Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 47 of 47
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Seto View Post
    For my ruling, that would be something like "it discharges as soon as you touch something, but there's a difference between touching something and being touched by something. So you're okay if you're hit by a weapon, or slapped in the back by an ally."
    YMMV.
    The problem with differentiating touching something and being touched by something is that you can't accidentally touch something. The rules already state that you do indeed discharge upon an accidental touch. If a person bumping into you doesn't discharge, why would unknowingly bumping into a person do it? Accidental doesn't only mean "unintentional." It also can mean "done by chance" or "unexpectedly."

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I would argue that you have just quad counterexmples to your own position. Because you can deliver touch attacks even through gloves and gauntlets, it cannot be that the charge is discharged by anything touching you. Yes, you can unintentionally touch something. No, being touched anywhere on your person by anything doesn't do it. The need to invent an unwritten rule that your clothes don't count arises only because you're straining the colloquial use of "touch" to include other things touching you anywhere on your person.
    I have already differentiated the difference of the action of touch and the state of being touched. If you can't see the difference yourself then there is nothing I can do to get you to correctly understand my position. The rules don't say that characters have to breathe. It's only ever implied.

    The situation is the same with touch attacks. You can discharge by attacking with your head. You won't discharge on your clothing or carried items because it is implied that a caster wouldn't have to cast naked. You don't get flight until level 5 and therefore you don't accidentally discharge on the ground. The rules never say that you can't intentionally discharge on the ground though.

    All it is is building a list of what the rules permit you to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Incidentally, if that were the intended reading, spells which discharge on or damage creature who touch you wouldn't need to call this out; all attacks that hit you would automatically be successful touch attacks on your part for purposes of weapon-like touch spells. But spells that behave that way do call it out.
    Those spells do need to call it out. They aren't touch spells. If they were then they would benefit from all the rules for touch spells and change their intended function. A touch is not a touch attack. The hits are touches, not attacks. There is no attack roll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Heck, i believe somewhere is a rule discussing how you can hold a charge in each hand. I rcnn emember if it's a feat or if it's a clarification, but even if it's a feat, its language doesn't say you change from having your whole body charged to just one hand. It says you can hold a charge in each hand. If your reading were correct, this would either mean you discharge both with a single touch (even if something else touched you), or that you can store three charges:ne in each hand and the normal one all over your body, and the normal one discharges with whichever one you have in the first hand you touch someone with.
    This is not contributing much to the discussion without the source. You are misunderstanding things on how having double holdings change things. The rules explicitly say that you can only hold one charge at a time. That source completely changes how the rule works. It means that a creature without hands could never make a touch attack nor simply touch a target to discharge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    It seems clear to me that your reading is strained and counter to the way the writers understood it to work. I can see where you're coming from and understand the urge to rule that way if you feel the holding charges rule is too powerful, but it does seem to me to be rules lawyering to get around more commonly-understood interpretations with consequences or freedoms that bother you.
    Commonly understood does not equate to correct. You have yet to provide a source for your "charge is held in the hand" rule. I have to say that it is hardly straining with the plethora of information I have provided. I basically turn a page and it is right there. The rules are right there. The rules are permissive. They don't permit locational holding and so you can't.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Crichton View Post
    Also, for those of you discussing what happens when someone else touches you while you're holding the charge, the Rules Compendium page 126 neatly answers that: "You continue holding the charge if something touches you."
    Great info here. My issue though is how to define you touching something vs that thing touching you. Something touching you and you not touching it would require clear intent of the something and your lack there of. This would imply that the player could never unintentionally touch something to discharge the spell. However, the rules express that that is indeed possible. When you grapple or trip you intentionally touch the target. Maybe the rules are saying you can trip over your two left feet and make a touch attack to grab a target nearby to prevent falling. The touch was intentional but the situation was accidental. Bumping into someone on the street wouldn't cause a discharge either as the other person touched you too. at that point the rule in the RC comes into play.

