Question regarding Copu de Gras and ray spells

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Reread the question. It's Scorching Ray, for which you cannot hold the charge.

EDIT:

And, actually, melee touch spells do not give you a touch attack as part of the standard action to cast the spell. Rather, they allow you to make a single touch attack in the same round in which you cast the spell as a free action.

That is what allows casting the spell, then moving, and then delivering it, all in the same round and [generally] without the risk of an AoO.

 

[Jimlock]

Reread the question. It's Scorching Ray, for which you cannot hold the charge.

I know what the question is. I was simply answering to you, so as to clarify that while holding a charge all the melee-type actions are entirely possible and covered by RAW.

Not that you said otherwise, I'm just making the differentiation between attacking with the charge and attacking while casting the spell.

And, actually, melee touch spells do not give you a touch attack as part of the standard action to cast the spell. Rather, they allow you to make a single touch attack in the same round in which you cast the spell as a free action.

I forgot about that clarification, still what you say is not entirely true.

I understand that the spell's description says: "Casting time: 1 standard action", (one which is still subject to AoOs) still there is nowhere written that the touch attack is the "free action" of the process.

The entire process is a standard action, a quite unique one actually that allows you to split the two sub-actions, and let's you combine them as you wish with the move action.

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. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.


IMO, again this only shows how minor the casting time of those spells is. I cannot think of the touch attack as being the "minor action" (it's a normal attack, without penalties, that happens during one's round). I 'd probably consider the casting as being the "minor action" of the entire process.

Look at it this way:
The wizard speaks a word (minor sub-standard action), and his hand suddenly flashes with magical energy etc etc... Then he moves close to the enemy (move action) and attacks (major sub-standard action) while taking all the time and the effort to make that single attack. Honestly, I do not see those sub actions being the other way around.

This is why I take it that it is possible to do a CDG with a touch attack spell. The whole process just turns from a standard action into a full round action. (In that case, splitting the action is not possible, one has to be standing next to the victim, only 5' are allowed before and after)

Again this might not be clear by RAW, but I totally see it as being possible within the concept of those rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I know what the question is. I was simply answering to you, so as to clarify that while holding a charge all the melee-type actions are entirely possible and covered by RAW.

Not that you said otherwise, I'm just making the differentiation between attacking with the charge and attacking while casting the spell.

Cool - so we agree that you can CdG with Chill Touch (but not in the round you cast it), but not with Scorching Ray.

I forgot about that clarification, still what you say is not entirely true.

Er, sorry about that. In 3.X, it's not an action at all (unless it was clarified in the FAQ somewhere, but who cares about that? ). In Pathfinder, they called it out as a free action. The end result is pretty similar.

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

This gets rid of the oddness about it being a standard action split up into two halves, etc.

IMO, again this only shows how minor the casting time of those spells is.

You mean, being exactly as long as any other standard action spell? I mean, a sorcerer can cast a Maximized Shocking Grasp as a full-round action, and the touch attack part is still a not-an- / free action - but only in the round in which he casts the spell.

 

[Jimlock]

In Pathfinder, they called it out as a free action. The end result is pretty similar.

This gets rid of the oddness about it being a standard action split up into two halves, etc.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but calling up pathfinder rules is no stronger than my personal interpretation of the 3.5 rules.

You mean, being exactly as long as any other standard action spell? I mean, a sorcerer can cast a Maximized Shocking Grasp as a full-round action, and the touch attack part is still a not-an- / free action - but only in the round in which he casts the spell.

In the case of a Maximized Shocking Grasp and a spontaneous caster I probably wouldn't allow a CDG at the same time. In that case, casting the spells obviously takes longer.

However, this does not change the fact that a standard Shocking Grasp allows both the casting of the spell and the touch attack in one standard action (that you can split up).

Again, the way I see it, this is totally within the spirit of the rules, as I explained above.

IMHO PF is clearly seeing this the wrong way. As I said above, it makes much more cense to take the casting of the spell as the minor action, and the actual attack as the major one.

I'll quote myself from my previous post:
The wizard speaks a word (minor sub-standard action), and his hand suddenly flashes with magical energy etc etc... Then he moves close to the enemy (move action) and attacks (major sub-standard action) while taking all the time and the effort to make that single attack.

Are you saying that it makes more cense the other way around? Are you saying that it makes more cense to cast the spell as a standard action and to deliver an attack as a free action?

And I'm not asking whether this makes "real-life" cense. I'm asking if this makes cense within the system at hand.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry if this sounds blunt,

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but learn to read.

I wasn't using PF rules to support my ruling; I was quoting them explain why I made a mistake.

However, this does not change the fact that a standard Shocking Grasp allows both the casting of the spell and the touch attack in one standard action (that you can split up).

Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

If you want to talk about houserules, go ahead - just call them out as such. The actual RAW, though, is that you cannot cast a spell as part of an CdG.

Accordingly, it is not possible to make a CdG with a ranged touch spell (barring, of course, specific exceptions to the contrary).

Your personal feelings about how much time it takes to say something magical vs. point your finger vs. touch your target are potentially interesting, but ultimately irrelevant.

 

[Jimlock]

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but learn to read.

I wasn't using PF rules to support my ruling; I was quoting them explain why I made a mistake.

Well to be honest, it kinda seemed like you did. In case you were ONLY quoting PF rules so as to explain your mistake, then I apologize.

Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

The price of anything affects everything.

If you want to talk about houserules, go ahead - just call them out as such.

Oh... And I haven't done that? Please reread my posts and point me out to where I support that "casting" a touch attack spell can be combined with a CDG under RAW...?

The actual RAW, though, is that you cannot cast a spell as part of an CdG.

And I agree to that, from the beginning of the thread actually... Again point me out to where we disagree?

When you said that one cannot do a CDG with a spell, I only pointed out that by RAW you can still do it while holding the charge. I did not disagree with you. I only clarified that it is still possible while holding the charge. By RAW.

THEN, I continued by stating my "personal approach" on spells with CDG by stating how I see the "spell+attack" combo into one standard action.

This is when you came forth by claiming that the attack is a "free action", and I replied by saying that by RAW it is not a "free action" but a part of the standard action instead.

Nowhere in all this did I claim that a CDG can be combined with "casting" the spell, under RAW.

Please reread the entire thread if you may.

 

[PureGoldx58]

Since no one has said it yet. Quickened Spell.

 

[jefgorbach]

Getting back to Greenfield's original question ... you automatically get a critical hit on a coup de grace because it can only be performed on a foe who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy -- therefore it stands to reason a multiple impact attack CDG would ALL be critical hits for the simple reason the victim can't dodge/etc between impacts. Likewise each such impact would require its own Fortitude save (DC 10+damage) vs immediate death.

 

[Greenfield]

Actually, the question got settled early on. Coup de Gras can be done with a weapon, not a spell (quickened or otherwise).

Now, you can CDG with a bow, and Manyshot you can in fact do a multi-attack with a weapon, so...

Thanks for the answers.