Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheViking 02-01-07, 03:16 PM	Hi folks, a bit of a quandry came up the other night, the gm had already ruled on it, but a player whom hadent been at that game wouldent accept the GM ruling and has brought the matter back up. His character is a wizard, so it kinda does have an effect on his game play. My character is a Dwarfen Paladin.... its basically the terms used in the DnD book... its ambiguous... ok.. certain spells are Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Range: Touch Target: Creature or item touched Range: Touch Target: One touched piece of rope from 5 ft. to 30 ft. long Range: Touch Target: One touched book or written work Range: Touch Target: One willing creature or object (up to a 2-ft. cube/level) touched ok.. I'll stop there.. I cant find anywhere, in the book (latest version) that says you cant touch more than 1 creature at the same time. (It does not say that the term "creature touched" is only one creature, and does not say that in a standard action more than one creature can be touched) i.e My paladin has 2 hands, he places his left hand on the wizard and his right hand on the Bard and says to his god, resist energy spell please. Level: Clr 2, Drd 2, Fire 3, Pal 2, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 10 min./level Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) it does not state you can only touch one creature as some spells do Range: Touch Target: One Creature touched The wizard player, says that, and this was part of his argument, the statement is Target: "A" Creature touched. This is not the case.... What I need to know, if people can get back to me via this thread, is have they had this problem, did they solve it... cheers folks Viking
Thiez 02-01-07, 03:22 PM	If you can use a spell on multiple targets, it is mentioned in the spell description. Else, assume it only targets a single creature.
Loki5654 02-01-07, 03:30 PM	Resist Energy Abjuration Level: Clr 2, Drd 2, Fire 3, Pal 2, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 10 min./level Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The subject gains energy resistance 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature’s hit points. The value of the energy resistance granted increases to 20 points at 7th level and to a maximum of 30 points at 11th level. The spell protects the recipient’s equipment as well. Resist energy absorbs only damage. The subject could still suffer unfortunate side effects. Note: Resist energy overlaps (and does not stack with) protection from energy. If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted. Notice how everything is singular? That's a big hint right there. Touch You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.Spells that allow multiple targets or touches (such as Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm) or Chill Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm)) specifically say so in their descriptions. Your wizard friend is correct.
Vedic Cold 02-01-07, 03:41 PM	Ditto. A spell that can affect multiple targets per casting will specifically mention this. Otherwise, the singular form of "Creature Touched" means exactly that - one creature.
TheViking 02-01-07, 03:41 PM	hi, thanks guys... if its the case that the phrase creature touched is a singular, and not meant as multiples.. Why have the need to state in certain spells ONE creature touched... why not leave it as creature touched??? see my point? Viking
Vedic Cold 02-01-07, 03:45 PM	Likely, it's a simple matter of having multiple people working on one writing project. It's unfortunate, but such minor discrepancies do happen. Complete standardization of terminology and format is certainly desirable, but difficult to achieve. However, consider it from a basic point of view of a writer who assumes his readers will understand that "Creature Touched" is singular, not plural. I wouldn't think it's too much of a reach.
Despana 02-01-07, 03:48 PM	Because it's in english and this isn't exactly the most consistant language around? Not to mention that the books are written by several people at once. Still, One Creature touched and Creature Touched are both singular terms. They mean one creature. Examples of more than one creature would be Creatures touched (as many as you like), One Creature touched per level (self-explanatory), etc.
TheViking 02-01-07, 03:52 PM	Hi vedic... if there are 5 people working on a project, the first thing they do, is make sure the are all working with the same parameters.... i.e. all reports are don in the same font type, font size etc. ... all terms mean the same thing. e.g.The term Strategic information strategy can not be allowed to mean 1 thing to 1 person and another to a different person, since in industry this would be catastrophic... I understand what your saying, but, still doesent explain why certain spells explicitly state "one creature" whilst others state creature touched... As stated, GM ruled that bar turning into a 23 armed creature that touching more than 1 creature in an action was possbile, and that it was acceptable in our game, ALL players present agreed to that GM ruling. (thats 5 players) The guy playing the wizard objects.
