|
It shouldn't matter.
If you're casting a spell that's, say, a ranged touch attack, then you're going for the Touch AC.
If you're attacking with a sword on the other hand, you're going for it's normal AC.
Something that needs to hit normal AC, but only hits Touch AC has no effect, though as a DM its nice to flavor it up with "Your sword clashes into his armor... but glances off!"
|
|
I don't know if there is anything that specifically calls this out, but I've always ruled that if you intend to strike for damage that touching is obviously included in that. Which means that in my games if you attack with an unarmed strike while holding the charge of a touch spell you only need to hit touch for the spell, but full for the damage.
Something that needs to hit normal AC, but only hits Touch AC has no effect, though as a DM its nice to flavor it up with "Your sword clashes into his armor... but glances off!"True - however - lets say that a familiar has Shocking Grasp loaded up and ready to deliver it. Shocking Grasp is a Touch Attack.
Would this be legitimate:
Familiar attacks with its Claws (which normally would do, say 1d4 damage).* Scenario 1:
Familiar hits AC 15, missing Normal AC - but - if the rule allows for it - hits Touch AC, and thusly delivers the spell.OR is the case that the familiar does no damage at all?
* Scenario 2:
Familiar hits AC 19, hitting Normal AC - delivering both the Shocking Grasp, as well as the normal damage from the claws.As StabbittyDoom just pointed out, he rules it differently. There are valid concerns to both approaches in my mind.
If we're talking about the rules as written, the attack misses.
For a flavour justification of why, if you like, you were taking effort to avoid the areas that were covered by armour and the like, and this forced your attack to be more predictable, so the enemy was able to dodge it.
|
|
Shocking Grasp is a Touch Attack.You answered your own question: it's a Touch attack, thus it only needs to hit Touch AC.
However, I'm fairly sure you can't deliver a spell and attack in the same action (except for that prestige class, whose name I can't remember right now).
You can't do it in the same action as you casted the spell, but you CAN deliver a touch spell via natural weapon/unarmed strike if you either missed the free touch attack or held off.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
My personal ruling would be "no." Part of the risk involved in trying to deliver a spell with a natural/unarmed attack is the fact that you need to hit a higher AC than you would to simply deliver the spell. If you succeed, you deal your damage AND the spell. If you fail, you get nothing. It's a trade-off, kind of like Power Attack in a way.
|
|
Official ruling would be nice, since the rulesbook is ambiguous about this.
An example;
The target has AC 18, and Touch AC 12.
If I roll 15, do I still manage to touch the target, or do I miss?
Is it a matter of intention, where you have to specify that you are trying to make an actual Touch Attack Action, or can you still expect to hit Touch AC with a normal attack as long as the attack lands between the touch ac and the regular ac.
I like to do this for a couple of reasons. If a standard melee attack misses, but is higher than touch AC, it helps to add flavor to a battle and makes the PCs "feel good" about dropping money on that expensive armor. i.e.-AC20, Touch12, attack roll of 14 - the barbarian takes a mighty swing with his greataxe, but it ineffectively clangs off of your plate armor/shield.
It also serves to give players an idea of what they need to hit without telling them "roll me an attack against AC 22." Obviously if they get below 10 it's a whiff, if they get between 10 and touch, it's due to a dodge on the enemy's part, and if they get between touch and AC target, it's due to armor/shield/natural armor.
That being said, to deliver a touch spell, you only need to touch any part of the enemy (whether it be armored or unarmored). If the attack roll lands in the range you described, I would have no problem giving them touch spell effect but no unarmed damage. This is probably not RAW, but it is how I would handle it.
You are now 2cp richer.
The rule on this (only the bolded part is relevant) do not allow it.
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.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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 normally 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.
But I would houserule that you can.
Here is the rule you're looking for:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.
So, it goes like this:
Round 1: Cast a touch spell. If you want to attack this round, you can do so as a Free action. But you cannot make a normal attack this round because you cast a spell and you cannot take two standard actions in one round.
Round 2: If you held the charge from round 1, you now have a standard action that you can use to make a normal melee (unarmed or natural) attack. If the attack hits, you do normal damage for that attack and you discharge your spell. If the attack misses, you continue holding the charge as per the rule I just quoted.
Now, as far as mechanics go, if you want to houserule that a melee miss that is equal to or higher than the target's touch AC is still a touch hit, that would make perfect sense. You failed to hit him hard enough to hurt him in all his armor, but you still touched him, even though your attack bounced off his armor.
Would it be mechanically sound? Maybe not. Currently the rule is an all-or-nothing rule. You get both effects or no effects. That is how most of the rules in the game go. For example, consider Power Attack. You take a penalty to hit in return for a bonus to damage. Imagine how over-powered Power Attack might be if the feat said "If you miss, but your attack would have hit without using Power Attack, then your attack still hits and you roll normal damage as if you hadn't used this feat". There would be no risk at all for using Power Attack if it said that (currently the risk is a greater chance of missing).
It seems like there should be some risk involved in trying to attack and discharge a touch spell, just like there is risk in using Power Attack.
On the other hand, attacking and discharging a helt touch spell requires two rounds. One round to cast, one round to attack. In that same time, you could have used your first round to cast and discharge and then used your second round to attack - which is exactly the same number of actions. So, unlike Power Attack which has an immediate gain and so therefore requires some risk to balance the feat, attempting to attack and discharge the held spell has no gain; it's exactly the same number of actions and the same potential effects as it would have been if you didn't try it.
