A player is asking about the following scenario:
1) He's "holding a charge" from a touch spell previously cast.
2) He makes an unarmed strike.
3) He misses the AC of his target, but hits its touch AC.
Does the spell discharge on the target?
My guess is No. The target's touch AC only matters if you are specifically making a touch attack. He's not arguing, but I do like to make sure I'm correct.
Not according to rule. And my first reaction was that it might be a fair house rule to allow that, but on second thought no. See, when you try to hit someone to damage them, you swing differently (harder less accurately etc) than when you just try to tap them with a finger. If you houseruled it otherwise, then there's no penalty for trying to actually hit. So every wizard trying to get a touch in would swing with a dagger also, because hey maybe he gets lucky and hits with that too.
The player has to make a decision before he attacks.
Harder to hit but more damage (attack vs. AC, UAstrike + spell)
or
Easier to hit but less damage (attack vs. touchAC, spell)
Best of both worlds is only possible with Hannah Montana and not with PF RAW.
Technically, if you hit their Touch AC, then you "touched" the person and their armor or whatever prevented the damage.
If swinging normally doesn't ever allow you to "touch" someone on a miss, then how is someone's armor working?
There is absolutely no RAW that says you swing differently for a Touch Attack vs Non-Touch. Even though I suspect someone will give an example of why the world will collapse if you allow this, until that time....
I'd allow it.
N N 959 wrote: Technically, if you hit their Touch AC, then you "touched" the person and their armor or whatever prevented the damage.
If swinging normally doesn't ever allow you to "touch" someone on a miss, then how is someone's armor working?
There is absolutely no RAW that says you swing differently for a Touch Attack vs Non-Touch. While I suppose most GMs will convince themselves it's double-dipping or some such metaphor....
I'd allow it.
I wouldn't allow it because a touch attack is a standard action, while regular attacks can be part of an iterative full-attack action. So allowing a standard attack to resolve as a touch attack means you're allowing multiple potential touch attacks per round.
In the case of a standard attack, the AC that blocked the attack isn't specified as shield AC, deflection AC, dodge AC, DEX AC, natural AC, or any other particular kind of AC. You just missed against the AC. Just because you could have hit the touch AC or the flat-footed AC doesn't mean that was the part of the AC that your roll overcame.
If he wants to target only Touch AC with a touch attack then he needs to take a standard action to do so. (Except in the round in which the spell is cast, of course, when delivering it via touch attack is usually a free action as part of the casting action.)
Wolf Munroe wrote: I wouldn't allow it because a touch attack is a standard action, while regular attacks can be part of an iterative full-attack action. Let's look at the Touch Attack rules
Touch Attack wrote: Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor. I'm not seeing anything that says a Touch Attack must be a Standard action, do you?
However, the rules explicitly state...
PRD on Holding the Charge wrote: 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 while one can argue ambiguity, I can imagine the popular opinion is its all or northing. It appears the game wants to artificially prevent contact from happening, even though exceeding the Touch AC means this is exactly what happens. It's pretty obvious that if the rules didn't say this, then nobody would bother to make a touch attack. Everyone would just swing for damage because you're getting the Touch attack for free. <---and the world would collapse if his happened.
Quote: In the case of a standard attack, the AC that blocked the attack isn't specified as shield AC, deflection AC, dodge AC, DEX AC, natural AC, or any other particular kind of AC. It doesn't need to. All we need to know is what the Touch AC is, because those are the only things that prevent you from being touched.
Holding the charge wrote: 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. Unarmed attacks wrote: Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon,.. I see a difference between touching a target and hitting it with an unarmed attack. Unarmed attacks are against the AC of the target (see melee weapons and attacks) and ..
Quote: If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. There is no rule that say 'If your unarmed attack misses you may touch the target as long as you beat the touch AC'.
Yeah weekend!
The answer is no. Nothing in the rules allows you to attack with an Unarmed Strike versus full normal AC, miss that and then check against touch AC to see if you hit that to deliver the spell.
The point is to force you to make the choice between the extra damage and the better chance to hit.
It would not be unreasonable to allow it as a house rule, and indeed makes logical sense. HOWEVER! From a game balance perspective it shouldn't be allowed as there would be no drawback to attempting to hit with an unarmed strike/natural attack to deliver extra damage along with the spell.
