Am I correct that one has to successfully attack in order to be able to cast a spell (or effect of an item) of range touch?
At the same time time attacking and casting a spell means two actions in one round, and is in general not possible. R: Touch spells are typically not cast on resisting enemies in combat, unless you have one or two grogs to restrain them.
That's why I had item effect in parentheses.
Triggering an item to attack something is roughly the same as casting a spell - unless you design a highly dangerous 'mine' type of item, like one which goes off every time it touches something with the right part.
In the latter situation you might turn yourself into a spar torpedo boat, attack somebody with that part and hope that nobody else touches it before: your SG will adjudicate botches.
I thought about hitting a target should qualify. And if not, even saying a command word should be easier than casting a spell.
An InMe trigger might be an alternative as well.
It wouldn't yet give the enchanted item a target, would it? So you need to say first the command word, that better be complicated enough to not get the device primed accidentally, and afterwards hit with it, in the same round - right? That is at the verrry best an attack with much reduced chances to hit. Think of Kendokas having to announce their strike before performing it.
It poses the same problems, but usually requires that you drop your MR for the item to read your mind as well - in the middle of combat. Really risky.
With all precautions taken, attacking with an enchanted device without incurring penalties for weirdness takes the same place in combat as casting a spell.
Before putting yourself at the mercy of your troupe and SG with tricky proposals, you might consider ArM5 p.173 Defender, and in combat become the character defended by your shield grog.
Well, what about the target is whomever the attack hit?
Yeah, definitely defender... Might die before hitting otherwise But I'd still have successfully attack in order to use range touch, right?
If your target resists and isn't immobilized: yes. This makes R: Touch magic effects verrry complicated and unlikely to succeed in combat.
OP may be referring to their magus’s Talisman, which gets around this problem with P:Range, and since InMe is one of the strengths of the character eldarin might be posing these questions for, it looks very feasible, and useful for further InMe-triggered effects .
Your talisman's effects still need to overcome your MR, right? And that MR typically grows over time, while the Penetration of instilled effects doesn't. So were back to dropping MR in combat for your talisman to read your mind, right?
According to AM5 page 85 and 98 actually no.
Right now I'll still have the problem that I first have to hit a target though. Too many abilities to have to have - not very high scores and an especially low score in weapon.
Would Fast Casting via Mastery allow you to both cast the spell and touch a person in combat in one round?
So, you need to maintain "spells = effects" to make the argument conclusive. But:
This holds especially for ArM5 p.99 Linked Trigger effects, which can't be just replaced by spells.
If you wish to rule around this, best discuss this with your troupe.
I'd personally judge this as an oversight of an edge case.
Usually only spells can have range personal, a device effect needs at least touch unless the item is a talisman.
Same goes for
Only a talisman could have something below touch.
But you are right. Taking the text by the letter the magic resistance reference is for spells and effects are of course effects and not spells.
I wonder in how many cases taking AM5 and supplements to the letter leads to contradictions...
Performance magic in The Mysteries p29 mentions using Brawl or Martial abilities to cast spells, and that you take three extra botch dice and treat all non-botch rolls as rolls of zero. So say you don't have Performance magic, you'd need to take a penalty for replacing normal movements with a combat move to touch your opponent and risk all those extra botch dice...
Take a look at the accumulated errata for ArM5 over some 12 years here.
Consider, how easy it would have been to errata those three lines you don't like - but they are kept, and don't lead to contradictions.
This does prevent your troupe in no way from taking the responsibility and overruling them, or course.
Not by Fast Casting from ArM5 p.83. It would just be another house rule.
In the particular case that let me bring up the question this would not apply imho because of subtle and quiet (2x) magic.
I don't think I argued for why I don't like those lines.
And if you're using LoM, Ch. 9?