Can one of the gentleman quote wher it days, that you can actually use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell.
I know weapon focus and improved crit.: ray works, I am not sure if weapon focus: touch works, but I am pretty sure that touch doesn´t mean unarmed strike.
The combat section, on spells
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.You can't do it in the round the spell is cast, you only hit if you pierce normal ac, and the spell itself doesn't grant you "armed" status.
Thank you. Great that you already pointet out that you can´t use the free attack for an unarmed strike. Considering this i actually have no problem with a general rule regarding delivering spells with unarmed strikes/natural attacks/weapons - unless one of you guys finds a really unbalanced crit range on a natural weapon players can access.
On a 19-20 the IUS damage is multiplied. On a 20 the spell damage is as well, the same way touch spells are now. One roll, One crit. No biggie.
But it's not one crit: yes/no. It's crit A: yes/no crit; B: yes/no.
If this Wiz/Mnk has levels in EK. When does Spell Critical go off? When he crits with the IUS or does he have to crit with both.
RAW also states, as a general rule, that touch spells target touch AC. If I roll a 20, and on the confirm hit the touch AC, but not the regular AC does the spell crit but not the attack? We're using the touch spell rules to threaten, surely we are using the same rules to confirm.
Touch attacks target touch AC - there is a difference. Once you try to deliver your charge with a unarmed strike you no longer target touch AC.
I can see why you would argue that there should be some way for the charge to be delivered even if the primary attack doesnt´t hit.
For the following reasons I would advise against this course of actions:
It takes 100 % of the risk out of spellstrike - thats bad. Using spellstrike is an automatic choice even against an enemy with awesome AC but lousy touch AC if you use this rule.
In my book anything that takes away the choice isn´t really awesome game design.
Don´t underestimate armor - if it´s enough to prevent you strike from hitting all that metal could prevent you touch spell from delivering the full effect. (This is more a realism argument, rather than on about game design).
It slows down the game - this might not be relevant for some games, but it will affect some. The process changes:
Current rule (like spellstrike works IMO): attack roll - if it´s a hit resolve the damage, attack roll critical threat - roll to confirm the threat - check if the confirmation roll hits the target - if yes resolve crit if no resolve normal damage.
Proposed rule: Attack roll - if you hit the full AC resolve damage as normal, if you miss full AC check if you hit touch AC, if you hit touch AC resolve charge.
Attack roll critical threat: check if the attack hits normal AC if yes confirmation roll to confirm the crit, if the confirmation roll hits full AC resolve crit, if the confirmation roll doesn´t hit full AC check if you hit touch AC if yes resolve attack damage and critical charge damage;
If the critical threat roll didn´t hit full AC, check if it hit touch AC, if it did roll a confirmation roll, if the confirmation roll hits touch AC resolve charge crit damage.
(See soooo complicated I couldn´t even format it properly.. need a flowchart).
Touch attacks target touch AC - there is a difference. Once you try to deliver your charge with a unarmed strike you no longer target touch AC.
I can see why you would argue that there should be some way for the charge to be delivered even if the primary attack doesnt´t hit.
For the following reasons I would advise against this course of actions:
It takes 100 % of the risk out of spellstrike - thats bad. Using spellstrike is an automatic choice even against an enemy with awesome AC but lousy touch AC if you use this rule.
In my book anything that takes away the choice isn´t really awesome game design.Don´t underestimate armor - if it´s enough to prevent you strike from hitting all that metal could prevent you touch spell from delivering the full effect. (This is more a realism argument, rather than on about game design).
It slows down the game - this might not be relevant for some games, but it will affect some. The process changes:
Current rule (like spellstrike works IMO): attack roll - if it´s a hit resolve the damage, attack roll critical threat - roll to confirm the threat - check if the confirmation roll hits the target - if yes resolve crit if no resolve normal damage.
Proposed rule: Attack roll - if you hit the full AC resolve damage as normal, if you miss full AC check if you hit touch AC, if you hit touch AC resolve charge.
Attack roll critical threat: check if the attack hits normal AC if yes confirmation roll to confirm the crit, if the confirmation roll hits full AC resolve crit, if the confirmation roll doesn´t hit full AC check if you hit touch AC if yes resolve attack damage and critical charge damage;If the critical threat roll didn´t hit full AC, check if it hit touch AC, if it did roll a confirmation roll, if the confirmation roll hits touch AC resolve charge crit damage.
(See soooo complicated I couldn´t even format it properly.. need a flowchart).
I actually completely agree with you. I think the way spellstrike currently works is the only sensible way to resolve crits with touch spells delivered a regular attacks.
This is all true, but I don't quite see what you're getting at. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Casting a spell is a standard action. Making a melee attack is a standard action. Making more than one melee attack in a round is a full-round action. You can't make two standard actions in one round, you can't make a standard action and a full-round action in one round. Casting a spell with touch range changes the touch attack to a free action, Spellstrike changes the touch attack to a melee attack with your weapon.
If you're making the argument that a Magus should be able to Spellstrike as part of a full attack then I'm disagreeing with you 100%.
Spell combat is better than a full attack spellstrike. And it doesn't stop you from using it in a full attack either.
Unless you are saying ALL attacks should hit with the magic.
Spell combat is better than a full attack spellstrike. And it doesn't stop you from using it in a full attack either.
Unless you are saying ALL attacks should hit with the magic.
Good lord, no. The situation I'm trying to understand is this:
Level 3 Magus uses Spell Combat with Shocking Grasp; he gets two attack rolls (one with his sword, one for the touch).
Level 3 Magus uses Spell Combat and channels Shocking Grasp with Spell Strike; he gets one attack (his sword; if he hits, the spell goes off).
What I'm looking for is why the second situation doesn't get an extra sword swing (a normal swing, and a Spell Strike swing). I haven't seen an example that shows me that it's as broken as people say.
Or is it based on precedent? Could a normal, non-monk Wizard use a punch, rather than a touch, to deliver Shocking Grasp on the same round he casts the spell (foolish as it may be)?
That's what I said a few posts ago. They can't do it because the rules don't allow it. Spellstrike is a standard action, making more than one attack in a round requires a full round action. Using Spellstrike allows you to substitute an attack with your melee weapon for a touch from your hand. You still have to cast the spell.
The answer to your second question is no he can't. You can't attack and cast a spell on the same round since they're both standard actions. A touch made with a touch spell becomes a free action when done as the spell is cast. An attack is still a standard action.
Spell combat is better than a full attack spellstrike. And it doesn't stop you from using it in a full attack either.
Unless you are saying ALL attacks should hit with the magic.
Good lord, no. The situation I'm trying to understand is this:
Level 3 Magus uses Spell Combat with Shocking Grasp; he gets two attack rolls (one with his sword, one for the touch).
Level 3 Magus uses Spell Combat and channels Shocking Grasp with Spell Strike; he gets one attack (his sword; if he hits, the spell goes off).
What I'm looking for is why the second situation doesn't get an extra sword swing (a normal swing, and a Spell Strike swing). I haven't seen an example that shows me that it's as broken as people say.
Or is it based on precedent? Could a normal, non-monk Wizard use a punch, rather than a touch, to deliver Shocking Grasp on the same round he casts the spell (foolish as it may be)?
I pasted the rules here... delivering a spell through an unarmed strike or natural weapon can't be done in the same round the spell is cast, and it has to go through full AC instead of touch ac. The second situation doesn't get an extra swing because the magus rules say so, basically.
I believe their reason for it is that at the earliest levels the damage granted by an extra swing would be too powerful... <shrug>