| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If a creature has a touch attack (say, a Lich with Paralyzing Touch) and a BAB of +6, does he get two touch attacks on a full attack action at +6/+1, or just the singular touch?
It depends on the specific text of the ability (or spell) in question.
For example chill touch can be used for iterative attacks whereas calcific touch (or elemental touch) can only be used for one touch attack per round as per the spell text. Now this touch attack doesn't have to be the first attack you make of the round (or the last) but you no matter what part of the attack routine you take it on you only get that one attack touch attack for the round. Chill touch (as mentioned earlier) lacks the language that's in calcific touch (or elemental touch) and can be used for all attacks you are allowed to make in that round (so if you had a BAB of +11 and the chill touch spell active you could make, as a full attack, 3 attacks at a BAB of +11/+6/+1 respectively providing you have enough touches left in the chill touch spell).
It depends on the specific text of the ability (or spell) in question.
For example chill touch can be used for iterative attacks whereas calcific touch (or elemental touch) can only be used for one touch attack per round as per the spell text. Now this touch attack doesn't have to be the first attack you make of the round (or the last) but you no matter what part of the attack routine you take it on you only get that one attack touch attack for the round. Chill touch (as mentioned earlier) lacks the language that's in calcific touch (or elemental touch) and can be used for all attacks you are allowed to make in that round (so if you had a BAB of +11 and the chill touch spell active you could make, as a full attack, 3 attacks at a BAB of +11/+6/+1 respectively providing you have enough touches left in the chill touch spell).
No.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's not just like performing unarmed strikes, since a) it doesn't provoke an AoO and b) doesn't require use of Improved Unarmed Strike. It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch. Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way. Therefore, one touch per round with a produce flame, or one hurled flame per round.You could make iterative attacks with Flame Blade, because it's a spell which works like a weapon, but not with Chill touch...
Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a link to where he said that? Chill touch has been causing all sorts of issues with some folks I play with.
If a creature has a touch attack (say, a Lich with Paralyzing Touch) and a BAB of +6, does he get two touch attacks on a full attack action at +6/+1, or just the singular touch?
In this instance, yep. I don't think a Lich can though, they only have a +5 mod on their attack, they must have caster BAB progression.
stuff about chill touch
OP is talkin about paralyzing touch though, which is a different monkey.
Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a link to where he said that?
Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a link to where he said that? Chill touch has been causing all sorts of issues with some folks I play with.It depends on the specific text of the ability (or spell) in question.
For example chill touch can be used for iterative attacks whereas calcific touch (or elemental touch) can only be used for one touch attack per round as per the spell text. Now this touch attack doesn't have to be the first attack you make of the round (or the last) but you no matter what part of the attack routine you take it on you only get that one attack touch attack for the round. Chill touch (as mentioned earlier) lacks the language that's in calcific touch (or elemental touch) and can be used for all attacks you are allowed to make in that round (so if you had a BAB of +11 and the chill touch spell active you could make, as a full attack, 3 attacks at a BAB of +11/+6/+1 respectively providing you have enough touches left in the chill touch spell).
No.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's not just like performing unarmed strikes, since a) it doesn't provoke an AoO and b) doesn't require use of Improved Unarmed Strike. It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch. Iterative attacks are SOLELY the province of weapons (and of spells that specifically work like weapons)—touch attacks and natural weapons do not work this way. Therefore, one touch per round with a produce flame, or one hurled flame per round.You could make iterative attacks with Flame Blade, because it's a spell which works like a weapon, but not with Chill touch...
Unfortunately none of what he wrote there is actually supported by the text of the rules.
His opinion of how they meant for it to work is not the same as how they have actually written the rules to work and his position has not be place in either the FAQ or errata -- as such it's no more official than his preference of pie over cake.
The touch attack rules in the combat section don't support his position that somehow touch attacks cannot be used as iterative attacks, and the the touch attack rules from the magic position also have nothing to support his position.
Further more the touch spells listing in the combat section states the following (quoting because an easy direct link isn't available):
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Again nothing to suggest that touch attacks can't have iterative attacks or work differently than any other sort of attack except in how AC is calculated against them.