Merestil Haye 02-01-07, 04:12 PM	e.g.The term Strategic information strategy can not be allowed to mean 1 thing to 1 person and another to a different person, since in industry this would be catastrophic... I understand what your saying, but, still doesent explain why certain spells explicitly state "one creature" whilst others state creature touched... But that's not what happened here. This is not a case of one word or phrase being used to mean two different things. This is a case of two different phrases being used to mean the same thing. That's not at all problematic, unless one of those phrases carries another meaning elsewhere. Are you seriously suggesting that has happened? If so, please cite it. "Creature touched" is singular. It means one creature and not multiple creatures. As stated, GM ruled that bar turning into a 23 armed creature that touching more than 1 creature in an action was possbile, and that it was acceptable in our game, ALL players present agreed to that GM ruling. (thats 5 players) The guy playing the wizard objects.And I don't blame him in the slightest. When the 20-armed cleric comes along and casts Heighetend Death Touch, and touches every one of you, which character is the one who will fail his save? You have allowed this monstrosity. Don't complain when it bites you on the backside.
TheViking 02-01-07, 04:18 PM	erm, did you actually READ the quote you cited? I said BAR the 23 armed creature.... and you still step over the point I make, no where in the book does it give a definitive declaration as to you can only touch ONE CREATURE in the wording "creature touched". It does however say on certain spells "ONE CREATURE TOUCHED", again, my point is why would it not say this for all spells that are touch and related to one creature. its not black and white. Creature touched is open to interpretations, since again, it does not state in the book that you cant touch 2 creatures at the same time with one hand on each.. OR even in an action, move round your actual comrades and touch each in turn... you show me anywhere in the book about how many "hands" it takes to touch... and I'll bow down to your better knowledge
Loki5654 02-01-07, 04:26 PM	and you still step over the point I make, no where in the book does it give a definitive declaration as to you can only touch ONE CREATURE in the wording "creature touched".It doesn't need to. Basic comprehension of the english language takes care of that. Otherwise the PHB would have to come with a copy of the dictionary. It does however say on certain spells "ONE CREATURE TOUCHED", again, my point is why would it not say this for all spells that are touch and related to one creature.Please cite some references from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/), I can't recall any at the moment. its not black and white.Yes it really is, you are just choosing to not see it that way because it happens to benefit you at the moment. I'm certain that if your DM saw this thread, he'd probably change his ruling.
tarkin 02-01-07, 04:26 PM	The rules are as follows: 1) Touching an unwilling creature takes a succesfull attack roll. Often you can do this ONE time as part of casting a spell. If the spell lets you do multiple attacks, only a single one can be done as part of the spell. 2) You can touch upto 6 willing creatures as a Full Round Action. 3) You can touch a single willing creature without a roll as a standard action. 4) Spells that do not specifically state they work on multiple creatures can only be used on a single creature. It does not matter how many hands you have, you can touch people with a leg, your nose, a tentacle, private parts, your tongue, etc.
Merestil Haye 02-01-07, 04:28 PM	erm, did you actually READ the quote you cited? I said BAR the 23 armed creature.... and you still step over the point I make, no where in the book does it give a definitive declaration as to you can only touch ONE CREATURE in the wording "creature touched". It does however say on certain spells "ONE CREATURE TOUCHED", again, my point is why would it not say this for all spells that are touch and related to one creature. its not black and white.Yes I did. My point is that your DMs ruling opens the door to that and similar abuses. It is wrong, pure and simple. Using two words or phrases to avoid excessive repetition is something done in every piece of writing. The same words used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again lose meaning eventually. This is not a case of using one word to mean two things - it is using two words with similar denotations as synonyms. If it uses the singular, it means one and only one. There are no alternative constructions that would allow you to interpret it as multiple creatures. None at all. If it meant between one and four creatures it would say "Up to four creatures touched."