    Or, maybe it is overruling the accidental touch rule?
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-01-24 at 03:23 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Great info here. My issue though is how to define you touching something vs that thing touching you. Something touching you and you not touching it would require clear intent of the something and your lack there of. This would imply that the player could never unintentionally touch something to discharge the spell. However, the rules express that that is indeed possible. When you grapple or trip you intentionally touch the target. Maybe the rules are saying you can trip over your two left feet and make a touch attack to grab a target nearby to prevent falling. The touch was intentional but the situation was accidental. Bumping into someone on the street wouldn't cause a discharge either as the other person touched you too. at that point the rule in the RC comes into play.

    Or, maybe it is overruling the accidental touch rule?



    I'm failing to see how we have an issue with which is which. I'm sure it could be broken down situation by situation ad absurdum until you could find some way for anything to mean anything, but this really seems fairly simple:


    Get slapped while holding Chill Touch: You're still holding it and it doesn't discharge (they touched you).
    Slap someone while holding Chill Touch: It discharges (you touched them)
    Get shoved back into someone or something: You're still holding it and it doesn't discharge on the person who shoves you(they touched you), but it does discharge on the person you get shoved into(you touched them unintentionally)
    Stumble back into someone or something: It discharges (you touched them unintentionally)


    Really not that complicated. You're definitely overthinking this and trying to break it down too far. This is very basic English stuff: Subject vs Object, Active vs Passive.



    The ONLY place it might get complicated or have any ambiguity at all is with grappling. But even then, they're touching you, until you take an action to respond. If you forego the AoO on their initial attempt, you don't discharge. If you forego the opposed check and accept the grapple (can you even do that?) you could even then be considered as them touching you, but the DM would have to adjudicate that particular bit.
    "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." -Rich Burlew, author of OoTS, and founder/owner of this very website you're reading this text on.

    Grod's Law of game design: "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use"

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Seto's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    How about ruling that you touch someone or something when you take an action that results in touching something, and you're touched (and can hold the charge) if someone else takes an action, or an event happens such as a trap.
    You can still touch something accidentally (you run into an invisible creature, for example). And of course you can be forced to intentionally lose the charge by using other actions: emergency Lay on hands or other.
    Avatar by Mr_Saturn
    ______________________
    • Kids, watch Buffy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bard1cKnowledge
    Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."
    My True Neutral Handbook, a resource for creating and playing TN characters.

    Check out my extended signature and the "Gitp regulars as..." that I've been honored with!

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Crichton View Post
    And for those of you discussing other body parts, please note that Chill Touch is explicitly limited to your hand, by its own spell text: "A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures" That's not fluff, it's the spell text itself.
    This is also held up as RAI in the 3.0 FAQ: "Each time you touch anything with your hand, you lose one charge off the chill touch, but anything you already had in your hand when you cast the spell doesn’t count as being touched."
    Good catch. I felt it bore emphasis/repetition. This does make it pretty unambiguous that you don't discharge it by walking around and "touching" the ground thereby. Nor by bumping into anything.



    For the record, I repeat that I agree that it would be quite difficult to go for any long period without touching anything with your charged hand, so if the player insists on trying that, the DM is well within his rights to ask for checks periodically when anything might call for it, or to simply play "gotcha" on it if the player ever declares an action that would cause him to touch something with that hand. Not for adversarial reasons, but just because the player is insisting on a rather hard-to-do thing that his PC is likely to fail at.

    The idea behind holding charges is not to hold them for hours, but to let you cast and keep trying, or, at most, cast just before a fight then rush in to deliver them.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Good catch. I felt it bore emphasis/repetition. This does make it pretty unambiguous that you don't discharge it by walking around and "touching" the ground thereby. Nor by bumping into anything.



    For the record, I repeat that I agree that it would be quite difficult to go for any long period without touching anything with your charged hand, so if the player insists on trying that, the DM is well within his rights to ask for checks periodically when anything might call for it, or to simply play "gotcha" on it if the player ever declares an action that would cause him to touch something with that hand. Not for adversarial reasons, but just because the player is insisting on a rather hard-to-do thing that his PC is likely to fail at.

