Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ChefOrc" data-source="post: 2621547" data-attributes="member: 29426">Chill touchBut 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. 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&amp;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?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 &quot;this is an exception to rule X&quot;, or whatever, but chill touch does not say that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ChefOrc, post: 2621547, member: 29426"] [b]Chill touch[/b] 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. 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? 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification