Can you attack yourself as part of a full attack?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

So, as soon as a PC damages themselves, on purpose, the PC becomes a NPC?

Is it just hit point damage?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, as soon as a PC damages themselves, on purpose, the PC becomes a NPC?

Is it just hit point damage?

Nope. Well, maybe. Depends on their intention.

As soon as a PC uses an ability that designates themselves as the enemy, they become the enemy, and thus lose control of the character.

If someone wants to randomly attack themselves, whatevs.

If someone wants to use an ability that triggers on enemies... trouble.

I would have ZERO issue with someone attacking themselves.

I would have HUGE issues with someone attacking themselves with something that targeted enemies, with the intention of self-buffing.


As soon as you self-designate your PC as an enemy, you become one.


Side-effects include all your summoned creatures attacking you, because they attack your enemies to the best of their abilities.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Side-effects include all your summoned creatures attacking you, because they attack your enemies to the best of their abilities.

Really?

I thought you had to command summoned creatures. Odd.

Interesting if true. I can't imagine they would STOP attacking enemies they had engaged, but worth thinking about!

Grand Lodge

What sort of action is it to declare yourself an enemy, and what sort of action is it to declare yourself an ally?

Does the switch require an action?

What is required to switch the former PC, from NPC, to PC?

What about formats in which such a declaration, is not an option, such as PFS?

Can you strike yourself, and not be your enemy?

Can you strike an Ally, and if both are cool with it, still be Allies?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

1-What sort of action is it to declare yourself an enemy, and 2-what sort of action is it to declare yourself an ally?

3-Does the switch require an action?

4-What is required to switch the former PC, from NPC, to PC?

5-What about formats in which such a declaration, is not an option, such as PFS?

6-Can you strike yourself, and not be your enemy?

7-Can you strike an Ally, and if both are cool with it, still be Allies?

1-No action required.

2-Not applicable, you don't control NPCs
3-No.
4-GM declaration, as the character is an NPC
5-What? Up to PFS GM
6-Yes, but if you use an effect that requires you BEING an enemy/opponent etc, you BECOME that, losing control of your character
7-Yes, absolutely. However, effects that are triggered by opponents/enemies etc. obviously won't trigger.


If you declare your character as an enemy...

You succeed.

Then, you become an NPC.

Durh.


Or, switch back and forth freely, ignore alignment and be a munchkin. Play it how you want to.

Grand Lodge

Can you declare an Ally, to be an Enemy, attack them, then immediately make up, and be Allies again, supposing the Ally is cool with it?

Grand Lodge

You do realize I have yet to note if I agree, or disagree, with the legality of the OP's supposed "combination"?

Right?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Can you declare an Ally, to be an Enemy, attack them, then immediately make up, and be Allies again, supposing the Ally is cool with it?

I would argue 'no'.

However, no rules exist either way about this scenario.

I hate using rule 0, but this clearly would be required.

Munchkinism is stamped out in my group.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You do realize I have yet to note if I agree, or disagree, with the legality of the OP's supposed "combination"?

Right?

Yup. Sure do. Have a cookie. :D

Grand Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You do realize I have yet to note if I agree, or disagree, with the legality of the OP's supposed "combination"?

Right?

Yup. Sure do. Have a cookie. :D

Well, you started with name-calling, and I hoped they were not directed at me.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You do realize I have yet to note if I agree, or disagree, with the legality of the OP's supposed "combination"?

Right?

Yup. Sure do. Have a cookie. :D
Well, you started with name-calling, and I hoped they were not directed at me.

Sorry, what? Name calling?

If I offended you, I truly apologize. Really, not my intent. In fact, I will say it:

NOT MY INTENT!

Any offense caused was accidental and a problem in communication.

I feel bad.

Truly.

I just feel very strongly about people trying to pull stuff like this in my games, so I sometimes get a bit emotionally charged about it.

What, in particular, upset you? I'll try to avoid it in the future.

Grand Lodge

No, I meant with calling people munchkin.

