I've just created a Monk/Sorcerer who specializes in touch spells for a new campaign. However, the question arose can he make unarmed strikes while holding a touch spell, and gain the effects of both the spell and the unarmed strike damage?
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to discharge the spell when he makes his flurry of blows attack or a standard karate chop. If I am reading this correctly the spell should go off when contact is made, there is no real discussion of type of contact. Any ideas?
Developer
|
I've just created a Monk/Sorcerer who specializes in touch spells for a new campaign. However, the question arose can he make unarmed strikes while holding a touch spell, and gain the effects of both the spell and the unarmed strike damage?
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to discharge the spell when he makes his flurry of blows attack or a standard karate chop. If I am reading this correctly the spell should go off when contact is made, there is no real discussion of type of contact. Any ideas?
Pretty sure you can switch out a melee touch for an unarmed strike attack, but you have to hit normal AC, touch alone won't do it. Of course you need improved unarmed strike to avoid an AoO, but you already have that from monk. Let me search for the exact rule (to make sure I'm not doing that thing where I miss a change from 3.5)
|
Yeah that was My thought too, basically you can hold a touch spell indefinitely in one hand until you hit and attack with said hand to cause the effect of the spell AND unarmed damage. They even list this as an option with Spells Like Elemental touch. Heck, My Monk/Sorc/DD is made on this very concept. Amulet of mighty Fists Spell Storing with Intensified Shocking Grasp + Force punch + Stunning Fist + Imp. Vital Strike = LIGHTNING SHORYUKEN
|
Holding the charge[/URL]"]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.
So yep, it discharges on your next successful unarmed attack (which also deals damage).
|
I've just created a Monk/Sorcerer who specializes in touch spells for a new campaign. However, the question arose can he make unarmed strikes while holding a touch spell, and gain the effects of both the spell and the unarmed strike damage?
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to discharge the spell when he makes his flurry of blows attack or a standard karate chop. If I am reading this correctly the spell should go off when contact is made, there is no real discussion of type of contact. Any ideas?
The only sticky point here is that an "Attack (unarmed)" and "Cast a spell" are two separate standard actions. If you allow both an attack and the casting of the spell in the same round, an argument can be made to allow other types of spells to be cast along with an attack in the same round. The rules (as written...sigh) specifically state that you can "touch" your target as part of the casting of the spell.
At first glance, this may seem silly. But, in fact, melee attacks are assumed to require a lot of "back and forth" between the attacker and the defender. They don't just stand there and then each take a swing at each other. It can even be concluded that the damage inflicted by an attack in a round of combat isn't necessarily the result of a single "strike," but rather the cumulative bruising and cutting after a successful series of "strikes" that represent the "attack action."
This distinction is important to keep in mind: Your Monk/Sorcerer can't "fight" and cast the spell at the same time. The standard action of casting the spell represents the time that would otherwise have been spent "fighting" and turning your attack action into a spread of damage to the target.
As a GM, I would rule that a touch spell allows exactly that, a touch attack. You cast the spell, making yourself vulnerable while doing so, then touch the target. The casting of the spell and the opportunity to touch the target consume your standard action for the round, not allowing you to also engage in "combat" sufficiently to deal real damage.
However, I would allow the caster to hold the charge, which is the case with virtually any touch spell, and then engage in combat the following round, and discharge the spell with a standard attack action. In short, I wouldn't allow the character to both cast the spell and make a damaging attack in the same round, but I would allow the spell to be discharged as part of a standard attack action in subsequent rounds.
EDIT: Also wanted to add, if the monk can find a feat or feature that allows him or her to convert a "standard action" casting time into a "swift" action, then he or she could both cast the spell and attack in the same round. But, as long as the attack and the casting time are both standard actions, I wouldn't allow it in the same round.
I would be inclined to agree with the cast this round, attack next school of thought. Even with that in mind, the spell "Chill Touch" would work very well with your combo idea. You can cast it, and touch the first round, and then flurry it out the next.
It would be a GM call as to if for each flurry hit you used a charge, (I don't see why not) or if he would limit it to just one per round.
Even if you didn't go the way of the sorc, getting a wand of Chill Touch would be a very nice thing to have.
On subsequent rounds, however, you can make a normal unarmed strike attack to deliver the spell's effects as well as your unarmed strike damage. This attack is made against your opponent's normal AC, and if you miss, the spell stays held.
Is that true? I thought if you missed with a touch spell the spell was lost?
The only sticky point here is that an "Attack (unarmed)" and "Cast a spell" are two separate standard actions. If you allow both an attack and the casting of the spell in the same round, an argument can be made to allow other types of spells to be cast along with an attack in the same round. The rules (as written...sigh) specifically state that you can "touch" your target as part of the casting of the spell.
...
Fully understood. I was just wondering if when I deliver the spell on the second round I could also tack on unarmed damage. More thematic than useful but I'm not playing to win just have fun.
I would be inclined to agree with the cast this round, attack next school of thought. Even with that in mind, the spell "Chill Touch" would work very well with your combo idea. You can cast it, and touch the first round, and then flurry it out the next.
It would be a GM call as to if for each flurry hit you used a charge, (I don't see why not) or if he would limit it to just one per round.
Even if you didn't go the way of the sorc, getting a wand of Chill Touch would be a very nice thing to have.
I like the chill touch idea but was thinking about focusing my efforts on shocking grasp (thought that the electric burst would be more inline with a powerful release of ki) and self buffing spells.
|
On subsequent rounds, however, you can make a normal unarmed strike attack to deliver the spell's effects as well as your unarmed strike damage. This attack is made against your opponent's normal AC, and if you miss, the spell stays held.Is that true? I thought if you missed with a touch spell the spell was lost?
nope. you hold the charge and can try again on your next attack (AoO, or next round)
Are you using the UM? There's a wisdom-based sorcerer in there.
Scroll down to Empyreal, in archetypes.
Are you using the UM? There's a wisdom-based sorcerer in there.
No. I saw that earlier today, but it doesn't really fit with the back story so I decided to go with an infernal sorcerer. The story goes I became a monk so that I could control the evil taint that haunts my family. Besides I have some really great stats (4d6 drop lowest) so I'm not too worried about it.