    The idea behind holding charges is not to hold them for hours, but to let you cast and keep trying, or, at most, cast just before a fight then rush in to deliver them.
    Exactly! And to have spells that have more capacity than 'miss and you lose the slot' built into them. Not to mention incentive for the caster to put themselves at risk by getting into close range.
    "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." -Rich Burlew, author of OoTS, and founder/owner of this very website you're reading this text on.

    Grod's Law of game design: "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use"

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Crichton View Post
    Exactly! And to have spells that have more capacity than 'miss and you lose the slot' built into them. Not to mention incentive for the caster to put themselves at risk by getting into close range.
    Or wisely spend a 2nd level spell slot on spectral hand to avoid having to do so.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
    Imho what this rule means is that the sole control is to not touch anything. I tried to find a few example scenarios:

    - you may not suppress the charge while touching somebody (e.g. helping an ally by touching him in some kind, e.g. "heal" skill).

    - someone mind controlling you doesn't need to be aware of the charge. It will still apply on the next touch.

    - if an enemy forces you into a grapple it should be automatically discharged.

    - trying to run/walk on a crowded street could be problematic

    ....

    Since we also have confirmed that is can only be applied by the hands, I think we can now imagine the boundaries of this rule.
    Orochimaru, the ultimate villain
    El Mariachi dual double-hand-crossbow action
    Papa Smurf a Redcap Lion of Talisid (ubercharger/gish)
    Hellfire Escalation Glaivelock a Killer Kobold build
    Hammerdin of Moradin a guide to epic hammer throwing
    Almighty Claw of Malar monk/warlock gish (with minor DBZ-SSJ fluff)
    TO: BoBaFeat Body outside Body & Void Disciple 4 to break the game.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    Since we also have confirmed that is can only be applied by the hands, I think we can now imagine the boundaries of this rule.
    Actually, the only thing confirmed is that chill touch uses the hand. Other touch spells don't specify and the rules don't either. I think it's pretty obvious where the boundaries lie even without the charge being held in hand.

    It was being argued that somehow I implied that simply being in contact discharges the spell. Which is wrong by the way. Not to mention, what happens when you still spell a touch spell with both hands holding something? You wouldn't simply discharge the spell. You could either drop your item in hand for chill touch or tap with a knee for vampiric or ghoul touch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crichton View Post
    I'm failing to see how we have an issue with which is which. I'm sure it could be broken down situation by situation ad absurdum until you could find some way for anything to mean anything, but this really seems fairly simple:


    Get slapped while holding Chill Touch: You're still holding it and it doesn't discharge (they touched you).
    Slap someone while holding Chill Touch: It discharges (you touched them)
    Get shoved back into someone or something: You're still holding it and it doesn't discharge on the person who shoves you(they touched you), but it does discharge on the person you get shoved into(you touched them unintentionally)
    Stumble back into someone or something: It discharges (you touched them unintentionally)


    Really not that complicated. You're definitely overthinking this and trying to break it down too far. This is very basic English stuff: Subject vs Object, Active vs Passive.



    The ONLY place it might get complicated or have any ambiguity at all is with grappling. But even then, they're touching you, until you take an action to respond. If you forego the AoO on their initial attempt, you don't discharge. If you forego the opposed check and accept the grapple (can you even do that?) you could even then be considered as them touching you, but the DM would have to adjudicate that particular bit.
    See, that just doesn't make sense to me. The only difference you are stating is intent and then go on to say that intent is meaningless. Some one bumps into you, no discharge. You bump into someone else, discharge. In both situations there is no intent and only one discharges? The rules don't tell you the whole story of how a person touches someone. Someone pushes you into someone and you throw your shield up to prevent touching them, what then? This ruling is far from cut and dry and honestly overly complicated itself as you have to adjudicate every single scenario that pops up rather than saying oh they touched, discharged.