No offense take.

All good.


I'm pretty sure that RAW you can attack yourself.
I'm pretty sure the wordage "an enemy" is there just to emphasize the offensive usage and is not in any way "legally" binding since the definition of enemy and ally are completely metagame and as such are total discretion of the character/player.
That being said, there are no rules on "autohitting" yourself so you have to roll normally against full AC and deal full damage including any power attack ecc. ecc. for it to be working, so I guess that makes it a pretty fair tradeoff.


alexd1976 wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Side-effects include all your summoned creatures attacking you, because they attack your enemies to the best of their abilities.

Really?

I thought you had to command summoned creatures. Odd.

Interesting if true. I can't imagine they would STOP attacking enemies they had engaged, but worth thinking about!

The actual wording is, "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."

Whether an 'enemy' is different from an 'opponent' is a job for the people who are taking this seriously. I assume that any time the book says 'allies' or 'enemies' it really means 'whoever you want'.


Again, of course you can attack yourself, or an ally, anybody can do that.

But that's not what the ability is about, it's supposed to allow you to cast a spell on the activelly defending target if you successfuly hit it.

Remember that, if you were fighting an enemy with a very high AC, you probably would't be able to use Blood Conduit successfuly. A "sure" hit on yourself would be cheating that.

If you want to use the ability to cast a spell on yourself with an attack, at least make it an attack on the enemy, that's less harmfull to the rules than attacking yourself for a buff.


We're talking about the validity of using the Class Feature to do so. The full text says:

Spell Conduit wrote:
At 5th level, as long as a blood conduit is wearing light or no armor, he can deliver bloodrager spells with a range of touch through bodily contact. When he succeeds at a combat maneuver check to bull rush, grapple, pin, reposition, or trip an opponent, or makes an unarmed strike against an enemy, he can as a swift action cast a touch spell on the creature that he affected with the combat maneuver, requiring no further touch attack roll. If this spell would usually require a successful touch attack, his successful combat maneuver check counts as this attack.

The RAI behind the ability would suggest you could, but the RAW would certainly tell you no, since you're not affecting an enemy, but an ally.

And no, you probably can't count as your own enemy, unless you're Confused or Dominated.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
Well, like the problem with the spell conduit specifying an enemy, in the language for attacks it states that you can target an opponent. So it's really up to whether you can consider yourself an opponent. Although it's probably written this way because the developers didn't consider attacking yourself or allies as beneficial. Personally I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to attack yourself, but there's enough in the rules that if the GM wants to be a stickler, they can disallow it.

Hehe,

If you can designate yourself as an opponent, can you move through a square you threaten and provoke an Attack of Opportunity from yourself upon yourself?

Sovereign Court

While the validity is debatable I would not allow it because it opens up too many possibilities of abuse.


As the Spell Conduit ability is written, no, you cannot use it to attack yourself for a benefit. A case could be made for getting the benefit from attacking a party member but that's as far as I would go, and even that would have repercussions if it was used too frequently (constantly flipping back and forth between "you're my ally!" and "you're my enemy!" sounds like insanity to me, which the GMG provides rules for). If you want to make a house-rule about it, you're more than welcome to, but this is the Rules Questions forum and I've never seen any evidence in the rules that you may choose to be your own enemy at-will. Please provide a citation if you know of such a rule.

If you want to buff yourself through self-inflicted injuries, I recommend taking levels in the Pain Taster. It's rules-legal, even in PFS.


Cuuniyevo wrote:

I've never seen any evidence in the rules that you may choose to be your own enemy at-will. Please provide a citation if you know of such a rule.

The "citation" would be that "enemy" and "opponent" are not terms with any mechanical, game-defined significance. Who is an "enemy" versus an "ally" is entirely subjective to the person making the determination.

You can't argue "enemy means this" is a RAW context because there is no definition as a game term.

Think of it like saying "left" and "right" depend on the position of the person saying it, and since the game has no facing, "left" is the direction I want it to be.