Finally we move to the full attack section of the combat rules and find that nothing here states you can't get iterative attacks with a touch attack.
In fact his position runs counter to everything else that grants touch attacks -- any feat or item that allows you to choose a touch attack that cannot be used as part of a full attack action or as an iterative attack specifically states that. His opinion also runs counter of the other major example of alchemical weapons -- which are ranged attack that you can get iterative attacks with.
***************************
So while I respect his printed work and position with the piazo company -- nothing in the current rules, errata, or FAQ actual supports his position. Which can also be noted in the very thread he made the statement in.
And even though he has made that statement the Piazo staff have on numerous occasions stated that their posts are not official rules adjustments unless specifically stated as such.
The problem with the lich is the following line:
Melee Attack: A lich has a touch attack that it can use once per round as a natural weapon. A lich fighting without weapons uses its natural weapons (if it has any) in addition to its touch attack (which is treated as a primary natural weapon that replaces one claw or slam attack, if the creature has any). A lich armed with a weapon uses its weapons normally, and can use its touch attack as a secondary natural weapon.
His touch attack is specifically stated to work as a natural weapon which means no iterative attacks -- again another example of a specific rule differing from the norm.
Thanks!
In general I tend to follow the posts of the creators as I feel it is in line with the spirit of the game. I suppose this would mean that my socerer monk could only land one attack with chill touch per round and couldn't get off all three charges with a flurry of blows... Oh well. :)
So some disagreement. The lich was just an example, an a bad one, since it specifically is called out as a natural weapon. So, for instance, how about a Lamia?
They have a BAB of +9, and a touch attack that drains 1d4 Wisdom. The Bestiary shows attacks of:
Melee +1 dagger +13/+8 (1d4+4/19–20), touch +7 (1d4 Wisdom drain), 2 claws +7 (1d4+2)
That looks to me like the stats are for using all 5 attacks in one full-attack action. If the Lamia wanted to, could it forfeit the dagger attacks and make 2 touch attacks at +12/+7? I haven't been able to find anything in the CRB that specifically says yes or no to this concept.
Well here's where I'm at on that:
The Lamia's touch attack counts as a natural attack. This is inferred with the following: The Lamia has a +13 bonus to hit with a melee attack, the listed full attack includes two attacks with a dagger, and the touch attack which is taking a -5 penalty to hit. If it wasn't a natural attack it would be taking a -8 penalty to hit as an off hand attack and the dagger would be taking a -4 penalty to hit (the lamia doesn't have two weapon fighting). As it is in the full attack we know it isn't a standard action supernatural ability (since those can't be used in a full attack).
The odd part is that it's pointed out that the lamia doesn't heal from the wisdom drain 'unlike other ability drain attacks' -- which doesn't hold up in the ability drain universal rules (which doesn't state that creatures heal upon draining another creature).
So we either have:
1. A monster with a completely screwed up stat block. Including either: A supernatural ability that should be counted as a weapon attack (and therefore all the attacks should be taking different penalties)
or
2. A creature with a supernatural ability touch attack that counts as a natural weapon even though it isn't listed as such.
Before you ask this problem also shows itself with the:
Ghost, Shadow, as well as several other monsters with similar abilities.
****************************************************
Again with all respect to JJ part of the reason I currently argue against his previous post is due to Paizo staff in general having stated things are one way in a semi/non-official post and then the official position coming out in the complete opposite direction once actual clarification came out in the FAQ or errata.
An example of this: When Council of Thieves came out there was a huge fiasco where a NPC had a combination of feats that everyone 'knew' didn't work together and then Paizo staff stated they did work together... only to later come out and errata in the opposite direction once again making the people that thought they didn't work together right.
The feats in question were vital strike and spring attack... and possibly whirlwind attack (though I'm not sure on that last one).
I would never as the developers to not post in a thread (that would be both the height of rudeness, stupidity and outright ego beyond my capabilities) however as they frequently point out -- just because one person from Paizo has post something doesn't actually mean that's the way it is until it comes out with the official tags on it.
