Full text of the ability:
"Laughing Touch (Su): At 1st level, you can cause a creature
to burst out laughing for 1 round as a melee touch attack.
A laughing creature can only take a move action and can
defend itself normally. Once a creature has been affected
by laughing touch, it is immune to its effects for 1 day."
1.) Can this be delivered using an unarmed strike, like a touch spell? Nothing in the text seems to preclude that.
2.) Does this ability require a standard action to use (again like a touch spell), or is it simply an attack action, which can be used with iterative attacks or attacks of opportunity?
Full text of the ability:
"Laughing Touch (Su): At 1st level, you can cause a creature
to burst out laughing for 1 round as a melee touch attack.
A laughing creature can only take a move action and can
defend itself normally. Once a creature has been affected
by laughing touch, it is immune to its effects for 1 day."1.) Can this be delivered using an unarmed strike, like a touch spell? Nothing in the text seems to preclude that.
2.) Does this ability require a standard action to use (again like a touch spell), or is it simply an attack action, which can be used with iterative attacks or attacks of opportunity?
1) Looks like it.
2) Looks like it.
I don't know, it would seem to me that since it's not a spell-like ability, that you can't deliver it in an unarmed strike. Being able to turn it into a melee attack seems to only apply to spells and spell-likes.
Full text of the ability:
"Laughing Touch (Su): At 1st level, you can cause a creature
to burst out laughing for 1 round as a melee touch attack.
A laughing creature can only take a move action and can
defend itself normally. Once a creature has been affected
by laughing touch, it is immune to its effects for 1 day."1.) Can this be delivered using an unarmed strike, like a touch spell? Nothing in the text seems to preclude that.
2.) Does this ability require a standard action to use (again like a touch spell), or is it simply an attack action, which can be used with iterative attacks or attacks of opportunity?
I don't know of any specific text to support this, but it can all be deduced accurately from the BETA rule book:
Punching (an unarmed strike) always takes at least a complete standard action. Even a 20th level fighter cannot punch an enemy more than once in a standard action, nor can he do something else like hit you with his sword or throw a dagger or whatever, in the same round that he punches his enemy.
Neither can a sorcerer, even if he has monk levels.
Casting a spell, or using the Laughing Touch supernatural ability, is also a standard action to perform.
You never get two standard actions in the same round, so there is no way for your character to cast a spell or use this ability and also to punch the enemy in the same round.
Ergo:
1.) No, you cannot deliver a spell or a (su) ability with an unarmed strike unless you cast the spell on one round and "hold the charge" until you deliver the spell on a later round.
2.) Yes.
Supernatural Abilities: Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Side note:
When you deliver a touch attack, you ignore some parts of the enemy's armor, making it much easier to land the attack. For example, making a normal attack against the Dragonne in the Bonus Bestiary requires an attack against AC 19, but making a touch attack is against AC 11. So you will hit much more often with your touch attacks.
But if you want to make a real unarmed attack like a monk, you must make it against the normal AC, not the touch AC. So, if you cast your spell/su power on round 1, then touch the Dragonne, you need to beat touch AC 11, but if you hold the charge and punch him on round 2, you need to beat his normal ac 19.
I believe, though I cannot back it up, that should you roll an 18 or less, you miss the dragonne and lose the spell, so you might want to just touch the enemy to be much more certain to get the effect.
Some DMs, myself included, would say that if you roll enough to hit the touch AC but miss the real AC, you have essentially touched the target and can discharge your spell, but you failed to land a damaging blow, so your normal unarmed damage would not be applied. I think this is a generous ruling, and many DMs would disagree, so talk it over with your DM first.
Some DMs, myself included, would say that if you roll enough to hit the touch AC but miss the real AC, you have essentially touched the target and can discharge your spell, but you failed to land a damaging blow, so your normal unarmed damage would not be applied. I think this is a generous ruling, and many DMs would disagree, so talk it over with your DM first.
I've always ruled it like this, honestly. Not that the spell situation described has ever come up. But, for purposes of describing the fight and adjudicating some other abilities, I keep track of touch vs standard ac and describe accordingly.
Miss the touch AC? You missed the target completely.
Hit the touch, but missed the full ac? Your sword clangs off the beasts scales.