I do agree it is hard to make a case "enemy" includes yourself, but anyone else....why not. Maybe you're just very chaotic!


Not to put words in the PDT's collective mouth or anything but… I'm pretty sure they thought the words "ally", "opponent" and "enemy" were clear enough that they required no definition. I know of no rule about the sea being wet or air being see-through, but we readily assume that it is so. Words mean what they mean, unless a rule or house-rule says otherwise.

As I said, if my players tried to switch back and forth between considering one another as allies and enemies, I'd eventually impose one or more of the Sanity and Madness afflictions from the GMG on them, with fair warning, of course.

Game Mastery Guide pg. 250 wrote:
At your option, a creature can run the risk of going insane under extremely unusual situations, even when his mental ability scores are unharmed. A character suffering from long imprisonment might have to make a save against developing agoraphobia or claustrophobia. Someone repeatedly betrayed by allies might have to make a save against developing paranoia. And a poor soul whose mind is possessed by a powerful demon might have to make a save upon being exorcized to keep from becoming psychotic. The causes of such insanities are left to you as the GM to determine.


Cuuniyevo wrote:
Not to put words in the PDT's collective mouth or anything but… I'm pretty sure they thought the words "ally", "opponent" and "enemy" were clear enough that they required no definition.

And "left" and "right" are clear enough that they need no definition.

But, when there is no facing, you still get to decide what they mean.

Cuuniyevo wrote:
As I said, if my players tried to switch back and forth between considering one another as allies and enemies, I'd eventually impose one or more of the Sanity and Madness afflictions from the GMG on them, with fair warning, of course.

Use whatever optional and house rules you want to in your game. Its your game. And I don't mean that flippantly.

The line "Someone repeatedly betrayed by allies might have to make a save against developing paranoia" could very well apply, based on your interpretation.

Actually, that could make for fun roleplay. PC A keeps punching PC B to buff him in combat. PC B develops a flinch around PC A. Now, that's two, for flinching.


Matthew Downie wrote:
If I'm holding the charge on a Cure Critical Wounds spell and I try to hit an undead with it as part of a full attack and miss, can I use my final attack to heal myself instead?

I like how you point out a serious potentially game breaking flaw in the logic of the discussion, and no one notices....

For the most part I agree that you should always be able to touch/strike/damage yourself.

There is probably historical backing too it. Celtic berserkers probably carved themselves before combat to kick up the adrenaline.

For the above quote, I suspect that the ruling might be that when you cast CCW, you make a touch attack as part of casting the spell which requires a standard. If you miss, you technically hold that charge until it is discharged, if on the next round you choose to full attack and use the very last iterative attack to touch yourself instead of attack your foe, it's still the same spell and discharges into you instead of your target.

Casting the spell requires a standard action, touching the target becomes an incidental that is part of casting the spell. So as long as you hold the charge, I see no reason why you can't touch either the target or yourself as an iterative attack, or that it really would break the game to do so. The standard action to cast the spell is still being taken, so it remains balanced.

I also view the terms "enemy, opponent, ally" as non-mechanical terms. It's not typically important who or what an "opponent" is. These are terms that the writers use to distinguish "targets".

A spell that affects all "enemies" affects all targets the caster designates as enemy, and can include other party members or the caster itself if the caster wishes. The caster is typically an ally to the caster, this means that spells that target "an ally" can target the caster or anyone the caster designates as an ally.

For example I can use Litany of Escape on a friend who is being grappled, but not the enemy who is grappling my friend, despite that both potential targets have the grappled condition. This is because Litany of Escape specifically states "one willing creature that is grappled". Note that it does NOT state "One Ally", which is a sign that the writers are aware of the potential for a player to change who is and is not an ally.

Liberty's Edge

Rules that may apply;
I believe a witch with 6/1 BAB can self heal herself using her 'Healing hex' if she has the 'conductive' weapon enchantment on her weapon.