Vegepygmy 02-01-07, 04:46 PM	I said BAR the 23 armed creature....So you're going to have a different rule for 23-armed creatures? It does however say on certain spells "ONE CREATURE TOUCHED", again, my point is why would it not say this for all spells that are touch and related to one creature.Please cite some references from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/), I can't recall any at the moment.There is not a single spell in the Player's Handbook with a "Target: One creature touched" entry. I believe TheViking is mingling his sources.
journeyman777 02-01-07, 04:51 PM	Touch You must touch a creature or object to affect it.....Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. This makes it clear you make one touch at a time (so you can't claim you are "touching" two creatures simultaneously). Touch Spells and Holding the Charge In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.The ability to hold the charge is clearly the default for touch spells (which is contradictory to assuming multiple touch ability when it is not specified). Spells that allow multiple touches (chill touch, waterbreathing, ect) specify in the spell description. All other touch spells (1) may be held, (2) must be delivered by a touch attack (auto hits on allies), (3) is discharged on the first successful touch attack. I honestly fail to see how your group came to any other conclusion or why your DM would allow it.
TheViking 02-01-07, 05:12 PM	did i or did i not in my first post show a number of target creature touched examples in my first post? tarkin "4) Spells that do not specifically state they work on multiple creatures can only be used on a single creature." What page in the DnD players handbook is that from? Vegepygmy "So you're going to have a different rule for 23-armed creatures?" Yes, that was part of what was worked out by the players and the GM The GM was fine with it until the wizard player decided to throw his oar into the mix So.. we ended up going back over the same ground we'd done before.. I dont know how you run you games, but as far as I;m concerned the GM or DM, is GOD, what he or she says is law. BUT, we have a player who wants to overturn the GM/DM hence all this. May i ask if you are going to post a quote from a book, please say which book. I only have the players hand book and as such all my quotes will be coming from there unless otherwise stated. Merestil Haye As to using something over and over and over and over and over.. Ever written a large report and had to cite every book you used? and the authors, some books have numerous authors... thats why they use "Et al"... IF the authors of the DnD players handbook meant that ALL touch spells were only to be used once on one creature, they should have put TARGET: ONE CREATURE on every single solitary spell unless they are a multiple. Ignorance is not a defence as HM Customs and Revenue say. example for you.. and please answer honestly a motorbike has 2 wheels, a seat, handle bars lights and a big engine... can this in any way be called a bicycle??? You would think not, so parking in a bicycle bay in the local town center would be a serious no no, and get you a serious fine... YET the vehicle duty license due on a motorbike is classed as a BICYCLE... I own 2 motorbikes... but as far as the government is concerned they are both bicycles. How does that relate to this.. I hear you ask.. both can be interpreted in several ways.
Loki5654 02-01-07, 06:10 PM	did i or did i not in my first post show a number of target creature touched examples in my first post?Yes, you did. Your wizard friend's correct interpretation and your incorrect interpretation. tarkin "4) Spells that do not specifically state they work on multiple creatures can only be used on a single creature." What page in the DnD players handbook is that from?Powers of spells are explicitly defined in thier entries. You cannot assume a spell has the power to do something just because the entry doesn't say it doesn't. After all, the entry doesn't say that casting Wish kills a kitten, so why would you assume it does? Spells only have the power to do what is specifically stated in their descriptions. I dont know how you run you games, but as far as I;m concerned the GM or DM, is GOD, what he or she says is law. BUT, we have a player who wants to overturn the GM/DM hence all this.The player is correct in terms of the Rules As Written. Sure, your DM has Rule Zero authority in his game but just because he's chosen to make it true in his game does not make it true in all games. May i ask if you are going to post a quote from a book, please say which book. I only have the players hand book and as such all my quotes will be coming from there unless otherwise stated.Not all of us have the luxury of sitting near our books at all times. Most of use the online SRD for quoting purposes. IF the authors of the DnD players handbook meant that ALL touch spells were only to be used once on one creature, they should have put TARGET: ONE CREATURE on every single solitary spell unless they are a multiple."If the developers meant for Wish not to kill kittens, they would have said so!" Don't assume the developers intent. All we can go off of is what they wrote. In the case of Resist Elements, they used "Target: creature touched" and singular tenses all throughout the spell. The logical assumption is that it can only affect one creature per casting. I still find it hard to believe that you can somehow arrive at a different conclusion. a motorbike has 2 wheels, a seat, handle bars lights and a big engine... can this in any way be called a bicycle???Yes. All motorbikes are bicycles. Bi (meaning two) and cycle (meaning wheels) therefore any conveyance with two wheels is technically a bicycle. Again, just because you've chosen to view things differently doesn't make it true for eveyone else.