If you want to do that, play a magus and get Spell Strike. You wont target touch AC, but delivering attacks through weapons will be your schtick. *That includes unarmed strikes as weapon too.
N N 959 wrote: However, the rules explicitly state...
PRD on Holding the Charge wrote: 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 while one can argue ambiguity...
By your own admission, the rules explicitly state that missing with your unarmed strike means you're still holding the charge, and you think that leaves things ambiguous? Huh?
I think it's clear, one chooses before one rolls, whether one is making a touch spellish attack or a more normal weaponish attack. There is no forgiveness built into the system for choosing badly.
I also think it would be a great houserule default or a houserule feat or something, for a wuxia magic campaign or a cult of magical assassins.
Because ALL the mages swinging staves and knives and such is a cool visual.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Fayteri wrote: A player is asking about the following scenario:
1) He's "holding a charge" from a touch spell previously cast.
2) He makes an unarmed strike.
3) He misses the AC of his target, but hits its touch AC.
Does the spell discharge on the target?
My guess is No. The target's touch AC only matters if you are specifically making a touch attack. He's not arguing, but I do like to make sure I'm correct.
No.... you made the decision that you were going for the extra damage of a full melee strike to add to your spell damage. You either go for the touch to have a better chance of hitting your target, or you went vs armor class because you wanted to add your melee damage.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I guess the major point here is, for the most part wizards and sorcerers should avoid getting fancy and trying to hit full AC for an extra 4 points of damage and just deliver the damn touch spell which will do so very much more.
Jiggy wrote: N N 959 wrote: However, the rules explicitly state...
PRD on Holding the Charge wrote: 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 while one can argue ambiguity...
By your own admission, the rules explicitly state that missing with your unarmed strike means you're still holding the charge, and you think that leaves things ambiguous? Huh? 1. The rule only talks about unarmed or natural weapons. If you are hitting someone with a manufactured weapon and you exceed their Touch AC, by definition you've "touched" them.
2. The Hold the Charge rule states...
Holding the Charge wrote: . If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. When you exceed the Touch AC, you've touched them. The spell should discharge.
As I stated above, the authors probably wanted to artificially prevent someone from getting the Touch Attack for free. Like many things in the game, it is a logical disconnect and an intended contradiction in the rules, no doubt resulting from someone thinking this is fair.
N N 959 wrote: If you are hitting someone with a manufactured weapon and you exceed their Touch AC, by definition you've "touched" them. No, your weapon has touched* them. But you've already touched your weapon. Which means if you're not a magus, you already discharged your spell before you even made the attack.
*Except not really, because there isn't actually anything in the rules (that I've found) that says that an attack roll that lands between Touch and AC actually touches them.
Jiggy wrote: N N 959 wrote: If you are hitting someone with a manufactured weapon and you exceed their Touch AC, by definition you've "touched" them. No, your weapon has touched* them. But you've already touched your weapon. Which means if you're not a magus, you already discharged your spell before you even made the attack.
*Except not really, because there isn't actually anything in the rules (that I've found) that says that an attack roll that lands between Touch and AC actually touches them.
Sorry, I was talking about it from the perspective a Magus holding their charge. If I'm not a Magus, then I can't discharge the spell through a manufactured weapon so this wouldn't apply.
I can see why my statements are confusing if you think I'm arguing ambiguity on whether a non-Magus could discharge with a weapon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Jiggy wrote: N N 959 wrote: If you are hitting someone with a manufactured weapon and you exceed their Touch AC, by definition you've "touched" them. No, your weapon has touched* them. But you've already touched your weapon. Which means if you're not a magus, you already discharged your spell before you even made the attack.
*Except not really, because there isn't actually anything in the rules (that I've found) that says that an attack roll that lands between Touch and AC actually touches them.
Sorry, I was talking about it from the perspective a Magus holding their charge. If I'm not a Magus, then I can't discharge the spell through a manufactured weapon so this wouldn't apply. Spellstrike wrote: Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. In order to deliver the spell, the "melee attack" must be "successful". It must hit normal AC, per the normal rules for melee attacks that Spellstrike fails to contradict.
Thus, in order to make any claim that a melee weapon attack which is not "successful" (i.e., has not equaled or exceeded the target's actual AC) would still "touch" the target, you would need to find such a rule in the base rules for how melee weapon attacks work.