Hit the full ac? Your sword bites deep between two scales and blood splatters.
The reason? Some creatures have special properties (Acidic skin, destroy weapons on attack, electrical discharge) that can happen when they are touched. So it's important to know when someone touches them vs someone damages them. By the same token, some special weapons have special benefits (Someone had a frost weapon that did one point if it touched any creature or object, no matter whether the weapon did damage or not, so we needed to know if he hit and clanged off, or whiffed). Made getting around in a dungeon a little easier sometimes (push the sword against the door, and wait until the door freezes solid and shatters, same with a wall). Granted, took a LONG time to do that to a door and longer to a wall, but still...
The touch AC vs hit AC is something I've toyed with before, but only for flavor purposes.
Seems like a lot of bookkeeping.
|
The touch AC vs hit AC is something I've toyed with before, but only for flavor purposes.
Seems like a lot of bookkeeping.
If you have the critter statted out already in front of you, then should be easy. Just look to see where the die roll falls. If you don't have the critter in front of you, then I wouldn't bother with it.
Punching (an unarmed strike) always takes at least a complete standard action. Even a 20th level fighter cannot punch an enemy more than once in a standard action....
Perhaps not, but he could punch you at least 4 times as a full-round action.
Here's what I'm getting:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches,
kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee
weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity:
...
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks:
...
Unarmed Strike Damage:
...
Dealing Lethal Damage:
...
Asside for these exceptions it says that it works just like a weapon attack; here's nothing saying you can't make an unarmed strike any time that you could make an attack with a weapon, unless I'm missing something.
And here's the rules for discharging a touch spell with your fist:
...Alternatively, you may make a normal
unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon)
while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered
armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as
normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural
weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity,
neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal
damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon
and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are
still holding the charge.
The only reason I wasn't sure was because the language in this chapter seems to refer to spells. The main question is whether or not a character imploying a SU has the option of "holding the charge".
But I kind of agree with other posters who suggest they should be treated the same.Supernatural Abilities: Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Ah! Thanks blake, that's what I was looking for (since the ability doesn't list an action cost, I thought it might be usable on any attack action, like a lantern archon's rays or any other nonstandard attack).
I use RAW for delivering with a touch attack (even though it stretches credability to have your hand hit their sheild and not discharge the spell) because it creates an interesting choice. If you can hit with the spell by hitting their touch AC either way (and if you have a natural weapon or other means of not provoking) why would you not deliver it as an attack?
That's a very common (and sensible) houserule though, and I don't think it would be hard to keep track of.
"since the ability doesn't list an action cost"
Looked to me like it included the ability as part of an attack action. You can only do it once per creature per day, and it has a save doesn't it? Perfectly fine to do it that way. You can't just assume that it's a standard action when it says "as a melee touch attack". That means it's part of the attack action. I seem to recall glancing over many abilities that work this way, and when they intend for them to be unavailable in a full attack, they are specifically written as standard or full round actions.
It doesn't allow a save, actually (which I'm happy about- requiring a melee touch AND a save is too much of a longshot for low-level wizards- but it does make it a potent at-will ability).
There are a few other supernatural abilities in the sorceror lass which don't have action costs listed (even ones which should obviously be a standard action, like elemental blast), which leads me to think that this could just be an oversight, unless the fact that it is an attack is ment to imply that it's an attack action.
|
I'm relatively certain you always had the option of delivering a touch spell with an unarmed strike in the 3.5 D&D game and that delivering the spell is part of casting it so you don't end up having to hold the charge before swinging. You do end up attacking the creatures regular Armor Class as opposed to touch AC, but you deal Unarmed Strike damage.
I have no idea about Supernatural Abilities though, I'd probably say no if it wasn't definitively in the rule book.
I'm relatively certain you always had the option of delivering a touch spell with an unarmed strike in the 3.5 D&D game and that delivering the spell is part of casting it so you don't end up having to hold the charge before swinging. You do end up attacking the creatures regular Armor Class as opposed to touch AC, but you deal Unarmed Strike damage.
I have no idea about Supernatural Abilities though, I'd probably say no if it wasn't definitively in the rule book.
I don't think you do or did have this ability.