    The same thing happens with the invisible man scenario. Who says what specific part of equipment or person bumps into the invisible man? The DM. Meaning, all the responsibility for ruling goes to the DM instead of the rules themselves. Putting more weight on the rules is the fairer, speedier, and most likely the least heated option if it can be helped.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Crichton View Post
    In the 3.5 FAQ, it's brought up in a question about how it interacts with a Duskblade's arcane channeling, and answered that unlike the normal number of touches it allows, the Duskblade's channeling discharges it in a single strike. Not a particularly helpful answer to our question here, but it is what it is.
    I had not seen that before. That is a most unfortunate ruling for the Duskblade. I would say that makes Chill Touch not worth casting as a Duskblade. It takes away far too much of the spell's offense.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Actually, the only thing confirmed is that chill touch uses the hand. Other touch spells don't specify and the rules don't either. I think it's pretty obvious where the boundaries lie even without the charge being held in hand.
    You "think it pretty obvious," but then you proceed to argue the boundaries lie all over the place based on entirely arbitrary decisions seemingly designed to make holding a charge impossible without standing perfectly still and doing absolutely nothing except making a touch attack from your fixed location. You define it to be "touching" something and thus discharging it if you take a step, or bump into something with your hip, but not if you touch your clothing or if something brushes your hip in passing (never mind that determining whether you brushed something or something brushed you is next to impossible in practice).

    I'm sorry, I just don't see your position as tenable. It seems like you determined a limitation you wished to place on touch spells and the ability to hold charges that is quite simply unsupported by any example or rule present, and then proceeded to look for ways to twist the reading of the rules to make a justification for that limitation, and THEN, when that reading was pointed out to have flaws, ruled inconsistently on how it applies so you can create your "obvious" boundary in such a way that it comes as close as possible to your pre-determined limitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    It was being argued that somehow I implied that simply being in contact discharges the spell. Which is wrong by the way.
    Only because you have this strange definition of "touch" that means you do not touch something you're touching. And that still doesn't change that you will touch your own clothing just wearing it between the moment you cast a touch spell and the moment your arm finally extends to be able to hit them. Your clothing will shift and parts that weren't in contact with you before will become in contact with you: you thus touch your clothes, even by your at least seemingly implied definition of "make a new contact with." If that's not your definition, please clarify, and explain your position again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Not to mention, what happens when you still spell a touch spell with both hands holding something? You wouldn't simply discharge the spell. You could either drop your item in hand for chill touch or tap with a knee for vampiric or ghoul touch.
    Or cast one that doesn't have somatic components in the first place. That's a good question. My instinct is to say you discharge the spell into one of the things you're holding, unless you have a feature that lets you channel it through them. I could possibly be persuaded otherwise, but not on any basis that is designed to persuade that "touching" is done by any part of the body touching anything and discharging the spell involuntarily in the process, because nothing in the RAW nor any examples of play support this as the actual nor intended reading. I'm willing to acknowledge that the RAW sometimes don't behave at all like the rules were intended to be used, but when something this fundamental is this out of alignment with what pretty much every D&D group since the dawn of the game understood the mechanics to be, that suggests to me that the reading of the RAW which results in this clearly-unintended result is incorrect, especially when there's been at least a broad-based similarity and understanding across practically every game group that has a more coherent and consistent use of it. i.e., the RAW are close enough to the RAI that it's proper to read them such that they support it, and improper to twist and pull at them to result in something alien and unrelated to the way the rules have worked at most tables that play the game.



    You hold a charge until you touch something. Touching something accidentally does discharge it. But you don't "touch the ground" by taking a step under the way this rule is written.