I don't believe you'll find any such rule. Your claim that a missed attack that's still higher than Touch AC physically touches the target is merely your own assumption (and an erroneous one at that, even from a "realism" standpoint).
Armor Class doesn't have an order of operations. There is no telling when you miss, which particular aspect of their AC made you miss.
When you make a touch attack, you are attacking differently then when you make a regular attack. You are purposefully ignoring the armor etc. of the target.
So if I am trying to punch the guy in plate mail, I might be aiming for his throat that is only covered by a chain mesh, rather than a steel plate. If I miss by one, that doesn't mean I touched his armor, it might mean that because I was trying for a more difficult attack in order to penetrate his armor he was able to dodge using his dodge feat. If I am just trying to deliver a touch spell instead though, I have a lot more options, and can go for much easier targets.
By RAW a miss is a miss, no spell discharges, etc. In concept, it is, as I illustrated above, perfectly logical as well.
Removed a post and the replies to it. Leave personal insults out of the conversation.
Jiggy wrote: Thus, in order to make any claim that a melee weapon attack which is not "successful" (i.e., has not equaled or exceeded the target's actual AC) would still "touch" the target, you would need to find such a rule in the base rules for how melee weapon attacks work. This rule is inherent in the definition of what is a Touch Attack and Ranged Touch attack.
Quote: I don't believe you'll find any such rule. Your claim that a missed attack that's still higher than Touch AC physically touches the target is merely your own assumption (and an erroneous one at that, even from a "realism" standpoint). It is not an assumption as it is proven by the firearm mechanics:
PRD wrote: Range and Penetration: Armor, whether manufactured or natural, provides little protection against the force of a bullet at short range.
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.
You don't declare that you're aiming for touch AC. You roll the attack. If you're within the first range increment, you blow through the armor. If you're not, the armor works. The attacker isn't changing their attack. It's the same non-declaration.
Your (now erased) assertion that the player is missing more is because they are aiming at the weak points is, to quote you, "an erroneous one at that, even from a 'realism' standpoint".
An attack that is aimed at the weak points, misses the weak point and is deflected by the armor. Nothing in the rule says it misses the target all together. Why? Because, to my knowledge, it doesn't matter either way. Either you can make a Touch Attack or you make a normal attack and you only get the secondary condition if your normal attack hits.
Let's look at what the rule book says about Armor
PRD wrote: your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Emphasis mine. AC is not how hard it is to touch you, it's how hard it is to land a blow that is "solid" enough that it damages the target. Implicitly it means that a blow may land but not be "solid" enough to do damage. There's nothing in here about being hit because a weakness in your armor was exploited. Where do the rules talk about aiming for weak spots? I'll show you.
PRD wrote: Deadly Aim (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.
The feat explicitly states that this is a person aiming for a weak spot and a penalty is imposed because of it.
Obviously the developers didn't want to contemplate a monk/wizard missing a normal attack and still hitting Touch AC. Doing so would measurably slow down the game and increase the average damage of those with natural/unarmored attacks. That's fine. The game isn't fun because it's real
Dave Justus wrote: Armor Class doesn't have an order of operations. There is no telling when you miss, which particular aspect of their AC made you miss. It doesn't need an order of operations in this discussion. What it does have and what matters is what modifiers apply and when they apply.
Quote: ]When you make a touch attack, you are attacking differently then when you make a regular attack. That's not stated anywhere in the rules and is simply a rationalization on your part to try and avoid the obvious conclusion that something that exceeds touch...touches.
Quote: You are purposefully ignoring the armor etc. of the target. You aren't purposefully doing anything. Your simply trying to touch the target and physical armor is irrelevant in preventing it.
Quote: By RAW a miss is a miss, no spell discharges, etc. In concept, it is, as I illustrated above, perfectly logical as well. By RAW, a miss is a miss, arguing that a miss is never physically deflected by the armor is anything but "perfectly logical".
N N 959 wrote: Jiggy wrote: Thus, in order to make any claim that a melee weapon attack which is not "successful" (i.e., has not equaled or exceeded the target's actual AC) would still "touch" the target, you would need to find such a rule in the base rules for how melee weapon attacks work. This rule is inherent in the definition of what is a Touch Attack and Ranged Touch attack. I must have missed it. For reference:
Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Combat Statistics, Armor Class wrote: Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor. Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Actions in Combat, Standard Actions, Cast a Spell wrote: 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.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
That's the definition of touch attacks, in which you claim it's inherent that missing full AC involves still physically touching the target. I don't see it.
