Spells refereed to as "Touch Attacks" seem to need a uniformity. This is how I propose they should work:
1) A "Touch Attack" spell grants one or more charges to the target (usually the caster). Charges last until delivered or a finite duration determined by the spell, whichever comes first.
2) While holding one or more charges, the recipient of the charges is considered armed with a light weapon.
3) To deliver charges of a "Touch Attack" spell, the recipient of the charges may either:
A) Make a single unarmed melee attack against a target's touch AC. If this option is chosen, on a hit the usual unarmed attack damage is not dealt, only the effect of the charge is delivered. The caster may do this as a free action when the spell is completed, if the caster is the recipient of the charges.
B) Make regular unarmed or natural melee attacks against a target's (normal) AC. Each hit delivers a charge. If the recipient of the charges' unarmed attack would normally provoke an attack of opportunity, the recipient is not considered armed for this purpose.
The wording's not perfect, but the ideas are there. This is based on my understanding of how touch spells should work. How does the above differ from the way the rules currently are? What spells don't conform to this? Should this be how they work?
1) A "Touch Attack" spell grants one or more charges to the target (usually the caster). Charges last until delivered or a finite duration determined by the spell, whichever comes first.
2) While holding one or more charges, the recipient of the charges is considered armed with a light weapon.
3) To deliver charges of a "Touch Attack" spell, the recipient of the charges may either:
A) Make a single unarmed melee attack against a target's touch AC. If this option is chosen, on a hit the usual unarmed attack damage is not dealt, only the effect of the charge is delivered. The caster may do this as a free action when the spell is completed, if the caster is the recipient of the charges.
B) Make regular unarmed or natural melee attacks against a target's (normal) AC. Each hit delivers a charge. If the recipient of the charges' unarmed attack would normally provoke an attack of opportunity, the recipient is not considered armed for this purpose.
The wording's not perfect, but the ideas are there. This is based on my understanding of how touch spells should work. How does the above differ from the way the rules currently are? What spells don't conform to this? Should this be how they work?
A) Make a single unarmed melee attack against a target's touch AC.
this is incorrect. the caster is armed, it matters for attacks of opportunity (both giving and receiving)
If this option is chosen, on a hit the usual unarmed attack damage is not dealt, only the effect of the charge is delivered. The caster may do this as a free action when the spell is completed, if the caster is the recipient of the charges.
i'm not sure what you mean by recipient of the charges. every touch spell i can think of requires the caster to use thespell. a wizard cannot give chill touch to the monk, he has to chill touch on his own.
part b looks right.
on the round you cast it you make a touch attack (you ignore natural armor, armor, shields) .
if that misses or if you have the rare spell like chill touch that allows multiple hits, on the next round you can either
make a touch attack that just has the spell, or a normal attack for you, either an unarmed strike (which will draw an attack of opportunity) at 1d3 +str +spell, a monk fist at monk level damage + spell(no aoo) , or a claw (for monsters or dragony/demony sorcerers)for claw damage + spell effect
this is incorrect. the caster is armed, it matters for attacks of opportunity (both giving and receiving)
What I am trying to say is that you can make AoO's (with either method A or B), but if they use B and would normally provoke an AoO they still do.
About the recipient of the charges, it's mostly to leave open design space. Why not have a spell that gives charges to the monk (as long as the spell is balanced for it)?
Any other takers?
About Touch Attacks...if you attempt a touch attack with a spell (say Shocking Grasp) but miss, is the spell discharged without effect or can you hold the charge until you successfully touch someone?
|
on the round you cast it you make a touch attack (you ignore natural armor, armor, shields) .
if that misses or if you have the rare spell like chill touch that allows multiple hits, on the next round you can either
make a touch attack that just has the spell, or a normal attack for you, either an unarmed strike (which will draw an attack of opportunity) at 1d3 +str +spell, a monk fist at monk level damage + spell(no aoo) , or a claw (for monsters or dragony/demony sorcerers)for claw damage + spell effect
This has been a long-standing house rule in my game, with the added caveat that if the attack roll misses the normal AC but hits the Touch AC, it still delivers the spell effect but does not do the unarmed or natural weapon damage.
|
This has been a long-standing house rule in my game, with the added caveat that if the attack roll misses the normal AC but hits the Touch AC, it still delivers the spell effect but does not do the unarmed or natural weapon damage.on the round you cast it you make a touch attack (you ignore natural armor, armor, shields) .
if that misses or if you have the rare spell like chill touch that allows multiple hits, on the next round you can either
make a touch attack that just has the spell, or a normal attack for you, either an unarmed strike (which will draw an attack of opportunity) at 1d3 +str +spell, a monk fist at monk level damage + spell(no aoo) , or a claw (for monsters or dragony/demony sorcerers)for claw damage + spell effect
As mentioned, only the second part is a house rule.