|
This topic may have been discussed in a previous thread so forgive me if I'm just resurrecting it again.
Does anyone house rule touch attacks? I mean - it doesn't seem to make sense that Strength should be included in your attack bonus when making a touch attack. Strength, understandbly, is used to power your way through armor, shield bonuses and magical deflections, etc
but wouldn't it make more sense that dexterity would apply when you are just trying to touch someone. I can't come up with an instance where strength would be necessary to touch someone.
A mage using a touch attack spell shouldn't have to depend on strength to use shocking grasp. Dexterity makes more sense as he/she closes in on the opponent and just tries to touch them as the opponent is weaving and dodging the electrically charged hand that is trying to make contact...
Thoughts? Comments?
Thoughts? Comments?
Touch attacks are not representing that you require MORE physical dexterity to hit your opponent. Rather they represent that the attack is so easy to do that it is almost assured. Simple contact is all that is needed for the attack to be effective.
Normal melee attacks 'touch' the target all the time, but thy are ruled as 'misses' due to the targets armor, shield, or natural armor effectively absorbing the blow and making it harmless.
Why would a fully powered blow that only needs to contact not do more damage than a 'finesse' blow that only needs to make contact?
If that strong combatant is powerful enough to swing their weapons quickly enough to make contact AND smash through armor then why would they be LESS competent on an easier to hit target?
If the combatant in question is a mage like your example and is not strong but is dextrous then there is already a mechanic in place to handle that: The feat Weapon Finesse. Touch spells should be covered under natural or unarmed attacks, which weapon finesse enhances. If your mage wants to use dex then he should take the appropriate feat since that option already has a mechanic to cover it.
Obviously you can house rule any way you want but the way I see it your issues have already been covered in the game system.
|
|
Thoughts? Comments?Touch attacks are not representing that you require MORE physical dexterity to hit your opponent. Rather they represent that the attack is so easy to do that it is almost assured. Simply contact is all that is needed for the attack to be effective.
Normal melee attacks 'touch' the target all the time, but thy are ruled as 'misses' due to the targets armor, shield, or natural armor effectively absorbing the blow and making it harmless.
Why would a fully powered blow that only needs to contact not do more damage than a 'finesse' blow that only needs to make contact?
If that strong combatant is powerful enough to swing their weapons quickly enough to make contact AND smash through armor then why would they be LESS competent on an easier to hit target?
I the combatant in question is a mage like your example and is not strong but is destrous then there is already a mechanic in place to handle that: The feat Weapon Finesse. Touch spells should be covered under natural or unarmed attacks. If your mage wants to use dex then he should take the appropriate feat since that option already has a mechanic to cover it.
OK - but why would strength still be added to a touch attack for purposing of hitting since you are not bypassing anything (right? touch attacks ignore armor bonuses,etc and the purpose of strength is to help bypass those protections by using brute force). So if a mage with a 10 strength and a fighter with an 18 strength attack the same target with a touch the fighter gets +4 more to hit (ignoring BAB for the moment)? just doesn't seem to make sense.
An argument could be made to say that you add strength damage to a touch attack but I still can't see how it adds to hitting the opponent.
OK - but why would strength still be added to a touch attack for purposing of hitting since you are not bypassing anything (right? touch attacks ignore armor bonuses,etc and the purpose of strength is to help bypass those protections by using brute force). So if a mage with a 10 strength and a fighter with an 18 strength attack the same target with a touch the fighter gets +4 more to hit (ignoring BAB for the moment)? just doesn't seem to make sense.
An argument could be made to say that you add strength damage to a touch attack but I still can't see how it adds to hitting the opponent.
Because. It is a melee touch attack. All melee attacks use strength to the attack roll, unless noted. Doesn't make sense, but that is how it works.
As a side note, I give all my players Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, so in my games, a melee touch attack can be made with either strength or dexterity.
Touch Mastery(House Feat): Allows your character to use your primary spellcasting stat in-place of STR on spells requiring touch attacks.
OK - but why would strength still be added to a touch attack for purposing of hitting since you are not bypassing anything
Because being strong is always usefull when trying to hit someone with something? A strong character is just as capable of hitting someone accurately as a dextrous character trained with weapon finesse. Large strength means the weapon you wield is simpler to manuever for you. A longsword is swung quicker and with more ease since it's weight is less of a strain for your greater musculature, it hit's harder in any case due to your greater strength swining the weapon into the opponent with greater force.
Swing a long lead pipe. Then swing a wiffle bat. That bat is darn accurate in your hands but if you had an 16 str, well that lead pipe might swing like a wiffle bat in your hands and I bet whoever you hit would hurt a hell of a lot more from that pipe than from the wiffle bat.
Strength does not stop being deadly because the attack you use makes the opponent easier to hit. Rather it becomes even more deadly since your opponent is easier to hit.