    Doing some research, I do see agreement with you that you hold a charge "in your whole body," but I will again insist that this makes it impossible to use touch spells at all if the definition of "touch" means "new contact with literally anything." The rules do clearly expect you to actually take action to touch something, not to discharge a spell by brushing into things. If you're not either reaching out to grasp or poke something or making a touch attack, you aren't touching it. Leaning against the wall no more discharges it than standing on the floor. Turning the doorknob probably would, though. Under this reading, holding something in your hand would perforce have to NOT discharge it, or there would be rules saying you can't be holding material foci or weapons in either hand and cast a touch spell.

    The thing I was thinking about before was spell flower, which is in the spell comendium. It lets you hold a charge per limb, but the way it's written, it could be seen to alter where you store the charge rather than to be dealing with the normal intent.

    Even so, if touching can be done "accidentally," we are back to non-obvious boundaries that seem designed to limit touch spells to never, ever being held except if you hold perfectly still, which clearly isn't the intent.

    I have agreed from before I made my example of casting a touch spell and holding it all day that it's not intended for that to be feasible, and that it likely wouldn't work in any practical sense because you'd eventually touch something without thinking about it over the course of the day, and be grossly inconvenienced until you did. But I have been arguing with Darg's assertions because his ruling seems counter to the RAW without very strained definitions of "touch," and seems to make touch spells impossible without a lot of hand-waving to create an "obvious boundary" that amounts to "ask Darg if it's okay."

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by gijoemike View Post
    I had not seen that before. That is a most unfortunate ruling for the Duskblade. I would say that makes Chill Touch not worth casting as a Duskblade. It takes away far too much of the spell's offense.
    Fortunately, duskblade specifically changes the mode of delivery. Chill touch says hand, but duskblade says you can deliver the spell through your weapon.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Heck, i believe somewhere is a rule discussing how you can hold a charge in each hand. I rcnn emember if it's a feat or if it's a clarification, but even if it's a feat, its language doesn't say you change from having your whole body charged to just one hand. It says you can hold a charge in each hand. If your reading were correct, this would either mean you discharge both with a single touch (even if something else touched you), or that you can store three charges:ne in each hand and the normal one all over your body, and the normal one discharges with whichever one you have in the first hand you touch someone with.
    You're probably thinking of the spell spell flower which allows you to hold the charges of separate spells in each forearm and causes the spell to either discharge if a charged forearm comes in contact with something or dissipate if a new spell is cast through an arm which already held a charge. The spell creates an exception; by default RAW, a touch spell is held in the entirety of your body and either discharges when any part of your body touches something or dissipates when a new spell is cast.

    *Edit*
    Whoops. Now that I'm back at my PC and can ctrl+F, I see you've already beaten me to the punch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    First note that touch spells aren't weaponlike by defaut IIRC. Unless you can point me to a rule I assume that this is wrong.
    Weapon-like is a keyword that needs to explixitly stand in the ruletext and is nothing that you may imply because of common sense.
    Touch spells in general aren't, but spells requiring a touch attack roll are. The idea of spells being "weaponlike" is introduced in Complete Arcane as a way to allow players to take feats like weapon focus to more easily gain bonuses with them in the same way you can gain bonuses with regular weapons as well as using class features from non-caster classes when multiclassing. The designation of "weaponlike" applies retroactively to spells printed prior to this rule that happen to fit the definition, which chill touch does (any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage fits within the categorization of "weaponlike," even if damage is dealt as nonlethal, ability damage, or energy drain).
    Certain spells are not normally weaponlike, but become weaponlike in certain circumstances. Cure light wounds is not weaponlike when used on an ally as it neither deals damage nor requires an attack roll, but when used on an undead creature becomes weaponlike, dealing damage on a successful melee touch attack roll.
    Last edited by Vaern; 2021-01-27 at 12:06 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    You "think it pretty obvious," but then you proceed to argue the boundaries lie all over the place based on entirely arbitrary decisions seemingly designed to make holding a charge impossible without standing perfectly still and doing absolutely nothing except making a touch attack from your fixed location. You define it to be "touching" something and thus discharging it if you take a step, or bump into something with your hip, but not if you touch your clothing or if something brushes your hip in passing (never mind that determining whether you brushed something or something brushed you is next to impossible in practice).

