Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[RigaMortus2]

Sure, against undead it's an attack spell.

What determines if you are using CLW as an attack spell or not? Is it dependant on the "attackers" perception, what he sees or thinks his target is? Is it dependant on the "defenders" perception, what type of touch he thinks or assumes is coming at him (either a healing touch or a touch attack)? Or is it dependant on what the "attacker" is truly "attacking"? That is to say, he may look like one thing, but is really something else?

For example, if person with CLW cast tries to touch an opponent with the spell, who is human but has an illusion on to make himself look like an undead, would he provoke or not? What if he had Cause Light Wounds, and just wanted to pick some lint off the targets shoulders?

 

[Infiniti2000]

That would be a hilarious way to deliver touch spells.... Would it need to be bare skin?

Nope. You can deliver touch spells with a gauntlet on, you can deliver touch spells with a hip check.

Cure light wounds is not an attack spell. It is not a touch attack spell. The rules in the "touch attacks" section do not apply to it. This quote does not apply to it.

According to the definition, though, cure light wounds is not even a touch spell unless the target is unwilling. Your argument against Hyp's alleged incomplete quote is only valid if you support the position that cure light wounds is not a "touch spell". Of course, then there will be additional conflicts.

 

[Artoomis]

Nope. You can deliver touch spells with a gauntlet on, you can deliver touch spells with a hip check...

No.....

Remember that is you accidently touch anything you spell is discharged. This implies at least that you must declare what you are using to execute the touch, otherwise you spell is discharged when you walk (you "touch" teh ground and the spell is discharged).

Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

For the "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges" sentence to have any meaning you must at least declare what part of your body is being used for the touch. Personally, I would keep it simple and say it must be a hand - it certainly cannot (normally) be a foot or the spell would discharge as soon as your foot made contact with the ground.

According to the definition, though, cure light wounds is not even a touch spell unless the target is unwilling. Your argument against Hyp's alleged incomplete quote is only valid if you support the position that cure light wounds is not a "touch spell". Of course, then there will be additional conflicts.

That incorrect. It's a touch spell but it's not delivered via a touch attack unless the "victim" is unwilling.

Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target...

Cure Light Wounds has a range of touch, ergo it's a touch spell.

 

[Artoomis]

The quote is under the heading of "Touch Attacks". There is an implied touch attack spell there, by virtue of being in that paragraph (that you've snipped the heading out of for your quote)....

Let's get terminology straight, shall we? There is no such thing as a "touch attack" spell. There are touch spells, which are simply spells with a "range: touch" entry.

The "touch" may be simply delivered by touch to a willing person or by touch attack to an unwilling person.

Did I make any error here?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Remember that is you accidently touch anything you spell is discharged. This implies at least that you must declare what you are using to execute the touch, otherwise you spell is discharged when you walk (you "touch" teh ground and the spell is discharged).

My point though is that if I'm the cleric and say, "I hip check Frank my fighter friend when I cast heal." Why is that illegal per the rules? I even have a hand free, but I want to use a hip check for flavor.

That incorrect. It's a touch spell but it's not delivered via a touch attack unless the "victim" is unwilling.

Cure Light Wounds has a range of touch, ergo it's a touch spell.

This is the conflict. Per the definition of "touch spell". It was posted previously, but I'll post it here for convenience, with my emphasis.

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.

So, according to the definition, a touch spell is delivered to an unwilling target (not willing) by a touch attack. This is a very explicit sentence. For a spell to be a touch spell, it must be delivered to unwilling targets as a touch attack. If you deliver it to a willing target or via a non-attack, then it's not even a touch spell.

I'm not proposing a resolution of the conflict here, just noting it. So, I'm not looking to debate how the above is wrong in any way. If you can resolve the conflict, however, please do so.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let's get terminology straight, shall we? There is no such thing as a "touch attack" spell. ...
Did I make any error here?

There's a definition entry for "touch attack". There's nothing explicit for "touch attack spell", however. The question is whether a "touch spell" is a "touch attack". The definition on "touch spell" to me shows without a doubt that all touch spells are touch attacks.

 

[Artoomis]

There's a definition entry for "touch attack". There's nothing explicit for "touch attack spell", however. The question is whether a "touch spell" is a "touch attack". The definition on "touch spell" to me shows without a doubt that all touch spells are touch attacks.

Incorrect - only true if delivered to a unwilling target. Touch spells may be deliverd to willing or unwiliing targets.

The rules make this really clear.

 

[Artoomis]

../ So, according to the definition, a touch spell is delivered to an unwilling target (not willing) by a touch attack. This is a very explicit sentence. For a spell to be a touch spell, it must be delivered to unwilling targets as a touch attack. If you deliver it to a willing target or via a non-attack, then it's not even a touch spell.

You are misreading the definition. Nothing about that says what happens when delivered to a willing target - but other rules do make that clear.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Please explain how I'm misreading the second sentence in that definition. Am I reading it out of context or what? Are you saying it's only an exemplary statement? Is there a sentence missing, perhaps "Touch spells are delivered to willing targets with non-touch attacks." or perhaps "Touch spells are delivered to willing targets with touch non-attacks." ?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks.

So, according to the definition, a touch spell is delivered to an unwilling target (not willing) by a touch attack. This is a very explicit sentence. For a spell to be a touch spell, it must be delivered to unwilling targets as a touch attack. If you deliver it to a willing target or via a non-attack, then it's not even a touch spell.

Not true at all.

A touch spell delivered to an unwilling target does so via a touch attack. The sentence you quoted says absolutely nothing about how it is delivered to a willing target.

"Pizzas are delivered to frat houses by football players" does not say that only football players deliver pizza, nor does it prevent a sorority chick ordering a pizza - whether or not a football player delivers it.