Chill Touch

[entr0py]

But how is that more in line with the rules? ... Can you explain why this spell should be interpreted in a way that's so contradictory to the conventions ....

Cause the spell is only a first level spell and already does dick for damage. If a 20th lvl mage wishes to waste 10 rounds in combat using this spell, (touch attacks twice per round at 20th lvl), then he's already choosing to cripple himself. Why make it any more punishing on him?

 

[helium3]

I fully agree with you that this is how chill touch should be handled, and I think many of those who posted here would agree. I personnally use it that way in my games.

However, the point of this thread is to discuss the RAW and understand exactly how the spell works according to the rules. It may be futile in a sense, but it sure is fun and instructive. And we have apparently not reached a concensus, so we need to dig deeper into this!

Heh heh. Fun and instructive? I'm not sure I completely agree with that. There's definitely a point at which debating about rules ceases to be fun and instructive and starts to just become painful.

The issue with Chill Touch seems to be that (1) there's an implied method for how the spell works that most people generally agree on and use in game and (2) the RAW doesn't explicitly match up with the general consensus on how the spell works. IE, the rules don't support how everyone understands the spell to work. For me, once I reach that point I don't really see the point for further debate unless you're specifically talking about how the RAW should be modified to make the implied understanding match the explicit understanding.

With that being said, it's obvious that there needs to be some sort of clarification regarding the rules for spells delivered via touch and that the RAW doesn't cover all possibilities very clearly. A discussion that I'd be interested in participating in would involve how to modify the RAW to handle touch spells in a clearer fashion.

 

[kanithardm]

glass is right

 

[Camarath]

But how is that more in line with the rules? What you suggest does sound like an intuitive way to handle the spell, but then it completely ignores all the touch spells conventions (such as: touching 6 willing targets is a full round action, a touch spell gives 1 free attack) and also all the combat conventions.

Those rules deal with touch spells while holding the spell. I believe that the following section of rules means that one can not hold the charge with Chill Touch and thus those rules do not apply.

"Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."

A wizard that can make 5 times more attacks in a round than a fighter could ever hope to do? And how does it affect your attack roll modifier? You certainly realize that in D&D you always (or almost always) get negative attack roll modifiers for making more than 1 attack. If you applied here the -5 per attack rule, it would again completely kill the spell, so how would you handle it in a way that's consistent with combat rules?

There is no rule that states that when make multiple attacks granted as a part of a spell's effect there is an accumulative attack penalty. Indeed there is no rule that states that there is an accumulative attack penalty for making more than one attack. You are granted additional attacks if you BAB is high enough and those attacks are at a -5, -10, and -15. But these are iterative attacks, additional attacks for other sources do not add a -5 to all following attacks. An example assuming a BAB of 12 using Rapid Shot excluding other attack bonuses would have attacks of 10/10/5/0 not 10/5/0/-5 as would be the case if the was an accumulative -5 penalty between every attack.

Can you explain why this spell should be interpreted in a way that's so contradictory to the conventions, both touch spell and combat, when that spell does not explicitely say so? Some spells do say something like "this is an exception to rule X", or whatever, but chill touch does not say that.

It is a multitarget instantaneous duration touch spell it I think fits the rule I quoted ealier perfectly. Also the spell states in it text "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.", in an Instantaneous spell I think this clearly means one can use the touch attacks immediately as a part of the spell's effect.

 

[Camarath]

The wizard casts the spell and gets a number of touch attacks equal to his level. He gets one touch attack the same round he casts the spell and can make as many attacks per round after that as his BAB allows using the normal combat rules. He can keep the spell active for as long as he wants, as long as he does not cast another spell. Touching anything once the spell is cast causes one charge to dissipate, so picking his nose (which would be more productive than reading all the way through this post, btw), shaking someones hand or picking up an object would also discharge one of the charges.

Since this is so obviously the way the spell should be handled could you please explain what this rule means? And if this rule does not apply to Chill Touch what spell does it apply to?

"Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."

Other spells that grant the caster multiple attacks and have an instantaneous duration allow the caster to make those attack as a part of the spell such as Scorching Ray and Telekinesis. Why should Chill Touch work in a different manner?

 

[helium3]

Since this is so obviously the way the spell should be handled could you please explain what this rule means? And if this rule does not apply to Chill Touch what spell does it apply to?

"Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."

Other spells that grant the caster multiple attacks and have an instantaneous duration allow the caster to make those attack as a part of the spell such as Scorching Ray and Telekinesis. Why should Chill Touch work in a different manner?

Yes. Congratulations! YOU WIN!!! I apologize for not having any prize to offer you other than my capitulation.

The primary issue here, and why people keep arguing with you about this stupid spell, is that the "by RAW" version of Chill Touch (which I agree is as you describe) functions utterly unlike the way that I believe most D&D players who know of the spell think it does. I'd be willing to make a gentleman's bet that if you made a poll and provided two possible descriptions of how Chill Touch worked, one version being the one I provided earlier and the other being your "by RAW" version, the vast majority would select my option rather than yours.

As I'm sure you can see, a "by RAW" parsing of the rules does not always result in how a particular game mechanic is generally percieved to operate. Luckily for us, this is a pretty rare occurance, as otherwise the 3.5 rule-set wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed upon.

So, unless you want to talk about how the "RAW" might be modified to allow Chill Touch to operate simultaneously "by RAW" and in the way that most people understand it to work, my part in this debate is concluded.

 

[Camarath]

Yes. Congratulations! YOU WIN!!! I apologize for not having any prize to offer you other than my capitulation.

Hurrah

The primary issue here, and why people keep arguing with you about this stupid spell, is that the "by RAW" version of Chill Touch (which I agree is as you describe) functions utterly unlike the way that I believe most D&D players who know of the spell think it does.

People are free to play however they wish to play. I have no desire to tell people how they should play. But I do not think that because someone thinks that a game mechanic should work in a certain manner that they can assert that rules work that way if the rules are not actually written as such.

I'd be willing to make a gentleman's bet that if you made a poll and provided two possible descriptions of how Chill Touch worked, one version being the one I provided earlier and the other being your "by RAW" version, the vast majority would select my option rather than yours.

Just for fun I think I will start such a poll.

 

[helium3]

Heh heh. Cool beans. I think I'm winning, but that could change at any moment.

By the way, if I sounded peeved in earlier posts, I should let you know I'm really not. I don't quite get the fascination with RAW that some people have, but I just chalk it up to stylistic choice like anything else. And, this is the rules board, so adherence to RAW is sorta what it's all about.

 

[Camarath]

Heh heh. Cool beans. I think I'm winning, but that could change at any moment.

I am pretty sure you will end up winning the poll.

By the way, if I sounded peeved in earlier posts, I should let you know I'm really not. I don't quite get the fascination with RAW that some people have, but I just chalk it up to stylistic choice like anything else. And, this is the rules board, so adherence to RAW is sorta what it's all about.

Don't worry about it. Though it can be amusing how worked up some people get when a rule debate gets down and gritty.

I think RAW is just about the only type of rule debate with which you can have any certainty. I find it rather futile to debate subjective things like common sense, what the rules were intended to mean, or how someone else should play the game. Everyone has their own opinions about what the game is and how it should be played, as they are entitled to. But RAW is much less subjective, being a limited body of writings, and thus can actually be discussed with some hope of proving one's interpitations or having them disproved.

 

[Philip]

Bah,

Everybody realizes how Chill Touch is supposed to work, it's just that the text is unclear and does not unequivocally support it. They should have written it like they did with produce flame....