Quote: Quote: I don't believe you'll find any such rule. Your claim that a missed attack that's still higher than Touch AC physically touches the target is merely your own assumption (and an erroneous one at that, even from a "realism" standpoint). It is not an assumption as it is proven by the firearm mechanics:
PRD wrote: Range and Penetration: Armor, whether manufactured or natural, provides little protection against the force of a bullet at short range.
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.
You don't declare that you're aiming for touch AC. You roll the attack. If you're within the first range increment, you blow through the armor. If you're not, the armor works. The attacker isn't changing their attack. It's the same non-declaration.
Okay, so firearms blow through armor. What's that got to do with anything that isn't a firearm?
Quote: Your (now erased) assertion that the player is missing more is because they are aiming at the weak points is, to quote you, "an erroneous one at that, even from a 'realism' standpoint". I said it's another possibility, and that your alternative is not "mandated" (your word) by logic.
Quote: Let's look at what the rule book says about Armor
PRD wrote: your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following: There's nothing in here about being hit because a weakness in your armor was exploited.
There's also nothing in there about the armor physically stopping/deflecting the attack. Like I said, you're making an assumption, and claiming it's "mandated" when in fact other possibilities exist.
Jiggy wrote: That's the definition of touch attacks, in which you claim it's inherent that missing full AC involves still physically touching the target. I don't see it. Then you don't see it. It's moot. To my knowledge the game doesn't care so the discussion is academic and has no bearing on game play.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
(sigh) Within the rules as written, the omission of the whole concept strongly implies that it is not considered a legal action.
Pretending for a moment that we're in the house rules forum instead: I've allowed it as a house rule in the past, but spellcasters without Improved Unarmed Strike became subject to the attack of opportunity that touch spells ordinarily ignore. If you want to line up to smack somebody hard, you're endangering yourself more than if you're merely playing touch-tag. (Considering sorceror/wizard/witch BAB, it's really not that great an option even with that feat. A cleric/monk multiclass might have been able to make it scary.)
Lincoln Hills wrote: I've allowed it as a house rule in the past, but spellcasters without Improved Unarmed Strike became subject to the attack of opportunity that touch spells ordinarily ignore. I don't believe that's correct.
Let's look at the touch attack text:
Quote: 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 you do not have Unarmed Strike or a natural weapon, the rule says you are still subject to an AoO. The only time you get to ignore the AoO is if you can make the normal attack without provoking the AoO, or, you elect to deliver the spell as a touch attack.
Quote: If you want to line up to smack somebody hard, you're endangering yourself more than if you're merely playing touch-tag. The rules don't seem to support this.
PRD wrote: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Emphasis mine.
Core Rulebook does not seem to talk about touch attack that are not based on spells. As such, if I try to touch someone outside of a delivering a spell by touch, I am subject to an AoO. So I can do the exact same thing physically and the game shifts the goal posts so that if I have spell, I get to avoid the AoO.
This is the developers (probably 3.5) being logically inconsistent because they want a certain outcome/experience i.e. they want casters to be able to deliver touch spells without getting walloped.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Non-sequitur: Has anyone noticed it always seems like it the same 3 or 4 people on the boards proposing outlandish things and feverishly disagreeing with what seems like the entire board when the answer isn't the one they want?
N N 959 wrote: Lincoln Hills wrote: I've allowed it as a house rule in the past, but spellcasters without Improved Unarmed Strike became subject to the attack of opportunity that touch spells ordinarily ignore. I don't believe that's correct. I know it's not 'correct' by rules-as-written... because it's a sub-clause of the house rule. For clarity, I should have preceded the words "If you want to line up to smack somebody hard..." with the words, "The reasoning behind the house rule requiring Improved Unarmed Strike to avoid an attack of opportunity while combining an unarmed strike and a touch spell is..." But who would have the patience to read such a sentence?!
Your post is correctly citing the rules as far as I know.
Claxon wrote: Non-sequitur: Has anyone noticed it always seems like it the same 3 or 4 people on the boards proposing outlandish things and feverishly disagreeing with what seems like the entire board when the answer isn't the one they want? yep lot of it lately
Someone just correct me if I´m wrong.
