MUST you hold a touch spell charge?

[IceBear]

But then wouldn't all touch attacks be dismissable then? The problem is, I'm not going to read too much into a sentance when they have a perfectly good system in place for when a spell is dismissable. If the duration of a touch spell had a (D) at the end, then I wouldn't have a problem with allowing a spellcaster simple to let the spell go. For the most part the spellcaster just needs to draw a weapon to discharge the spell if he didn't want to cast use it, or cast another spell.

Sorry, but there have been too many rule issues come up because the editors didn't clear up loose language (are shields armor is a good one), so I'm not going to read "can" in this case to imply that a caster can dismiss a spell's effect without that spell having a (D) in its duration.

Also, the double edged sword that allowing this is that it implies you can choose to hold or not hold a charge. So, if I accidentially touch something then I could choose not to let it discharge which isn't right. Face it, some spells aren't dismissable and that could cause an interesting problem for the PCs, but that's the way magic is.

IceBear

 

[AGGEMAM]

Thank you. My point exactly. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who thought so.

Ehh .. actually, I was kind of disagreeing with you ..

What I wrote, rather strangely I admit, was that touch spells does not say that you can dismiss it voluntarely.

 

[Gromm]

I don't see how it matters in the long run. The only real reason I can come up with to dismiss a touch spell is to immediately cast another touch spell (as in the inflict to cure example given before). In those cases the new spell replaces the old spell once cast so its not a factor.
As far as discharging say a held inflict because you want to drag a fallen comrade away or something, just touch the ground, you weapon, or whatever its discharged by touching anything so it should be a free action to do so.
So no you can't dismiss a touch spell by thinking it gone, but its almost as easy to do by touching anything.

 

[IceBear]

Well Artoomis, it appears that most people believe that you have no choice about when you can discharge a touch spell. Thus, the mirror image vs touch spell becomes whether or not you consider striking a mirror image as touching something.

IceBear

 

[Uller]

I'm with Artoomis. Doesn't say "Must". It says "can". That infers that it is an option that doesn't have to be taken. Touching something or casting another spell are two examples that force the caster who has chosen to maintain his charge to lose it. They're not meant to be ways he can discharge it safely.

The dismissable descriptor arguement does not seem particularly relevant to me because that applies to the effect of the spell, not the delivery mechanism.

Has this _ever_ come up in an actual game?

As for the touch spell vs mirror image? I'd say it discharges the spell. Just like if you target a ranged touch spell on an image(or even a non-touch targetted spell like Hold Person on the image).

 

[IceBear]

I don't think this has ever come up in a game, because as it has been pointed out, it's pretty much a moot point. The only reason this question was asked was because of the mirror image vs touch attack thread that Artoomis referenced. In that case it was being argued that if the spellcaster believed that he touched something then the touch attack would be wasted as the spellcaster would "let go" of the charge. Others believe that you must physically touch something for the charge to be used, and that the caster's decision to release the charge is irrelevant.

As with a ranged touch attack being wasted on a mirror image that's the same as a magical arrow of slaying being wasted on a mirror image as opposed to a sword of slaying. With the melee attack an attack was wasted but the character could keep attacking with the sword. With the ranged attack the arrow is lost as well as the attack.

Anyway, I do think the intent was that the charge would be lost, but if a PC in my game got his shorts in a knot over it, I could easily rule the other way.

IceBear