The rules below should support the claim, unless I've missed something.
_______________

- "Touch Spells in Combat: 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."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#touch-spells-in-combat

The above rule applies to touch spells and Spell-like abilities which delivers touch attacks.

- "Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html#lay-on-hands

The above rule states that a paladin healing someone else with lay on hands requires a standard action (the touching is free, so the casting must take a standard) while the ability to selftouch is quickened (a bonus the classability alone grants as a specific rule).

- "Hex: Witches learn a number of magic tricks, called hexes, that grant them powers or weaken foes. At 1st level, a witch gains one hex of her choice. She gains an additional hex at 2nd level and for every 2 levels attained after 2nd level, as noted on Table 2–10. A witch cannot select an individual hex more than once.

Unless otherwise noted, using a hex is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The save to resist a hex is equal to 10 + 1/2 the witch's level + the witch's Intelligence modifier."

- "Healing (Su): A witch can soothe the wounds of those she touches. This acts as a cure light wounds spell, using the witch's caster level. Once a creature has benefited from the healing hex, it cannot benefit from it again for 24 hours. At 5th level, this hex acts like cure moderate wounds."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/witch.html#healing

The action to cast the healing hex is a standard action, touching whoever is a free action.

- "Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#healing
(scroll down to the end of the Nonlethal damage chapter)

- "Conductive: A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric's domain granted power, sorcerer's bloodline power, oracle's mystery revelation, or wizard's arcane school power). When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type, he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, who takes the effects of the weapon attack and the special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special ability, he may channel through the weapon every round.) For example, a paladin who strikes an undead opponent with her conductive greatsword can expend two uses of lay on hands ability (a supernatural melee touch attack) to deal greatsword damage and damage from one use of her lay on hands. This weapon property can only be used once per round, and only works with magical abilities of the same type as the weapon (melee or ranged)."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/magicItems/weapons.html#conduct ive

The 'conductive' weapon enchantment works for witch hexes as well as they are Supernatural abilities and they'll never run out, however one can only be applied 1/round!
There is no action cost for adding the Supernatural ability as you strike and hit.

- "Base Attack Bonus (BAB): Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat)."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gettingStarted.html#base-attack-bonus

Combat rules;

- "Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."

- "Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
_____________

Based on above, the Witch could make a full-round attack;
Stats: Str12, BAB +6/+1, Weapon +1 & Conductive (unarmed strike), Size M, CL4.

Target: Enemy Gobblin
Aim1: 6+1+1-4+d20=Average 14
Dam1: 1+1+1d3=Average 4 (Nonlethal)

Target: Allied chest (my own)
Aim2: 1+1+1-4+d20=Average 9
Dam2: 1+1+1d3=Average 4 (Nonlethal)
+Conductive; 1d8+4 heal=Average 8,5 (also healing 8,5 Nonlethal as it's magical healing)
------------------
Autohit oneself?
The rules mentioned self-touching as part of casting a spell is a free action and that it autohits. But since we can't trigger the spell-like ability without first triggering the conductive feature, and the conductive feature requires us to hit ourselves, it means we are making an attack roll against ourselves instead of a touch attack.
I havn't looked into rules allowing one to autohit oneself so I went with the attack roll routine.
Does anyone have support from the rules for autohitting oneself?


Just wondering how you solve the "spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target" inconsistency.

Touching someone -an ally- is a different procedure than attacking someone, even if it is a touch attack. You just don't declare I touch attack myself and cast Bear Endurance, or "I touch attack my friend and Haste him.", that simply do not occur.

Otherwise, even if we could consider that touching ourselves is an attack, which is not, if it was an auto-hit, then that attack would not relly on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target -oneself- because there is not a possibility, it is certainty.

The case of Lay on Hands is different for the different uses of Lay on Hands. Do you need a melee attack to hit an undead with Lay on Hands? Yes. Then you can use the conductive ability. Do you need an attack to touch yourself? No. Then you can not use the conductive ability.