But, by RAW, miss a normal attack is a entirely miss. Or is there some rule that stated the miss attack still touch the target without effect?
Is this a RAWness or RAWless conversation after all? Some people are linking RAW rules to defend their non-RAW interpretation and house-ruling.
My idea about rules:
The Magus chose: regular melee or touch melee, miss is a miss, hit is a hit. Period.
Kemedo wrote: Someone just correct me if I´m wrong.
But, by RAW, miss a normal attack is a entirely miss. Or is there some rule that stated the miss attack still touch the target without effect?
Is this a RAWness or RAWless conversation after all? Some people are linking RAW rules to defend their non-RAW interpretation and house-ruling.
My idea about rules:
The Magus chose: regular melee or touch melee, miss is a miss, hit is a hit. Period.
The RAW is that when holding a charge, if you use a normal attack, the spell is not discharged if you miss. There is no RAW on what happens on a miss based on the roll, except for when you roll a 1, or if you throw a splash weapon/boulder.
Logic would dictate that when you exceed the Touch AC, you've made physical contact with the target and the armor is preventing the injury. But, (AFAIK) there is no change in outcome if this were true or if it were not. Why? Because as I stated at the beginning, Holding the Charge rule is unambiguous when it comes to touch spells, even if it is seemingly contradictory with other aspects of the game. If you miss the normal AC, the spell is not discharged, whether or not you actually touch the target.
N N 959 wrote: Jiggy wrote: That's the definition of touch attacks, in which you claim it's inherent that missing full AC involves still physically touching the target. I don't see it. Then you don't see it. It's moot. To my knowledge the game doesn't care so the discussion is academic and has no bearing on game play. I'd like to make sure I have this right.
Jiggy quoted the definitions of melee and range touch attacks and your response is to dismiss those definitions entirely in favor of your own definition, which can be summed up as "logic says that it would work a different way."
Is that description correct?
N N 959 wrote: Logic would dictate that when you exceed the Touch AC, you've made physical contact with the target and the armor is preventing the injury. But, (AFAIK) there is no change in outcome if this were true or if it were not. Why? Because as I stated at the beginning, Holding the Charge rule is unambiguous when it comes to touch spells, even if it is seemingly contradictory with other aspects of the game. If you miss the normal AC, the spell is not discharged, whether or not you actually touch the target.
It does seem logical that if you miss an attack, but still have a roll high enough to surpass the touch AC your attack connects harmlessly with the armor the target is wearing. But it is NOT the only logical explanation of how a "missed" attack is handled. It could very well be that because you concentrated on hitting weak points in the armor the target was better able to avoid the attack entirely. Regardless, you arrive at the same conclusion as the alternative explanation of how a miss is handled: That a touch spell is not discharged.
The reason I bring it up at all is that others in this very thread has claimed the same logic as you and arrived at a different conclusion from you. It is therefor important to note that your way of handling a "miss" from a logical explanation is not the only one.
In this case I would like to say that while RAW is important, when all is said and done, RAW only hold importance because it helps us to understand RAI. When it comes to RAI here I have this important question: "If the creators really did want us to be able to make a physical attack that when missed still got to discharge the touch spell as long as we reached touch AC, then why on earth wouldn't they mention it?"... From where I'm sitting this isn't something that is easily extrapolated so why not mention it... At all?
I would like to continue by saying that if you cannot reach a specific conclusion simply by reading all the relevant rules text, then always err on the side of caution and unbrokenness...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Kemedo wrote: Someone just correct me if I´m wrong.
But, by RAW, miss a normal attack is a entirely miss. Or is there some rule that stated the miss attack still touch the target without effect?
Is this a RAWness or RAWless conversation after all? Some people are linking RAW rules to defend their non-RAW interpretation and house-ruling.
My idea about rules:
The Magus chose: regular melee or touch melee, miss is a miss, hit is a hit. Period.
The RAW is that when holding a charge, if you use a normal attack, the spell is not discharged if you miss. There is no RAW on what happens on a miss based on the roll, except for when you roll a 1, or if you throw a splash weapon/boulder.