Seeker95 02-01-07, 06:13 PM	It sounds like you (or this other player) have already decided that you (or this other player) want someone to show you (or this other player) an explicit page that spells out the common sense or consistency of telling you (or this other player) "no, it doesn't work that way". You (or this other player) won't find it, because it isn't there. Go ahead and tell your DM that nobody was able to prove you (or this other player) wrong, and that you (or this other player) should be able to run it the way you (or this other player) are interpreting it. In my game, that would be called cheating. Then again, in my game, this discussion would have already been over, and it sounds like your DM might be willing to continue it. It might be worth seeing what you (or this other player) can get away with.
risner 02-01-07, 06:59 PM	Why have the need to state in certain spells ONE creature touched... why not leave it as creature touched??? see my point? I see your point, but your point is based on confusion about the basic operation of the game. If the spell allows more than one creature, it will absolutely say so. It will be explicit, in terms of "one creature per level" or some such language. If the spell is harmless (like Waterbreathing) and multiple targets, then you can apply it to up to six friends in a round as a full round action. its not black and white. Creature touched is open to interpretations, It is black and white, and it is not open to interpretations. At least not if you have read the DMG/PHB.
allenchan 02-01-07, 07:11 PM	I think someone needs to meet a hammergun, face to face. :P
wizard of Newfoundland 02-01-07, 07:14 PM	Since you already seem to have your mind made up and don't want to listen to other people b/c they are using common sense and cannot offer a actual paragraph that states that the word creature is plural why not just e-mail wizards directly and get it over with.
Loki5654 02-01-07, 07:21 PM	I think someone needs to meet a hammergun, face to face. :PHey, c'mon. Let's try and keep this civil. If the thread gets locked because of this, we won't get to resolve the discussion.
Seeker95 02-01-07, 07:40 PM	If the thread gets locked because of this, we won't get to resolve the discussion.It's not resolved? :confused:
Loki5654 02-01-07, 07:47 PM	It's not resolved? :confused:Not really. Many of us (myself included) keep saying "its simple english, the word is singular". TheViking keeps saying "that's not what I think and there is no possibility I am wrong". So, no resolution yet.
journeyman777 02-01-07, 07:57 PM	It's not over until: a. The OP proves himself right. b. The OP admits to being wrong c. This thread scrolls off the first page (thereby signifying total lack of further interest by the OP and everyone else). Hey, c'mon. Let's try and keep this civil. If the thread gets locked because of this, we won't get to resolve the discussion.I second the motion.
Vegepygmy 02-01-07, 08:10 PM	if its the case that the phrase creature touched is a singular, and not meant as multiples.. Why have the need to state in certain spells ONE creature touched... why not leave it as creature touched???There is not a single spell in the Player's Handbook with a "Target: One creature touched" entry.did i or did i not in my first post show a number of target creature touched examples in my first post?Yes. You also wrote: it does not state you can only touch one creature as some spells do Range: Touch Target: One Creature touched Now, find that spell in the PHB. You claim "some spells do" have a Target of "one creature touched." Name one such spell (from the PHB). IF the authors of the DnD players handbook meant that ALL touch spells were only to be used once on one creature, they should have put TARGET: ONE CREATURE on every single solitary spell unless they are a multiple.They did!
risner 02-01-07, 08:37 PM	There is not a single "One creature touched" in PHB OR SpC (I just checked.) There are two "One Creature Touched per level" spells.