Liberty's Edge

Numarak wrote:

1. Just wondering how you solve the "spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target" inconsistency.

2. Touching someone -an ally- is a different procedure than attacking someone, even if it is a touch attack. You just don't declare I touch attack myself and cast Bear Endurance, or "I touch attack my friend and Haste him.", that simply do not occur.

3. Otherwise, even if we could consider that touching ourselves is an attack, which is not, if it was an auto-hit, then that attack would not relly on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target -oneself- because there is not a possibility, it is certainty.

4. The case of Lay on Hands is different for the different uses of Lay on Hands. Do you need a melee attack to hit an undead with Lay on Hands? Yes. Then you can use the conductive ability. Do you need an attack to touch yourself? No. Then you can not use the conductive ability.

1. Are you are referring to the 'conductive' weapon enchantment that requires a melee touch SU ability for melee attacks?

In that case, since Healing hex (at low levels) works as a CLW spell (according to the hex's RAW description)...
And CLW requires a melee touch to hit...
And that CLW spells can aside from healing, instead harm undead as a melee touch attack...
And that CLW is the identical opposite ((Positive energy instead of negative)) of 'Inflict Light Wounds' which is a standard touch spell...
I consider it CLW through RAI to be a standard touch spell (which just happens to have a different elemental/type energy than most touch spells, effective and not very effective against different creatures (Undead, vs living)).

2. I disagree somewhat..
The procedure is not different, rather simpler if the target isnt resisting (hitting an ally doesn't require a roll, hitting an ally who is dominated and resisting requires a roll.
I consider the action cost to be the same (touching still takes the time its supposed to. It is just easier to hit yourself compared to a resisting target.
The action required 'to touch' is identical to the action required to make a normal melee attack (since Touch spells are counted as being weapons), but for some exceptions;
The touch rules state that you can deliver the touch attack as a free action as part of the casting and that you otherwise can 'hold the charge' and deliver it on subsequent rounds as part of an unarmed strike or on it's own.

3. & 4. I disagree, Touching is attacking, so the result changes so that you may use the 'conductive' weapon enchantment.
-----
I believe you've misses one thing, just because you don't need to roll to Touch your ally or yourself (since neither resists) doesn't mean you aren't targeting them with a melee touch attempt/attack.


I think you are wrong saying that "Touching is attacking". If I'm a Wizard of level 7, and I cast a 'Haste', the spell says I could "Touch" seven persons and haste them. Obviously, a Wizard of level 7 does not have 7 attacks, and does not need them to haste his friends.

Touching is not, in any way, the same as attacking; although there are some attacks called "touch attacks".

So no, I also do not agree with you.

And about your last piece of information, for me is relevant; what makes the difference between a 'touch' and an 'attack', being this 'touch', 'melee' or 'ranged', is that you NEED to roll. You do not roll, it's not an attack. There are some exceptions to this rule, auto-hits, but they are so, exceptions, and no the general rule.

P.S. The more I look into the forum the more I realize people have different perceptions about one thing. I just can expose my arguments and try to convince you. But I might be wrong.


Numarak wrote:

I think you are wrong saying that "Touching is attacking". If I'm a Wizard of level 7, and I cast a 'Haste', the spell says I could "Touch" seven persons and haste them. Obviously, a Wizard of level 7 does not have 7 attacks, and does not need them to haste his friends.

Touching is not, in any way, the same as attacking; although there are some attacks called "touch attacks".

So no, I also do not agree with you.

And about your last piece of information, for me is relevant; what makes the difference between a 'touch' and an 'attack', being this 'touch', 'melee' or 'ranged', is that you NEED to roll. You do not roll, it's not an attack. There are some exceptions to this rule, auto-hits, but they are so, exceptions, and no the general rule.

P.S. The more I look into the forum the more I realize people have different perceptions about one thing. I just can expose my arguments and try to convince you. But I might be wrong.

