Does ghoul touch paralyze without a save?

[Scion]

IIRC, touch attacks replace Reflex saves... I can't think of one example where it replaces a Fort save.... while Poison for example combines a touch attack with a Fort save.

Apparently there is at least one, ghoul touch

Edit: sorry though sometimes I get too much into my role of devils advocate. I would just like the text of the spell to be clearer. It is all to easy to look at the spell and see that in its description it specifically states which part is the fort negates, and not so much that is it something extra and extraneous.

Personally I do agree that it will have a fort save to ignore the whole spell, it is just that it could easily be taken the other way. Although, with a save I think it is a pretty weak spell, but without it then it is too strong ;/

 

[Darklone]

Agreed. I just don't think it's too weak for a spell, since you don't lose it like all those ranged touch attack ray spells if you miss... you simply grab again with your next attack or next round.

 

[Camarath]

Then either the text is missing something, the saveing throw needs to be changed to Save: fort negates (see text), or it is all correct in that there is a touch attack and then there is a fort save negates for the secondary effect.

I believe that the Saving Throw entry applies to creatures targeted by the spell or in the spell's area. Since this spell's Target is Living humanoid touched the Fortitude Negates only applies to that creature. The spell has an additional effect that affects creatures other than the target and thus a Saving Throw is listed for that effect since the spell's Saving Throw entry would not apply because those affected by the additional effect are not within the spell's area or being targeted by the spell.

 

[Scion]

I believe that the Saving Throw entry applies to creatures targeted by the spell or in the spell's area. Since this spell's Target is Living humanoid touched the Fortitude Negates only applies to that creature. The spell has an additional effect that affects creatures other than the target and thus a Saving Throw is listed for that effect since the spell's Saving Throw entry would not apply because those affected by the additional effect are not within the spell's area or being targeted by the spell.

I would prefer that it listed them something like phatasmal killer. Fort negates (paralysis), special (fort negates - stench) see text. It takes up a bit more space, but is much clearer, and it makes it a better quick reference. In my not so humble opinion of course

 

[Camarath]

I would prefer that it listed them something like phatasmal killer. Fort negates (paralysis), special (fort negates - stench) see text. It takes up a bit more space, but is much clearer, and it makes it a better quick reference. In my not so humble opinion of course

I agree if a spell necessitates multiple saves for any reason (or has some effects that allow saves and some that do not) a simple Saving Throw entry such as Fortitude Negates more than likely not going to be suffincently clear.

 

[jgsugden]

Saving throw: negates.

As previosuly mentioned, this is a defined situation that results in the entire spell having no effect when the save is made.

Beyond that clear rule, balance points towards this spell being negated by a successful saving throw. If not, it becomes far too powerful. A touch attack is far too easy to deliver for it to paralyze with no save for a 2nd level spell.

Although poorly worded, this spell is intended to work in this fashion. If you decide to play it the other way, you do so at great risk ... how will you as a PC feel when a 3rd level wizard paralyzes your 20th level PC with a touch attack and then C'dGs him?