    I'm sorry, I just don't see your position as tenable. It seems like you determined a limitation you wished to place on touch spells and the ability to hold charges that is quite simply unsupported by any example or rule present, and then proceeded to look for ways to twist the reading of the rules to make a justification for that limitation, and THEN, when that reading was pointed out to have flaws, ruled inconsistently on how it applies so you can create your "obvious" boundary in such a way that it comes as close as possible to your pre-determined limitation.
    The only limitation is that which you are imposing on me, not the other way around. What I put forth is quite consistent if you would stop putting words into my mouth. How is not discharging into your equipment or the earth any different than what is currently being done at tables all across the world? How is that different than what is portrayed by the books?

    I have not once said that simply taking a step causes a discharge (another comment you impose on me) and even said how the visualization I put forth prevents that. Bumping into something is an action of touching something. Which is completely different from already being in contact. There is no limitation. You are the one making those limitations and putting them on me. I am only saying what is allowed by the rules as written. If that doesn't make sense, try reading them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Only because you have this strange definition of "touch" that means you do not touch something you're touching. And that still doesn't change that you will touch your own clothing just wearing it between the moment you cast a touch spell and the moment your arm finally extends to be able to hit them. Your clothing will shift and parts that weren't in contact with you before will become in contact with you: you thus touch your clothes, even by your at least seemingly implied definition of "make a new contact with." If that's not your definition, please clarify, and explain your position again.
    Why should I try and clarify and explain when you haven't done the same? I asked you before and will ask again. What is your ruling and position? If you tell me I can explain how we differ. Otherwise all we are getting is you misunderstanding what I have written and thinking I said something that I didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Or cast one that doesn't have somatic components in the first place. That's a good question. My instinct is to say you discharge the spell into one of the things you're holding, unless you have a feature that lets you channel it through them. I could possibly be persuaded otherwise, but not on any basis that is designed to persuade that "touching" is done by any part of the body touching anything and discharging the spell involuntarily in the process, because nothing in the RAW nor any examples of play support this as the actual nor intended reading. I'm willing to acknowledge that the RAW sometimes don't behave at all like the rules were intended to be used, but when something this fundamental is this out of alignment with what pretty much every D&D group since the dawn of the game understood the mechanics to be, that suggests to me that the reading of the RAW which results in this clearly-unintended result is incorrect, especially when there's been at least a broad-based similarity and understanding across practically every game group that has a more coherent and consistent use of it. i.e., the RAW are close enough to the RAI that it's proper to read them such that they support it, and improper to twist and pull at them to result in something alien and unrelated to the way the rules have worked at most tables that play the game.



    You hold a charge until you touch something. Touching something accidentally does discharge it. But you don't "touch the ground" by taking a step under the way this rule is written.
    I have yet to bring anything untoward the normal. My understanding of the rules as follows:

    1. You accidently discharge when coming into contact with anything.
    2. You do not accidentally discharge into items or persons on or in contact with you at the time of casting.
    3. You do not accidentally discharge into the ground.
    4. The target line of a touch spell is important. If it says creature it can only discharge when touching a creature as that is the only valid target for the spell.
    5. You may intentionally discharge to anything covered by 2 or 3 as long as it is allowed by 4.
    6. I've only just started reading the RC so I take a lot of what it says with a large helping of salt.

    These are very simple. As I said before, the static electricity example was simply a visualization. You are the one putting forth the idea that touch spells automatically discharge when cast. The rule for accidental discharge is for only when you hold the charge which happens in the round after you cast the spell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Doing some research, I do see agreement with you that you hold a charge "in your whole body," but I will again insist that this makes it impossible to use touch spells at all if the definition of "touch" means "new contact with literally anything." The rules do clearly expect you to actually take action to touch something, not to discharge a spell by brushing into things. If you're not either reaching out to grasp or poke something or making a touch attack, you aren't touching it. Leaning against the wall no more discharges it than standing on the floor. Turning the doorknob probably would, though. Under this reading, holding something in your hand would perforce have to NOT discharge it, or there would be rules saying you can't be holding material foci or weapons in either hand and cast a touch spell.