No, what makes a Touch require an Attack Roll is whether a creature is or is not willing to be touched (and therefore take the effects of the spell); since allies are considered willing for beneficial/harmless spells, no attack roll is necessary. The rules for delivering touch spells to allies (or mass-touching) supersedes the general rules for iterative attacks.

Additionally, a common interpretation for the Raging Superstitious Barbarian is that they aren't willing participants of any spell; this could include any attempts being delivered to that character (assuming the Barbarian knows it's a spell). So, even if the Wizard is an Ally to the Barbarian for the Haste spell, he still has to make an Attack Roll for his Ally, because his Ally is not a willing target to be hit by (and therefore undergo the effects of) the spell.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

no

(to expand upon my earlier post of "no")

this is stupid, don't touch yourself mid battle. it's creepy.[/joke]


To reference the RAW I'm bringing up:

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
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.

The important part is bolded, albeit minorly misnomered, in that it's not (commonly) based upon whether your target is an opponent or not.

The key factor to note from the bolded part is that an Ally is willing, meaning no attack roll is required, whereas an Opponent is not willing, meaning an attack roll is required.

In my above scenario with the Superstitious Barbarian, he's not a willing target of the spell, meaning he would not be willing to be hit (as well as receive the full effects of) the spell, so you would have to make an attack roll for him, despite him being an ally. Of course, I'm sure the Specifics of the Superstition Rage Power supersedes the General rules of Touch Spells in Combat.


Sorry for the thread necro, but an interesting consequence of "you can be your own enemy", would mean that you could threaten yourself.

And all the feats that state "as long as you are the only one threatening" as a condition would be wholly negated by anyone that is able to consider themselves their own enemy/opponent, and have a weapon in hand, and thus threaten them.


The Morphling wrote:

Okay, I know this is gonna be pretty unorthodox and weird, so bear with me. Is it possible to attack yourself as part of a full attack? I'm working with my blood conduit bloodrager, and I was thinking that an interesting way to throw a quick self-buff on himself during combat would be to hit himself with an unarmed strike with his lowest iterative, and use the Spell Conduit ability to throw a beneficial touch spell on himself at the end of a full attack. Yes, I know, it specifies "an enemy." Ignore that bit for this thread.

I like the visual too - he tears open the skin on his chest as his boiling blood morphs into a wreath of flame around him, or something. Is there anything stopping you from making an attack against yourself in this manner?

Sorry, thread necro again. I was searching for information regarding this exact topic, and while it did not give me an answer I was looking for, I felt the need to point out something that admittedly took me a while to find. I knew there was somewhere in Pathfinder that it was written (if not partially) that attacking yourself didn't require an attack roll, that the attack was automatic. And I'm still sure it's lurking about in a spell somewhere.

But from Tanglefoot bag:

Quote:
A creature that is glued to the floor (or unable to fly) can break free by making a DC 17 Strength check or by dealing 15 points of damage to the goo with a slashing weapon. A creature trying to scrape goo off itself, or another creature assisting, does not need to make an attack roll; hitting the goo is automatic, after which the creature that hit makes a damage roll to see how much of the goo was scraped off.

Again, I'm sure it's also lurking about in a spell or ability somewhere (probably something involving self damage for a benefit or ability) but from that excerpt, I would probably rule that attacking yourself did not require an attack roll. It would still require a standard action, etc, to make the attack, but I would assume you aren't attacking wildly. You'd know to slash/stab/bludeon your hand/arm/foot that wasn't covered by armor if the aim was to draw blood (say ritual magic?) or maim yourself. And only issue I could see would be having a DM force you to make a Fortitude save to see if you could bring yourself to do it, but if they make you roll for that, they're sadistic.

Also, taking the above argument into consideration, could someone slash themselves for 5+ points of damage and benefit from the spell Blood Armor? I would think yes, given it doesn't specifically state an opponent (I'd wager if a trap caused you to suffer 5+ P/S damage you'd still get it.)