Aiming to punch someone in the face, or claw their guts out, or whatever (actual damage, rather than a light touch) requries you to find an opening in their defenses (a real opening, not just touching them on their shield), wind up, put your muscle into it, and commit your body to the attack.
Which is why doing that takes a standard action, even for the monk who is master of unarmed attacks. Even for bears and dragons and such who are born with their claws and make unarmed (or at least weaponless) attacks from birth.
Mages are no different.
Delivering a touch is a light swipe with your hand, and you're satisfied to barely brush against their armor, shield, scales, toe, whatever. This you can do in the same round as casting your spell.
But as long as the spell takes a standard action, and the puch/claw takes a standard action, you are going to need a way to make two standard actions to do them both in the same round.
Even in 3.x.
Morgen, the option for delivering a spell with an unarmed strike has always been listed under the "holding the charge" heading, which suggests that you can't do it on the same round that you cast a spell (unlike making a regular melee touch). Blake raises some good points in terms of why (from a simulationist perspective) that would be.
This isn't perfectly clear and I couldn't give you a sage advice/FAQ ruling going either way, but that's how I would read it.
However, you can cast chill touch and make a touch attack as part of that action, then make an unarmed full-attack (flurry of blows/iterative attacks/etc.) the next round, delivering a chill touch with each hit until the spell runs out.
It would be nice for fighter/mages (or monk/mages) if there were more touch spells that gave multiple touches.
Blake raises some good points in terms of why (from a simulationist perspective) that would be.
Actually, I think it's from a gamist perspective. Sure, I threw a little simulationist stuff in there to justify the gamism...
Really, in life punching takes very little effort. Compared to a gentle touch, punching is next to nothing. Clawing is even less effort than punching.
So from a simulationist perspective, I would probably allow punching and delivering a spell in the same round.
It's the gamist in me that says:
1. The rules forbid it.
2. The rules are fairly well balanced, so I won't break them unless I see a clear need to do so.
3. Allowing a spell and a melee attack in the same round is essentially allowing two actions in one round.
4. Nobody else gets two actions in one round, or specifically, in a simple standard action.
5. So while I see no clear reason to break the balanced rules, I see a clear reason not to.
Ergo, RAW says no, and the houseruler in me says this is a dangerous and broken houserule that I wouldn't consider for my own game.
That gamist in me squelches the simulationist in me.
Morgen, the option for delivering a spell with an unarmed strike has always been listed under the "holding the charge" heading, which suggests that you can't do it on the same round that you cast a spell (unlike making a regular melee touch).
But that you can do it.
So you just have to work out whether the ability in the OP was a standard action or part of a melee attack action or what.
None of which has been sufficiently revealed, but I'd lean towards part of a melee attack; since it specifically said "melee touch attack".
Action-wise, a melee touch attack and melee attack are the same thing. The touch attack is just easier.
So you just have to work out whether the ability in the OP was a standard action or part of a melee attack action or what.
None of which has been sufficiently revealed
Actually, it was revealed, in the 4th post on this thread:
Supernatural Abilities: Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Standard action.
First - there was *definitely* a Sage Advice about this at some point (can't access the FAQ right now to check what/when), that's what alerted me to the potential to do it in the first place.
Second - as long as you allow holding the charge, you can definitely make multiple unarmed strikes (if you have them) to deliver it the next round. If you can't hold the charge you could not of course.
Third - I've generally been willing to allow an unarmed strike to deliver when the spell is cast, but this case does bring up a good reason to reconsider that. And unless the sage advice mentions it, I don't know of any rule source to back it up. Best place to find a rule would probably be the section on Touch spells. I saw it as balanced since you're delivering just a single attack, not multiples.
So.
1 - Maybe on the first round
2 - Yes, attack action/flurry.
usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description).
Standard action.
Nah. The text saying melee touch attack makes me think that it could've been intended otherwise. I'll grant you that it's probably a standard action.
Full text of the ability:
"Laughing Touch (Su): At 1st level, you can cause a creature
to burst out laughing for 1 round as a melee touch attack.
A laughing creature can only take a move action and can
defend itself normally. Once a creature has been affected
by laughing touch, it is immune to its effects for 1 day."1.) Can this be delivered using an unarmed strike, like a touch spell? Nothing in the text seems to preclude that.