Logic would dictate that when you exceed the Touch AC, you've made physical contact with the target and the armor is preventing the injury. But, (AFAIK) there is no change in outcome if this were true or if it were not. Why? Because as I stated at the beginning, Holding the Charge rule is unambiguous when it comes to touch spells, even if it is seemingly contradictory with other aspects of the game. If you miss the normal AC, the spell is not discharged, whether or not you actually touch the target.
No, logic does not necessitate that. I made a fairly lengthy reply before explaining why, but it apparently got removed because it was replying to your antagonizing post.
As noted, there is no order of operations for AC. Yes, what modifiers apply and when matters. But what those modifiers don't tell us is whether you apply DEX after Armor or before. Your presumption requires that DEX applies before Armor. Nothing in the rules tells us that. It is certainly one way to interpret and envision how the rules might play out, but it is certainly not the only one.
Another way of looking at it is that the only reason we make a die roll and then compare it to a target number to determine if a hit was made is for ease of calculation. For example, there is no difference in probability between rolling eleven or higher and rolling an even number on a d20. Either way you have a 50/50 shot. Or rolling 16 or higher versus rolling a number evenly divided by 4 (25%). So once you've determined that to hit you must roll greater than 16 (based on hitting the target's regular AC), what you actually roll has no bearing on whether or not you hit his touch AC. There is nowhere (IIRC) that you using a single die roll to compare to two different numbers. Even the example of firearms doesn't do this. You KNOW which number you will be comparing the roll to BEFORE you make the attack.
RAuer2 wrote: N N 959 wrote: Jiggy wrote: That's the definition of touch attacks, in which you claim it's inherent that missing full AC involves still physically touching the target. I don't see it. Then you don't see it. It's moot. To my knowledge the game doesn't care so the discussion is academic and has no bearing on game play. I'd like to make sure I have this right.
Jiggy quoted the definitions of melee and range touch attacks and your response is to dismiss those definitions entirely in favor of your own definition, which can be summed up as "logic says that it would work a different way."
Is that description correct? no, that is not correct.
Lincoln Hills wrote: I know it's not 'correct' by rules-as-written... because it's a sub-clause of the house rule. For clarity, I should have preceded the words "If you want to line up to smack somebody hard..." with the words, "The reasoning behind the house rule requiring Improved Unarmed Strike to avoid an attack of opportunity while combining an unarmed strike and a touch spell is..." But who would have the patience to read such a sentence?!... Then my bad as I misunderstood that you were simply rationalizing your house rule.
No, no, it's OK. Sometimes I forget to be clear in my rush to be brief, timely, and witty. (In fact, sometimes I forget all four.)
Lifat wrote: It does seem logical that if you miss an attack, but still have a roll high enough to surpass the touch AC your attack connects harmlessly with the armor the target is wearing. Wow, you are like only person to acknowledge this. Let me know if you burst into flames because I suspect other posters may fear this will happen to them.
Quote: But it is NOT the only logical explanation of how a "missed" attack is handled. I'm going to say it isn't the only explanation, it is the normative one. The term "logical" may be a bit of land mine in this discussion. But as you acknowledge, it's logical for an attack that exceeds someone's ability to avoid it..hits them.
Quote: It could very well be that because you concentrated on hitting weak points in the armor the target was better able to avoid the attack entirely. Yes, Jiggy attempted this rationale earlier. I find this argument curious. It seems to speak of a cognitive dissonance at work.
You want to agree that it's "logical" that I miss the entire person because I'm aiming for their unarmored armpit? Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a robot and have it attack a target that can move. Let's say we can dial in the accuracy so that it just hits the dummy's armpit and causes damage through the armor every time. Now, let's have that robot miss by 5%. Do you think it's going to miss the entire man-sized dummy every single time?
The simplest way to implement the armor paradigm is as I have stated: Below touch AC, you can't land a blow. Above touch AC, you hit the armor. Above armor AC the blow was solid enough to do damage. So what is the motivation to try and rationalize around this model? Why is there a need to say this isn't what's happening?
Quote: It is therefor important to note that your way of handling a "miss" from a logical explanation is not the only one. There isn't a better logical argument put forth. What people have said is that one way you could describe missing an entire target but exceeding the touch AC is given XYZ. I'm not debating ways you can describe a miss. I'm pointing out the straight forward logic that after you exceed someone's ability dodge your attack, then they only thing keeping them from taking damage are those things that form a barrier.