So some disagreement. The lich was just an example, an a bad one, since it specifically is called out as a natural weapon. So, for instance, how about a Lamia?
They have a BAB of +9, and a touch attack that drains 1d4 Wisdom. The Bestiary shows attacks of:
That looks to me like the stats are for using all 5 attacks in one full-attack action. If the Lamia wanted to, could it forfeit the dagger attacks and make 2 touch attacks at +12/+7? I haven't been able to find anything in the CRB that specifically says yes or no to this concept.
Melee +1 dagger +13/+8 (1d4+4/19–20), touch +7 (1d4 Wisdom drain), 2 claws +7 (1d4+2)
in short, no. Just like it could not forfit the dagger attacks for more claw attacks. That touch attack is formatted to work like a natural attack. I believe all touch attacks that are not specifically connected with weapons work on that principle.
Yeah, there seems to be Touch attacks as Natural Weapons, listed as such in Monster stat blocks, and Touch spells, which have their own distinct rules. I would hazard that unless there is an actual spell or SLA involved, Touch attacks are Natural Attacks... Unfortunately, Touch-Natural Attacks (or for non-spells) aren`t detailed anywhere I know, but that seems how it`s working behind the scenes, so to speak. I`ve brought up that the rules on Touch effects are heavily confusing but no Errata or FAQ to this date.
The Touch spell rules (in Combat Chapter) tell you how they are delivered: as a Standard Action, deliver one (this isn`t an Attack action, it`s a unique action... if it used normal weapon rules, that wouldn`t be necessary). OR, delivered via UAS/Natural Weapons (which must hit normal AC to do damage and also deliver effect). That`s it. So you CAN deliver multiple touch charges with a Full Attack, but only via UAS/Natural Weapons (or Spellstrike if you are a Magus)... The rules for Touch Spells don`t conceive of Touch-Spell-Charge-as-weapon Full Attacks vs. Touch AC only. I have no idea what is RAI here or what.
The Touch spell rules (in Combat Chapter) tell you how they are delivered: as a Standard Action, deliver one (this isn`t an Attack action, it`s a unique action... if it used normal weapon rules, that wouldn`t be necessary). OR, delivered via UAS/Natural Weapons (which must hit normal AC to do damage and also deliver effect). That`s it. So you CAN deliver multiple touch charges with a Full Attack, but only via UAS/Natural Weapons (or Spellstrike if you are a Magus)... The rules for Touch Spells don`t conceive of Touch-Spell-Charge-as-weapon Full Attacks vs. Touch AC only. I have no idea what is RAI here or what.
Those rules don't actually state that the spell can't be used with iteratives or must be used as a standard action. In fact it implies that it is a standard attack -- (not a separate standard action in and of itself) since it is covered under the stand attack action and is included in the section that references how to get a full attack.
Indeed if what you say is true the all touch attack spells would require a stand action to use rendering them unable to be used at all in a full attack.
Which is not that case.
I think I was mixing up the part about the Standard Action with the willing target part, but the rules basicallly leave what the Touch Attack is as undefined...
And the Holding a Charge part is written in a way such that it appears those are the only options (it introduces the actions for touching friends and then says `alternately` to introduce the UAS/NW-vectors. `alternately` doesn`t imply there is a third way there, namely `attacking normally using the Touch Attack as normal attacks/AoOs/iteratives`). I can accept that those details are just bad editing, but don`t `mean` anything, and that Touch Spell Attacks are left to simply use the `standard` rules for attacks, e.g. attack action, full attack, cleave, etc.
I`ve posted before that there are other problems with the vague-ness around Touch Attacks... Do you need a free hand, or can any body part deliver them? Are monster Touch Attacks different? Can Monsters deliver their Touch Attacks via other NW? That is all basic stuff, but the rules never actually discuss Touch Attacks per se, like they do for UAS, Ranged, Natural Weapons, etc. That some Touch Attacks may `be` NW, and some are not, is a HUGE detail that the rules are silent on.