2.) Does this ability require a standard action to use (again like a touch spell), or is it simply an attack action, which can be used with iterative attacks or attacks of opportunity?
Something inside me says no.
You can only perform touch attacks with a charged spell, which requires some sort of intent to properly place it without losing your fingers in the process.
An unarmed attack is trying to do damage in a physical fashion, which requires its own concentration. You can't concentrate on doing damage with your knuckles and with releasing a spell charge correctly.
Otherwise, you can keep the charge in your hand all the live-long day, swinging swords, daggers, etc.
You can't concentrate on doing damage with your knuckles and with releasing a spell charge correctly.
You can, actually (I posted a rules quote with page reference earlier) The debate here is about something else. In terms of the rational for this, my thinking is that releasing a spell charge doesn't require any concentration or conscious effort at all- it just discharges on the first thing you touch (which is why making a touch attack is so easy, can be done for free on the action you cast the spell, and doesn't provoke. But I digress).
I do wish that "holding the charge" rule was more prominant (though I don't know where I'd put it, myself). It's one of those weird exceptions burried in the "combat" chapter, but if you're trying to build a gish or monk/caster, it's kind of a big deal.
The limitation on Supernatural abilities being used first as a standard action before being allowed as part of any sort of attack action is not to prevent players from cheesing it up as some sort of Monk/Sorc. I don't think it would hugely break the game if players were allowed to do this to the occasional monster. There just aren't that many (Su) abilities out there. Even extending it to spells, the extra damage potential probably is not game breaking, its just a little extra powerful for people who like that style of game.
No, the limitation is solidly there to help protect the players from monsters. Flurry of Blows/Vampire Slam attack? Sure why not. That should knock you to approximately level 1 in one full attack action.
This should definitely not be house ruled in without very careful consideration.
Edit: Looking at the 3.5 SRD, it looks like the Vampire had a limitation built in of "Once per round" so let's go with a Wraith instead.
That analogy breaks down somewhat, considering that a wraith can't deliver their touch attack as a regular attack anyway (their natural attack IS a touch attack). I don't remember the sage's ruling concerning how natural attacks interface with the monk class, but I do know that draining con does not take a standard action for the wraith: it is an effect explicitly tied to an attack and is not an action in itself. It triggers whether the wraith is making a standard attack, a full-attack (perhaps to take advantage of some feat), a charge attack or an attack of opportunity.
Unnatural Aura, Lifesense, and Create Spawn are all listed as supernatural abilities as well, but no one would argue that these powers require separate actions to activate. They're supplementary or "always on" powers (unlike a dragon's fire breath, or a sorcerer's Laughing Touch or Elemental Blast).
"This rule should exist to protect players from evil DMs" is a very weak line of reasoning by the way. ANY DM can demolish his players with no effort of he is actually out to get them; you don't need wraith monks to do that.
"This rule should exist to protect players from evil DMs" is a very weak line of reasoning by the way. ANY DM can demolish his players with no effort of he is actually out to get them; you don't need wraith monks to do that.
All fair points, the argument was somewhat weak. You were also kind overlook me mistyping "level 1" instead of "con 1". I will try to restate better:
From a standpoint where a lot of gaming group have standard table house rules for multiple DMs, or some sort of voting system to request and effect house rules, I would caution players to be careful what they wish for. Relaxing this rule will likely have much more opportunity to be used against them than for them by crafty (not necessarily malicious) DMs.
"This rule should exist to protect players from evil DMs" is a very weak line of reasoning by the way. ANY DM can demolish his players with no effort of he is actually out to get them; you don't need wraith monks to do that.All fair points, the argument was somewhat weak. You were also kind overlook me mistyping "level 1" instead of "con 1". I will try to restate better:
From a standpoint where a lot of gaming group have standard table house rules for multiple DMs, or some sort of voting system to request and effect house rules, I would caution players to be careful what they wish for. Relaxing this rule will likely have much more opportunity to be used against them than for them by crafty (not necessarily malicious) DMs.
Me, I plan on using a Ghoul advanced with a few levels of monk. Flurry of Paralysis FTW. Bite/claw/claw/claw/claw with 5 chances to paralyze on a hit.
Have a handful of those bad boys take on the group and it will be a paralysis-lock on the whole group.