Let me know what you think!


scraping goo off of yourself != attacking yourself

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
scraping goo off of yourself != attacking yourself

+1

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This comes up with Poisoner's Gloves and alchemists/investigators. I just avoid it to avoid table variation. Getting to use one of my 5 attacks to self buff would be helpful, but generally things that break action economy tend to either be wrong or eventually get clarified not to work or work in a less beneficial manner. Potion Glutton, weapon cords, quickrunner's shirt, etc., so I try not to abuse the gloves. Being able to deliver an infusion to someone else in combat as a standard action is good enough.


Liches can heal themselves with their Negative energy Attacks but it requires a Full round action to do.

So it's harder for them to heal themselves than it is to heal another undead with their Touch attack.


Stephen Ede wrote:

Liches can heal themselves with their Negative energy Attacks but it requires a Full round action to do.

So it's harder for them to heal themselves than it is to heal another undead with their Touch attack.

which is stupid, it take a longer time to touch yourself (pun intented) than to touch an ally i was expecting that the lich would take a swift like the paladin, especially since its negative energy touch only deal 1d8+1 point per 2 HD


Then again if you pick up the ability to heal from Negative Energy Damage without becoming undead.
Then have the party arcane caster cast chill touch. Each time he touches you, you heal 1d6 hit point to a max of 1d6 x CL.
That's pretty serious healing for a 1st level spell. Especially from an Arcane caster.
He can attack using 2 weapon unarmed fighting against your unresisting defense AC 0,
or for efficiency he can coup de grace you for an automatic critcial each turn.


Stephen Ede wrote:

Then again if you pick up the ability to heal from Negative Energy Damage without becoming undead.

Then have the party arcane caster cast chill touch. Each time he touches you, you heal 1d6 hit point to a max of 1d6 x CL.
That's pretty serious healing for a 1st level spell. Especially from an Arcane caster.
He can attack using 2 weapon unarmed fighting against your unresisting defense AC 0,
or for efficiency he can coup de grace you for an automatic critcial each turn.

no chill touch do not heal undead it does that instead

''An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4 rounds + 1 round per caster level.''

so we can assume it does the same thing to non undead since the spell was made before living creature were healed by negative energy


Hmmm. Personally I think the whole "undead heal from negative energy unless specifically stated otherwise struggle under a mass of assumptions already.

But if people do follow that argument then since Chill Touch doesn't specifically state it doesn't heal living creatures that are healed negative energy.

Just playing Devils Advocate here. :P


Stephen Ede wrote:

Hmmm. Personally I think the whole "undead heal from negative energy unless specifically stated otherwise struggle under a mass of assumptions already.

But if people do follow that argument then since Chill Touch doesn't specifically state it doesn't heal living creatures that are healed negative energy.

Just playing Devils Advocate here. :P

i would just refer to what the dhampir say about negative energy affinity

''Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.''

normally negative energy heal undead and since the dhampir is treated as undead for negative energy then the spell would do the same effect to the dhampir as if it were an undead

Scarab Sages

Yeah, I don't think chill touch would heal. Other abilities/spells do, but will usually say they do, like fervor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
The word "enemy" isn't really a mechanical term.

The words "enemy" and "opponent" have very mechanical effects when used in the descriptions of many spells.

E.g. Invisibility. Try telling your DM, "I don't consider the people I just hit with my Fireball to be opponents, so my Invisibility spells does not break."


Snowlilly wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
The word "enemy" isn't really a mechanical term.

The words "enemy" and "opponent" have very mechanical effects when used in the descriptions of many spells.

E.g. Invisibility. Try telling your DM, "I don't consider the people I just hit with my Fireball to be opponents, so my Invisibility spells does not break."

nope its not even mechanical even by invisibility here what it say about attacking.

''The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.''

even invisibility say that the term foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions which mean it is subjective not objective


Huh. That actually opens up an interesting point for Invisibility abuse. If you define your foes as allies, you can target them with offensive spells all you want and you'll stay hidden. Because you're just spellin your "allies," that is.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think mutual consent is required to designate someone as an ally.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you attack yourself as part of a full attack? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.