Incidentally, JJ`s opinion re: non-iterative Touch Attacks is likely HIGHLY influenced by his GM experience running monsters with Touch attacks. Of course, since there is no rules explaining the difference between these two categories of touch attacks, JJ gave an opinion consistent with the BEST, MOST SOLID example of how Touch Attacks are supposed to work, within the rules: monster stat-blocks. That still doesn`t answer whether monsters are allowed to `alternately` deliver their touch attacks via NW (which could allow for much more effects, obviously). I would presume that non-spell/sla touch attacks gained by PCs should work just like Bestiary Touch Attacks, but that would be a 2ndary deduction from a distinction that isn`t explained anywhere to begin with.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I just "have" to post this...
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
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.
...and so we go to Armed Attacks
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
...so here my point. If delivering subsequent "touch" attacks count as being armed, and being armed is just like making attacks as monk, don't they get full-attack actions with their fist? So, why wouldn't a Magus or Eldritch Knight or high level mage not get iterative attacks with Chill Touch.
Sorry Dev's...I love you and the work you do, but as the rules are written do not support this "suppose-to-work-THIS-way" feel. You CAN multiple attacks with Chill Touch...GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!
I feel like I just "have" to post this...
Stuff...
..so here my point. If delivering subsequent "touch" attacks count as being armed, and being armed is just like making attacks as monk, don't they get full-attack actions with their fist? So, why wouldn't a Magus or Eldritch Knight or high level mage not get iterative attacks with Chill Touch.
Sorry Dev's...I love you and the work you do, but as the rules are written do not support this "suppose-to-work-THIS-way" feel. You CAN multiple attacks with Chill Touch...GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!
The plot thickens.
Those rules don't actually state that the spell can't be used with iteratives or must be used as a standard action. In fact it implies that it is a standard attack --I believe that say holding the charge on a shocking grasp spell that you would threaten squares with it and be able to deliver it via an AOO.
If that's the case (I don't have time to check references mea culpa) then it definitely would be a regular attack and be able to be part of a full attack action.
-James
It seems to me that the purpose was that the touch attacks are treated like a natural weapon, much like a claw attack. You can make AoO without problem, but you would not gain iterative attacks unless they function like weapon attacks specifically, certainly every creature in the bestiaries with touch attacks seems to follow this.
However it seems you can make multiple attacks with chilltouch if you make unarmed strikes, since those can gain itterative attacks like weapons, otherwise you can make a touch attack as a natural weapon with your offhand, which means you get a -5 to hit.
Not quoting rules to support this, but this seems like it is intended, it seems agreeable enough to me, though a common rule would be nice for the cases where it is not directly stated.
I suppose this would mean that my socerer monk could only land one attack with chill touch per round and couldn't get off all three charges with a flurry of blows...
Er, wouldn't you be able to flurry normally, and deliver the spell on a successful hit? You're just attacking normal AC instead of touch.
JJ's post was about making iterative -touch- attacks, not iterative unarmed strike attacks while holding the charge.
I suppose this would mean that my socerer monk could only land one attack with chill touch per round and couldn't get off all three charges with a flurry of blows...Er, wouldn't you be able to flurry normally, and deliver the spell on a successful hit? You're just attacking normal AC instead of touch.
JJ's post was about making iterative -touch- attacks, not iterative unarmed strike attacks while holding the charge.
Yea, you can not flurry with touch attacks, you can make unarmed strikes which would still trigger the spell if you hit, though it is harder to hit ofcourse.
The problem with the lich is the following line:
Melee Attack: A lich has a touch attack that it can use once per round as a natural weapon. A lich fighting without weapons uses its natural weapons (if it has any) in addition to its touch attack (which is treated as a primary natural weapon that replaces one claw or slam attack, if the creature has any). A lich armed with a weapon uses its weapons normally, and can use its touch attack as a secondary natural weapon.His touch attack is specifically stated to work as a natural weapon which means no iterative attacks -- again another example of a specific rule differing from the norm.