And if they survive that, here come the Chaos Beast monks...
Yea, I kind of made a mistake in assuming an evil DM there. He might not even be 'crafty', just inexperienced, or placing too much faith in CR formulas. He might have no idea how deadly his kung-fu ghost will be.
Let me put it this way, though- most effects of that sort (those tied to a primary attack) aren't supernatural. If wraiths with cleave or whirlwind (applying their con damage to every attack) are a problem, then so are giant vipers with cleave or whirlwind. Ruling that the wraith's supernatural con-damage takes a standard action wouldn't be much of a fix; the fact is that DMs just need to be careful when making unique monsters.
I'm still not sure if monks with natural attacks are supposed to work that way, DM Blake. The core rules don't really touch on monsters with nonk levels, it's one of those things that was handled in a big clump of errata/FAQ at some point.
Not that it wouldn't be cool, mind you.
I'm still not sure if monks with natural attacks are supposed to work that way, DM Blake. The core rules don't really touch on monsters with nonk levels, it's one of those things that was handled in a big clump of errata/FAQ at some point.
Not that it wouldn't be cool, mind you.
Some touch attacks require a standard action to activate, such as the supernatural power OP described. Or casting Chill Touch.
Other special touch attacks like the paralysis of a ghoul or the destabilization of a chaos beast do not require any activation at all. They are always on. Think King Midas - everything he touched turned to gold, even his food, his wife, his child. Same with ghouls and chaos beasts (and many other always-on, no activation required creature touch effects).
So a ghoul monk would, in fact, paralyze with every touch. It would really be no different than the question of whether a flaming sword does fire damage on every attack you make in the same round. Surely a fighter with iterative attacks can use his flaming sword more than once and inflict the fire damage on every hit, because the flames are always-on, no activation required.
Of course, I doubt you can advance a ghoul with class levels given the lack of intelligence. I'm sure you cannot advance a chaos beast in this way.
Unless you Awaken them first, or apply some other sentience-bestowing magic on them...
Bwu ha ha ha HA!
So a ghoul monk would, in fact, paralyze with every touch.
I'm still not sure if monks with natural attacks are supposed to work that way, DM Blake. The core rules don't really touch on monsters with nonk levels, it's one of those things that was handled in a big clump of errata/FAQ at some point. Not that it wouldn't be cool, mind you.
The WotC errata said that claw attacks specifically do not count as monk unarmed strikes, nor as vampire slams, etc. And furthermore that Su attacks apply only to the natural attacks for which they're listed, not for other unarmed strikes. So a ghast monk, for example, could flurry with unarmed strikes (no paralysis)... but could still use a free claw to make a single secondary claw attack (paralysis possible) and still make its secondary bite attack as normal.
However, a flurry of paralysis, as you point out, is just too cool to pass up. So as a challenge for my group in Scuttleport, I made a new feat that allowed Su abilities to be channeled through unarmed strikes, in addition to the specified natural attacks.
Me, I plan on using a Ghoul advanced with a few levels of monk. Flurry of Paralysis FTW. Bite/claw/claw/claw/claw with 5 chances to paralyze on a hit.
Where does it say that a natural weapon is a special monk weapon that can be used in a flurry?
Edit: Ninja'd By Kirth.
What, no one noticed the new "nonk" class that I came up with?
But yea, thanks for clarifying Kirth.
It's also worth saying that nothing a ghoul does is ever a "touch" (unless that ghoul has sorcerer levels). He needs to hit with a regular attack to paralyze.
But for what it's worth, our theoretical ghoul sorcerer could slam, paralyze and deliver a touch spell with one wack (since touch spells can be used with natural attacks just as easily as with unarmed strikes).
What, no one noticed the new "nonk" class that I came up with?
What, you mean here?
The core rules don't really touch on monsters with nonk levels,
Nope, didn't notice...
Heck, if I corrected every spelling error, grammar error, and typo on these forums I would never finish typing.
Let it slide. Pick your battles. Turn the other cheek.
Besides, I'm sure I'm guilty of many such flagrant fouls myself.
A silly elephant dressed like a monkey in a clown suit?
Number eleven.
I suddenly feel like laughing hideously for 18 seconds...
