basically do the same as now.

But they didn't go for the "touch spell" option. Dunno if intentional or not. Maybe..

They could have, but didn't. When you design a game you create a framework on how the mechanics are supposed to work and you are supposed to follow that framework to the best of your ability to reduce confusion. Produce flame works one way and touch spells work another. This distinction is supposed to provide you with guidelines on how to adjudicate the function of the spell by fitting it into the framework mold.

[Gruftzwerg]

Where is this in the rules? The touch range entry (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range) only has rules about friendly spells not being able to hold the charge, not harmful ones and touch spells in combat or holding the charge (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell) says nothing about being only able to discharge once.



So does the Fly spell, but you probably don't make the same ruling there.
I could have worded that more precise, my fault..
I meant the rules "touch spells - touch attacks" sole speak of a single charge and single attack, not multiple.

The sole part where the touch spell rules talk about multiple targets is when it comes to spells where you need to touch your allies (non attacks).

And that is what I meant here. The general rules sole talk about a single charge and not multiple charges when it comes to Touch Attack (Spells). As such, imho any touch attack spell giving multiple charges is an exception to the "norm". Doesn't matter if you get recharged for a fixed amount (charges / caster lvl) or for a fixed duration. That a spell recharges you with the spell for multiple times.

Since Fly is not a harming attack spell, its duration represents the duration of the beneficial affect.
While Shivering Touch is an harming attack spell where the duration allows you to make these attacks again and again. That is the sole option where the duration of the spell can apply to, because dmg is instantaneous and thus can't have a duration. If Shivering Touch's effect would have been a penalty instead of damage, the "duration" would indicate how long the penalty stays. But as it is, it is a touch spell dealing dmg and thus the duration can sole affect how long you can make touch attacks, effectively recharging you for the entire duration.




They could have, but didn't. When you design a game you create a framework on how the mechanics are supposed to work and you are supposed to follow that framework to the best of your ability to reduce confusion. Produce flame works one way and touch spells work another. This distinction is supposed to provide you with guidelines on how to adjudicate the function of the spell by fitting it into the framework mold.
In any other game besides from 3.5 I would agree with you. If I would have faith in the 3.5 designers that they managed to find the right words for the rules (RAW) to express their intentions (RAI). But sadly, I don't have faith in em anymore. Reasons should be obvious (so many times where they just failed to match RAW to RAI). As such, I can sole speculate if "this here" was intentional or not.

[icefractal]

Since Fly is not a harming attack spell, its duration represents the duration of the beneficial affect.
While Shivering Touch is an harming attack spell where the duration allows you to make these attacks again and again.
What? There's nothing about being harmful that changes how durations work. See Touch of Fatigue.


That is the sole option where the duration of the spell can apply to, because dmg is instantaneous and thus can't have a duration. If Shivering Touch's effect would have been a penalty instead of damage, the "duration" would indicate how long the penalty stays. But as it is, it is a touch spell dealing dmg and thus the duration can sole affect how long you can make touch attacks, effectively recharging you for the entire duration.This hold more water, but I disagree - it's not the only way that the duration could work. There are at least two others:
1) Despite being ability damage, it has a duration. No, damage does not generally have a duration, but specific trumps general, right? Also it's probably the intent, but we're not discussing that here.
2) The duration is how long you can hold the charge. Normally there's no limit on that, but again specific > general. Kind of stupid thing to specify? Yes, but not as stupid as a 3rd level spell that gives you 5+ touches which are each potentially no-save-just-suck. :smalltongue:

Or the most commonly used interpretation - the duration just does nothing. It was supposed to do something maybe, but they wrote it wrong and so by RAW it doesn't matter.

[Gruftzwerg]

What? There's nothing about being harmful that changes how durations work. See Touch of Fatigue.
Touch of Fatigue bestows an effect. An effect can have a duration. Damage on the other hand is dealt instantaneous and doesn't have a duration. If Shivering Touch would bestow a "penalty" (a negative "modifier") as effect, then the duration could count for the penalty effect. But as it is, Shivering Touch deals (DEX) dmg and thus the sole thing to which duration can apply to left is the ability to use shivering touch attacks. There is nothing else the duration could apply to.



This hold more water, but I disagree - it's not the only way that the duration could work. There are at least two others:
1) Despite being ability damage, it has a duration. No, damage does not generally have a duration, but specific trumps general, right? Also it's probably the intent, but we're not discussing that here.
2) The duration is how long you can hold the charge. Normally there's no limit on that, but again specific > general. Kind of stupid thing to specify? Yes, but not as stupid as a 3rd level spell that gives you 5+ touches which are each potentially no-save-just-suck. :smalltongue:

Or the most commonly used interpretation - the duration just does nothing. It was supposed to do something maybe, but they wrote it wrong and so by RAW it doesn't matter.