Me thinks you highlighted the wrong part. Look at the fist half of the sentence (which I've italicized).
It clearly states "once per round" which would exclude iterative attacks as well. It being a natural attack doesn't prevent it from being used multiple times, as a lich likely has multiple hands with which to touch with.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)....so here my point. If delivering subsequent "touch" attacks count as being armed, and being armed is just like making attacks as monk, don't they get full-attack actions with their fist?
So, why wouldn't a Magus or Eldritch Knight or high level mage not get iterative attacks with Chill Touch.
And notice how natural weapons are also listed in that line (NA`s can`t Iterate if I need remind you).
That line is discussing how all of the example count as `being armed`/don`t provoke AoO`s, contrary to normal rules for UAS,even though Natural Weapons in no way use UAS rules to begin with (i.e. slightly confused editing/writing). Nothing more.
`being armed` doesn`t have anything to do with iterative attacks, as natural weapons count as such, and can`t iterate.
The Touch Spells section says how they are attacks, but doesn`t say they can be used ITERATIVELY, i.e. whether they are treated as `weapons` (incl. UAS) or natural weapons. James Jacobs` opinion is 100% consistent with all the evidence the RAW actually presents: SOME touch spells SPECIFICALLY allow use as a weapon, i.e. iteratives, while all other examples of touch attacks, e.g. in bestiary, use natural weapon rules. So the rules are vague, but you can either assume: there is an un-stated rule that touch attacks are natural weapons (unless otherwise stated), which is consistent with all the evidence... OR, you can assume the same, but that there is ALSO a special un-stated rule that all Touch spells allow weapon-like use, although there is no evidence to support that.
If one assumes the 2nd, non-supported reading, where do you draw the line anyways, if PCs start gaining Touch Attacks from non-Spell sources? If Touch Spells are weapon-like, does that mean you can 2WF with it? The Natural Weapon Touch Attack theory is the LEAST problematic reading, and the most consistent with Core material. It`s perhaps not as CONVENIENT for power-maxing Caster PCs/NPCs, but that shouldn`t be a prime consideration in rules interpretation if you want to be taken seriously. Some rules just aren`t as conducive to that sort of thing. Natural Weapons ARE compatable with things like Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, Spring Attack, etc. I`m not sure if Paizo has stated this (obviously not on their official FAQ), but Haste, etc, probably SHOULD apply to Natural Attack Full Attacks as well, although by RAW it doesn`t (nor to UAS or `non-held` weapons like Armor Spikes, etc).
@RD: If something is a natural weapon you by definition cannot iterate with it, period... If a creature`s multiple limbs allow multiple attacks, that is reflected in the attack line, with multiple attacks listed. If they are not listed, they cannot use one natural attack multiple times.
I believe that say holding the charge on a shocking grasp spell that you would threaten squares with it and be able to deliver it via an AOO.
Yup.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
-------
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
--------
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell , and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
-----------
So its not a standard action.
Also, if say your character had a high enough base attack bonus, you could full attack punch someone in the face against their normal AC and set off shocking grasp each time you hit as long as you had charges left.
BTW, I thought I should add that I think being able to Full Attack with pure Touch Attacks *is* the RAI,
I just wanted to point out that James` position is probably the one MOST supported by the RAW itself.
Obviously, the RAW doesn`t directly say one way or another whether these attacks are Natural Weapons or `as weapons`, i.e. Iterable.
(if the latter, we would need additional information, such as how they interact with held objects, etc, not to mention explaining the class of Touch Attacks which ARE NW`s, i.e. as per Bestiary)
I think another argument that Spells should be Iterable Weapons, and not Natural Weapons (unlike Special Abilities like Monsters have), is that if Touch Spells were Natural Weapons, that makes Spell Strike a VERY big leap in terms of what it changes, effectively enabling Iterative attacks from scratch, not just gaining a different Crit range. But that is such a 2ndary issue, i.e. of balance, not to mentioning being in an adjunct product and not the Core Rules itself, that I wouldn`t use that to determine how Core Rules Touch Spells work.