I like to think of it this way. DnD/PF don't really include any "active defenses" in the game, such as parrying or riposting, other than a couple specific examples. But in reality, in combat, that's what happens. If you are very weak, your target will simply knock your hand away with a swipe of his weapon or just slap your hand away with a limb. You could make a case for a dexterity based approach, but I can see why it would be strength by default. Realistically, this is rarely a problem beyond the first couple of levels, but I don't see why you couldn't allow touch attacks to use dexterity if you wanted to houserule it that way.
It's the same logic of "why can't I use dexterity to knife fight with my dagger rather than using strength."
The answer is yes. Yes you can. Weapon finesse applies to touch attacks. But you need to buy it as a feat. Otherwise, your wizard is trying to wrestle and make a brute punch to land his touch attack, rather than kungfu'ing it.
OK - but why would strength still be added to a touch attack for purposing of hitting since you are not bypassing anything (right? touch attacks ignore armor bonuses,etc and the purpose of strength is to help bypass those protections by using brute force).
For the following example I'm going to assume that you're not some basement dwelling neckbeard who's never touched a girl in real life. I know, I'm very generous. You're welcome. ;)
You know how when your sister or your girlfriend pokes you, so you poke her back, and then all of a sudden you're in a ninja-poke battle?
You ever try relying less on speed and more on brute force in such instances? Try it if you haven't.
If you just push forward when she tries to swat your hand away, tensing your muscles, not letting her move your arm and continue moving forward, you'll probably get the poke in. This is because your strength is (probably) greater than hers. She (probably) can't actually stop or deflect your dastardly finger of doom in any functional way. She has to resort to just getting out of the way.
This is why strength plays a realistic and reasonable role in touch attacks. Size matters.
Size matters and so does Weapon Focus: Touch Spell.
Nice.
I once had a character that multiclassed in such a way that he actually picked up Weapon Specialization: Ray.
Totally cripple character, but I still feel like it's a notch in my nerd belt that I had it.
|
|
Size matters and so does Weapon Focus: Touch Spell.Nice.
I once had a character that multiclassed in such a way that he actually picked up Weapon Specialization: Ray.
Totally cripple character, but I still feel like it's a notch in my nerd belt that I had it.
You should see my build for a spellwarp sniper then...by the way it's divine and also has 5 domains.
I you actually do historical fencing you see that Dexterity is about 90% and Strength is about 10% what matters if you want to hit an oponent.
So D&D is actually not very acurate here (*gosh, who might have imagined).
I would allow Weapon Finesse to apply to touch attacks, easy solution within the rules.
I you actually do historical fencing you see that Dexterity is about 90% and Strength is about 10% what matters if you want to hit an oponent.
So D&D is actually not very acurate here (*gosh, who might have imagined).
I would allow Weapon Finesse to apply to touch attacks, easy solution within the rules.
Then surely you've seen someone trying to learn a rapier before they get the hang of maneuvers, when it's 50% strength and 50% clumsy madness.
Weapon Finesse exists, applies, but you should have to pay for it. I'm all for house rules, but giving out a free feat, especially a preexisting one seems kind of cheap.
I do think that maybe this should be a feat:
Touch Talent
requires: caster level 1
Benefit: When making a touch attack with a spell, spell-like ability or supernatural ability granted by a casting class, you may use your casting ability score when determining its total attack bonus. Example: level 1 wizard with 18 int 0 BAB would have a +4 on shocking grasp.
Normal: You use strength on melee touch attacks, and dexterity on ranged touch attacks.
I am also a historical fencer, and I can easily see a good case for strength, especially in fighting with armor and/or shields.
If we are talking bludgeoning weapons I agree. But really, in a duel the challenge is to hit your opponent in a meaningful way, which is basically dex. If you hit him/her where it counts, then str *may* apply.
If we are talking bludgeoning weapons I agree. But really, in a duel the challenge is to hit your opponent in a meaningful way, which is basically dex. If you hit him/her where it counts, then str *may* apply.
I read an account of a french nobleman visiting england and going into scotland as part of a tour of the countryside. While there he saw the Blackwatch drilling in a practice yard. After sneering at them and discussing the superiority of french swordsmanship with his host, he ended up facing the Blackwatch Captain in a match.
The Frenchman, armed with a traditional rapier, was out-fenced in his own style by a scotsman wielding a Claymore. (It is unclear if the Captain was wielding a basket-hilted claymore or a two-handed claymore. Likely it was a basket hilt, but Blackwatch officers carried Two-Handers as marks of office. It could have been either.)
In either case, this is a record of a man out-fencing a fencer with a cut-and-thrust blade that probably weighed at least double and was balanced differently.
Maybe the nobleman was just a really terrible swordsman, but I like to think that the Captain was just so darn strong that he could whip a giant scottish sword around like a swishy little foil.