1) I don't see any indicator that the ability damage dealt by Shivering Touch is tied to the duration. Just because the spells effect has a duration, doesn't transfer to any damage being dealt. Or does the damage an Acid Arrow deals over its duration vanish afterwards?^^ I guess not.

2) Again I don't see any rule text that would tie the duration sole to holding the charge. The duration sets how long the effect is in place. And the effect here is:
On a successful melee touch attack, you instantly suck the heat from the target's body, rendering it numb. The target takes 3d6 points of Dexterity damage.
The spells effect enables you to make melee touch attacks (for its duration).
___________

Imho if we compare all 3 different spells here: Chill Touch, Produce Flame & Shivering Touch and assume that the designer managed to express their intention right, they all follow a different purpose:

Chill Touch: Enhances the generic touch spell rules by giving you extra charges.

Produce Flame: Enables you to do melee and ranged touch attack, but excludes itself as not being an acutal "touch spell". This changes the interactions with other stuff compared to a real "touch spell"

Shivering Touch: Enhances the generic touch spell rules by giving you a duration in which you can make "touch spell - touch attacks". Compared to Produce Flame, Shivering Touch is a "real touch spell" when it comes to interactions with other stuff/rules.

[Darg]

If we want to be really technical, shivering touch actually afflicts a target with the undefined condition of being numb. They just happen to also take ability damage. It's the same for lesser shivering touch: it applies the undefined condition of shivering uncontrollably and those so afflicted take damage. It's worded very poorly, but it's pretty obvious what the intent was for the spells.

[St Fan]

If we want to be really technical, shivering touch actually afflicts a target with the undefined condition of being numb. They just happen to also take ability damage. It's the same for lesser shivering touch: it applies the undefined condition of shivering uncontrollably and those so afflicted take damage. It's worded very poorly, but it's pretty obvious what the intent was for the spells.

Yes, I agree. It's more likely to be an oversight in the spell description than an actual intent. Shivering touch allows a single melee touch attack which makes the target numb. It should have included the mention "for the duration of the spell" just like with lesser shivering touch.

It's effectively badly worded, because that means it isn't "Dexterity damage" but a temporary Dexterity penalty. (Notably, that means a lesser restoration spell would dispel the whole penalty, and not just restore 1d4 points.)

Generally speaking, when a touch spell has a duration (either "instantaneous" or other), it's the duration of the effect upon discharge of the touch attack.

[Gruftzwerg]

Generally speaking, when a touch spell has a duration (either "instantaneous" or other), it's the duration of the effect upon discharge of the touch attack.

That's why I said that if it would have been a DEX penalty instead of DEX damage, it would be easy to resolve.
But we have damage and undefined conditions (shivering/numb..) combined with a duration that can't affect any of these two by RAW...

Either we assume that Shivering touch is intended as it is written (RAW) and that the duration means "how long you can apply the touch attacks", or we end up with a dysfunctional spell due to bad editing..

My suggestion (for actual play)
Either accept RAW or houserule the damage into a penalty (with a duration) depending on your optimization/power lvl at your table.

Choose your poison^^

[icefractal]

I mean, that's a ruling compatible with the (somewhat disfunctional) RAW, but it's not the only one. Where's the rule that undefined conditions like "numb" can't have durations?

"Shivering Touch deals 3d6 Dex damage and also inflicts the "numb" condition (which has no mechanical effect) for [level] rounds" is just as RAW-compatible an interpretation.

[Jack_Simth]

The spell in question for Pathfinder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/produce-flame/) and 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/produceFlame.htm) have the same wording:

Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.

In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.

This spell does not function underwater.

So:
Flames in your open hand that give light as a touch.
As a melee touch attack, you can spend a minute of the duration to hit someone with it for 1d6+1/CL (max 5).
As a ranged touch attack, you can spend a minute of the duration for the same at 120 foot range.

No action cost is listed after the standard action cast. It might be something you can full attack with, it might be a move action (as redirecting a spell), or it might be a standard action (as concentrating on a spell). The wording isn't clear, so it's a DM call.

However: It is it's own thing. It doesn't grant extra damage to your existing attacks, so you can hit someone with a natural weapon, or you can hit someone with the flame, but you can't hit someone with both on the same action. The rules just aren't there to support it.

[St Fan]

This spell always gives me flashbacks of the wizard in the old Gauntlet video game.

You also have to wonder what would happen if the caster were grappled, engulfed or swallowed.

With touch spells, it is generally accepted these are causing an instant discharge, but produce flame implies you're only doing damage when actually attacking...