And since there is no measurable gain, there is really no need for a risk.
Which is all to say, I don't think it would be very broken for a DM to houserule allowing a missed melee attack to discharge a held spell if the attack still manages to hit the Touch AC.
About the only abuses I can see would be pre-casting the Touch spell before combat begins, or safely casting it behind the fighter with no risk of counter attacks, then stepping into range and dishing out an attack and a touch discharge in one round instead of two (meaning surviving enemies cannot make as many attacks at the spellcaster this way). Balance that against the fact that if you cast & touch in the first round, you could eliminate an enemy and eliminate his damage against your allies, but doing the cast-wait-move-attack trick in two rounds means that enemy is certain to survive the first round (at least, he is certain to survive your attack since you aren't making one).
Seems reasonably fair and balanced.
It is not meant to work like that, sure you can houserule it just seems too much bother.
You get complications with sneak attack, flaming weapons, flaming burst weapons, disruption, holy blabla.. what about energy drain ?
In the end it just screws over the armored warrior types in the party.
It is not meant to work like that, sure you can houserule it just seems too much bother.
You get complications with sneak attack, flaming weapons, flaming burst weapons, disruption, holy blabla.. what about energy drain ?
In the end it just screws over the armored warrior types in the party.
how so? It doesn't seem like its much of a bother at all. And I fail to see how sneak attack, flaming weapons, energy drain, any of those attacks complicate things. You can't do damage with a touch attack with sneak attack, flaming weapons, etc. All of those attacks require a direct hit. Otherwise, its touching, but bieng harmlessly deflected off of the shield or armor.
Now, if a creature can do energy drain damage with a touch attack, but prfers to add that to its natural attacks, then yes, using this houserule he'd still energy drain on a missed attack if it hit touch ac. Its hardly complicated though. I think perhaps you may be overithnking it.
It is not meant to work like that, sure you can houserule it just seems too much bother.
You get complications with sneak attack, flaming weapons, flaming burst weapons, disruption, holy blabla.. what about energy drain ?
In the end it just screws over the armored warrior types in the party.
how so? It doesn't seem like its much of a bother at all. And I fail to see how sneak attack, flaming weapons, energy drain, any of those attacks complicate things. You can't do damage with a touch attack with sneak attack, flaming weapons, etc. All of those attacks require a direct hit. Otherwise, its touching, but bieng harmlessly deflected off of the shield or armor.
Now, if a creature can do energy drain damage with a touch attack, but prfers to add that to its natural attacks, then yes, using this houserule he'd still energy drain on a missed attack if it hit touch ac. Its hardly complicated though. I think perhaps you may be overithnking it.
Sneak attack can do damage with a touch attack, the flaming weapons and such are optional, but touching a burning sword to your hand is sure to hurt.
Also it is too easy, basically giving bonus damage on a touch attack if you roll well enough. If you try to attack someone you try to target specific openings in his defense in his armor, under or past his shield.. generally small openings. If you try to touch a target you hit his shield, his breastplate or whatever you can hit, you dont go for small opening and chinks or weakspots in his armor.
Basically you will just have much more chance to outright miss your target than you would otherwise have, there is a fair chance you strike the shield when you try to strike past it, but trying to strike past the most obvious thing to attack is making your touch attack that much less likely to succeed.
Why the assumption that a near miss must therefor hit the armor? Couldn't a near miss just as easily mean the character's dex bonus allowed them to dodge? The difference between AC and Flat footed AC seems just as valid for determining what happens on a miss as the difference between AC and Touch AC.
|
|
Here is the rule you're looking for:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.
Haha, might help if I look at the correct section, eh? Thanks for the source quote.
The bolding is mine. From this, it seems you would roll the attack normally. Holding a touch spell but attacking with a claw? The claw needs to hit normal AC for the spell to go off.
|
|
Why the assumption that a near miss must therefor hit the armor? Couldn't a near miss just as easily mean the character's dex bonus allowed them to dodge? The difference between AC and Flat footed AC seems just as valid for determining what happens on a miss as the difference between AC and Touch AC.
Here's the way I look at the breakdown:
Base AC to hit anything - 10 (which means a flat-footed target with horrible dex could be harder to hit than when they're trying to avoid the attack)
To simply make contact with a target that is trying to avoid your attacks, you would need 10 + dexterity modifier (this takes into account their reflexes and dodging--might be modified by the type of armor they are wearing).
To smack a target and get past armor and reflexes is total AC--if you get a result between 10+dex mod and total AC, then you have hit the target, but their armor renders the blow ineffective.
Now the dodge and the armor could be swapped around, but it makes more sense for me that reflexes would be taken into account first.
|
Why the assumption that a near miss must therefor hit the armor? Couldn't a near miss just as easily mean the character's dex bonus allowed them to dodge? The difference between AC and Flat footed AC seems just as valid for determining what happens on a miss as the difference between AC and Touch AC.
There would appear to be a natural heirarchy of AC bonuses, if you imagine them radiating outward from the owner's squashy bits.
An attack that rolls less than Touch AC is one that doesn't connect at all.
After that, increasing attack rolls break through the outer defences, coming closer and closer to their goal.