    The thing I was thinking about before was spell flower, which is in the spell comendium. It lets you hold a charge per limb, but the way it's written, it could be seen to alter where you store the charge rather than to be dealing with the normal intent.

    Even so, if touching can be done "accidentally," we are back to non-obvious boundaries that seem designed to limit touch spells to never, ever being held except if you hold perfectly still, which clearly isn't the intent.

    I have agreed from before I made my example of casting a touch spell and holding it all day that it's not intended for that to be feasible, and that it likely wouldn't work in any practical sense because you'd eventually touch something without thinking about it over the course of the day, and be grossly inconvenienced until you did. But I have been arguing with Darg's assertions because his ruling seems counter to the RAW without very strained definitions of "touch," and seems to make touch spells impossible without a lot of hand-waving to create an "obvious boundary" that amounts to "ask Darg if it's okay."
    I think I've made my position really clear at this point. There are plenty of examples of how touch spells are supposed to work, and none of them conflict. You are bringing conflict where there doesn't need to be any. There are examples of wizards using touch spells while wearing clothes and in contact with the ground. Why should we bother saying that isn't the case?

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    I honestly am not sure what point you're trying to make by arguing with me, from your last post, Darg.

    What is it that I've said - aside from "it's in your hand" - that you disagree with? What prompted this whole digression?

    As I said in the post you quoted, I never was trying to claim that a caster really could successfully cast a touch spell and hold it for hours until a combat occurred. I was merely using it as an extreme example of what is theoretically possible. Just like it's theoretically possible that you could buy a lottery ticket and win the jackpot in tomorrow's drawing, but in practical terms one should not expect that to happen in any given person's experience.

    The point was that holding the charge indefinitely is possible, and for combat-time (or just-prior-to-combat-time) is a practical option to pursue.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    It started we me disagreeing with your "in hand" interpretation. I then brought up a visualization using static electricity, and you made the assumption that I was saying that you discharge into anything you touch and are touching. After that was me trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    .The point was that holding the charge indefinitely is possible, and for combat-time (or just-prior-to-combat-time) is a practical option to pursue.
    I don't disagree with the combat implications. If we ignore the RC, There are a lot of combat tactics that can be used with touch spells. The least of which is reducing expended actions.
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-01-27 at 11:33 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    St Fan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Yes, you CAN hold the charge of the Chill Touch spell. Here's why. [3.5]

    Damn, I started quite the discussion without meaning too!

    But it's great, touch attack spells and holding the charge certainly are worthy mechanics to discuss.

    I agree that the reading of chill touch allowing multiple attacks in a single round is silly. My initial understanding was quite close to the OP.

    I had asked a few other related questions about held-charge in the RAW threads, and the general answers I've gotten were that any touch attacks were likely to discharge the spell, including reaching out blindly to find an invisible opponent, making a grapple attempt, making a trip attempt, etc. (Meaning making a touch attack as a standard action solely to discharge the spell is a bit of a waste.)

    The answer about whether another opponent initiating a grapple on you discharge the spell was prudent but strongly leaned toward yes, it does. Same thing if you're engulfed or swallowed whole, I guess, it's just nearly impossible NOT to touch the opponent in this case.
    Spoiler
    Show

    DM: At the end of the meal, the innkeeper is bringing you the cheese plate. Roll for initiative.
    PC: Excuse me, what?
    DM: I said, roll for initiative. They like their cheese really ripe in these parts. They have the ooze type.


    "Excuse me, but... is it a GOOD or a BAD thing when the DM can't help bursting into laughter every time he hears the phrase 'level-appropriate encounter'? No, just curious..."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •