|
More or less the definition of 'touch' attacks:
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee).
Touch: To cause or permit a part of the body, especially the hand or fingers, to come in contact with so as to feel
If you poke them with your sword you are not touching them. You could actually argue that gloves prohibit touch attacks but I've never seen anyone get that picky.
A touch spell infuses the caster's appendage with the spell ability.
You would need a specific type of magical weapon that could "Hold the charge" if you wanted to deliver it through the use of a weapon.
Also with holding the charge
"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."
So a monk/caster could cast a touch spell round 1
round 2 FOB with the touch spell discharging on a succesful unarmed strike.
LOL CJ i just edited my post above while you were posting with that info.
|
A touch spell infuses the caster's appendage with the spell ability.
You would need a specific type of magical weapon that could "Hold the charge" if you wanted to deliver it through the use of a weapon.
Great idea. Just base it off of the Ki Focus and instead of channeling Ki, let it channel touch attack spells. so you would cast, hold the charge, then strike with the weapon and discharge via that. Would have to be a melee weapon, and would only be usable with touch attacks.
|
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
|
|
Great idea. Just base it off of the Ki Focus and instead of channeling Ki, let it channel touch attack spells. so you would cast, hold the charge, then strike with the weapon and discharge via that. Would have to be a melee weapon, and would only be usable with touch attacks.A touch spell infuses the caster's appendage with the spell ability.
You would need a specific type of magical weapon that could "Hold the charge" if you wanted to deliver it through the use of a weapon.
Aren't there some items and feats that accomplish this in 3.5? You could probably just port those items with little issue.
It's a really simple enchantment/material idea for a weapon, and since dual classed monk or any unarmed fighting feat users can strike touch it doesn't overpower.
I'd make it a house rule of +500gp (Melee only) to weapon cost for a Arcanist Weapon.
- An arcanist weapon is forged by the power of magic, therefore allowing magic to flow through it. You can deliver melee touch magic spells through the weapon when it strikes an opponent. Striking an opponent with a held charge will discharge the spell as if you had touched the target normally.
It doesn't really overpower the game for two reasons
1: you have to first spend a round casting the spell.
2: Attacks ACs are normally harder to hit than touch ACs
|
|
So it's disallowed because it doesn't say anywhere that you can? It seems to me that if you were casting a touch spell, you'd cast it into something and try to really smack someone with it. I was hoping for a system where if you hit, you get weapon damage and spell effect, and if you miss, but still make the touch, you just get the spell.
It's a touch spell, using a weapon isn't disallowed, it's simply not touching someone. It's part of the definition.
Part of the consideration of touch spells is the fact that they put the caster at risk.
So it's disallowed because it doesn't say anywhere that you can? It seems to me that if you were casting a touch spell, you'd cast it into something and try to really smack someone with it. I was hoping for a system where if you hit, you get weapon damage and spell effect, and if you miss, but still make the touch, you just get the spell.
Yes, we would all like that. Best of both worlds. If you succeed, you get all the goodness, and if you fail, you still get some of the goodness.
However, game balance doesn't work that way.
If you want to touch attack, then you don't have to punch through their armor and shield. Just a barely glancing touch. Much easier. But it does no damage; all you get is your touch effect.
If you want to do damage, then you have to clobber them, get through all their AC rather than just some of it. Much harder. But this is the way you can do damage and get your touch effect on the same attack roll.
If you want the latter, then you have to swing for the bleachers and accept that if you miss, even barely, then everything misses. Maybe not the most realistic approach, but it's far more balanced for a game rule.
|
|
Why? Did anyone ever sit down and figure out that it is too powerful? If you have enough weapon ability and str to do real damage with the sword, then you probably don't have very many levels of spellcaster. Even if you go straight caster and just use a couple of feats to swing a sword, either your spells will be crippled from lack of int, wis or cha, or your fighting will be crippled from lack of str, dex, or con. It seems reasonable to me that if a familiar can deliver a touch spell at a range, a bonded weapon could deliver one up close. The extra 1d6 I get from the longsword damage or whatever isn't exactly gamebreaking. In order to have a 20 mage that does sword combat, i'll be missing out on item creation and metamagic feats, bonuses to spells that are benefitted from cha and wis, and I still won't be able to cast well in armor, even if I can wear any. I don't think it's unbalanced at all. It might seem that way at level 1, but at level 5, it seems about average and stays that way.
well either invest in a spell storing weapon, or dust of 3.5's PH2 and play a duskblade, since that is their whole gimmick. they are melee casters that channel threw their weapons. or Complete warriors spell sword can do it to i believe. it's not 100% impossible, but its not so easy everyone is doing it.
|
|
Why? Did anyone ever sit down and figure out that it is too powerful? If you have enough weapon ability and str to do real damage with the sword, then you probably don't have very many levels of spellcaster. Even if you go straight caster and just use a couple of feats to swing a sword, either your spells will be crippled from lack of int, wis or cha, or your fighting will be crippled from lack of str, dex, or con. It seems reasonable to me that if a familiar can deliver a touch spell at a range, a bonded weapon could deliver one up close. The extra 1d6 I get from the longsword damage or whatever isn't exactly gamebreaking. In order to have a 20 mage that does sword combat, i'll be missing out on item creation and metamagic feats, bonuses to spells that are benefitted from cha and wis, and I still won't be able to cast well in armor, even if I can wear any. I don't think it's unbalanced at all. It might seem that way at level 1, but at level 5, it seems about average and stays that way.
I'm just telling you what is, I have no interest in debating how balanced it is. Talk to your GM about making an exception for you.
|
|
Could a sorcerer with Draconic bloodline do the following?
1. cast shocking grasp
2. grow his claws (free action)
3. attack with claws and deliver the shocking grasp on a hitHe would do the claw damage as well as the spell damage, right?
If he attacks with both claws (full round action), would the shocking grasp still be delivered if only one claw hit?
its almost legit. you can do a touch the same round as casting, but not a regular melee attack.
you'd have to wait till next round to make a claw attack. and the shocking is only on 1 attack
Could a sorcerer with Draconic bloodline do the following?
1. cast shocking grasp
2. grow his claws (free action)
3. attack with claws and deliver the shocking grasp on a hitHe would do the claw damage as well as the spell damage, right?
If he attacks with both claws (full round action), would the shocking grasp still be delivered if only one claw hit?
its almost legit. you can do a touch the same round as casting, but not a regular melee attack.
you'd have to wait till next round to make a claw attack. and the shocking is only on 1 attack
This is correct. Touching is a free action included in the act of casting the spell. The reason it's a free action is that it's a quick light touch. You only need the barest little minimal contact with the enemy's armor, shield, scales, whatever.
Clawing is a much more involved attack. It requires finding an opening, aiming for the weak spots, swinging hard and powerfully enough to punch through the defenses and injure the squishy bits underneath the armor. This takes more effort than a quick light touch.
Since spellcasting is a standard action and attacking is a standard action, and since you can only do one standard action in a round, there is no (ordinary) way to combine these two things into one standard action.
Thanks guys. I worded my question poorly, it was not my intention to try to do all these things in one round. I was mainly wondering about the order of things; spell, grow claws, attack.
My very specific question was whether growing claws (per the bloodline) would somehow alter the Shocking Grasp (or any other) touch spell.
Ah, well then, sure you can. Touch spells can be delivered by natural attacks, as the Chozyn pointed out in the third post of this thread.
No reason why growing the claws (a free action) should impact your spell. As long as you don't accidentally touch anything and discharge the spell you're holding, you should be fine. Casting a different spell or using a Spell-Like Ability would cause you to lose your held charge, but growing the claws is just an Extraordinary ability.
So it's all good.
|
|
Could a sorcerer with Draconic bloodline do the following?
1. cast shocking grasp
2. grow his claws (free action)
3. attack with claws and deliver the shocking grasp on a hitHe would do the claw damage as well as the spell damage, right?
If he attacks with both claws (full round action), would the shocking grasp still be delivered if only one claw hit?
its almost legit. you can do a touch the same round as casting, but not a regular melee attack.
you'd have to wait till next round to make a claw attack. and the shocking is only on 1 attack
This is correct. Touching is a free action included in the act of casting the spell. The reason it's a free action is that it's a quick light touch. You only need the barest little minimal contact with the enemy's armor, shield, scales, whatever.
Clawing is a much more involved attack. It requires finding an opening, aiming for the weak spots, swinging hard and powerfully enough to punch through the defenses and injure the squishy bits underneath the armor. This takes more effort than a quick light touch.
Since spellcasting is a standard action and attacking is a standard action, and since you can only do one standard action in a round, there is no (ordinary) way to combine these two things into one standard action.
Thanks guys. I worded my question poorly, it was not my intention to try to do all these things in one round. I was mainly wondering about the order of things; spell, grow claws, attack.
My very specific question was whether growing claws (per the bloodline) would somehow alter the Shocking Grasp (or any other) touch spell.
It would not alter the spell.
Also who is this handsome fellow?
Gruevy, if you haven't seen by now, the ability to channel touch spells through weapons is a special ability granted to to the Magus at 2nd level called Spellstrike. If anybody could do this there would be no need to give the special ability to the Magus.
Now starring in the great thread necromancy of ought 12....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm committing necromancy, here, but I have a directly related question. Holy sword. Can it be used to touch the target without actually attacking it to use the 2d6 holy damage?
No