Quote: In this case I would like to say that while RAW is important, when all is said and done, RAW only hold importance because it helps us to understand RAI. Some of us come from a PFS mentality so RAW is what matters since letting people GM based on RAI is just going to open the floodgates.
Quote: When it comes to RAI here I have this important question: "If the creators really did want us to be able to make a physical attack that when missed still got to discharge the touch spell as long as we reached touch AC, then why on earth wouldn't they mention it?"... From where I'm sitting this isn't something that is easily extrapolated so why not mention it... At all? They did mention it. They explicitly stated that if you go for damage and you can't damage, you don't get to discharge your spell, regardless. Think about what means that they had to explicitly state that. If the default view was that a miss is a miss is a miss, you wouldn't need to state that would you?
I already explained that the decision to not allow a missed normal attack to double as as touch attack is an artistic consideration. Not a "reality" one. For the same reason they don't let you do a non-spell touch attack as an armed attack. Because that's how they want it to work.
Quote: I would like to continue by saying that if you cannot reach a specific conclusion simply by reading all the relevant rules text, then always err on the side of caution and unbrokenness... While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it's pretty easy to argue that one person's "unbrokenness" is another person's "broken".
Let me state that this entire discussion is kind of silly. We are debating how something that isn't meant to reflect reality --the armor class paradigm--is working in reality. This is barely a step up from debating how magic works in the real world.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the good faith post on your part.
TPark wrote: You KNOW which number you will be comparing the roll to BEFORE you make the attack. Which is irrelevant to the resolution of the result. You don't need to know when you make the attack. The armor's applicability to preventing the damage is irrespective of what you know as the character.
When you're within the first range increment, the armor is ineffective in stopping that attack. If you are outside, that same roll...misses. RAW/Logic "mandates" it's because the armor deflects/absorbs it, not because you've suddenly started aiming for the armpit.
Do you think it's logical for your hypothetical robot to never fail to make contact, even once? That is the relevant question. Nobody said failing to hit the AC but passing the Touch AC never means you touch your target; we've all simply said you cannot assume you always touch your target, which is your position.
Given how firearms work against Touch AC and the attack is not even considered a "touch attack," then yes. When you exceed the Touch AC...you always make physical contact with the target. The firearm rules mandate that outcome. Because they only reason why the firearm doesn't do damage is because the armor is effective if you don't equal or exceed the full AC. Just like it is effective against melee attacks that exceed the touch AC but not the full AC.
But you know what? Who cares. It's irrelevant to RAW and (AFAIK) doesn't change anything that GM can't change on their own.
The question for you is why are you trying to assert against the obvious? Why are you invested in trying to convince yourself that my connecting the dots can't be correct? So what if I'm right?
Take a moment and pretend that RAW says when you beat Touch AC, armor is deflecting the blow. How is that problematic in your world?
1. The firearm rules do not say if you're past the first range increment, then your bullet bounces off the armor if it exceeds Touch AC but not normal AC. They simply say that beyond the first range increment, you must hit normal AC. It's certainly not illogical to envision it the way you do and nobody has claimed otherwise.
2. Why am I invested? I'm not, really. The argument doesn't matter. I simply chimed in because someone was vociferously insisting that there was no possible way that s/he could be incorrect, calling out that the most basic of logic supports his/her position, and telling (a) poster(s) who disagreed with him/her that their intellect must somehow be deficient because they didn't resoundingly agree with this impervious logic. I find that behavior irksome, particularly when the logic is not absolute and is not necessarily sound.
Take a moment and pretend that RAW is silent on the issue (like it actually is) when you beat Touch AC, but you don't necessarily know if the armor deflects the blow or something else happens: how is that problematic in your world?
fretgod99 wrote: 1. The firearm rules do not say if you're past the first range increment, then your bullet bounces off the armor if it exceeds Touch AC but not normal AC. Essentially that's exactly what the rules states. Given the way the rules are written, every single time I exceed the Touch AC with a non-touch attack, the bullet damages the target when the armor is ineffective. There are zero exceptions to this rule. It is never possible to exceed the touch AC and not hit barring some special exception.
The rule is as unequivocal as 1+1=2. Your refusing to accept that doesn't change its validity.
Quote: Take a moment and pretend that RAW is silent on the issue (like it actually is) when you beat Touch AC, but you don't necessarily know if the armor deflects the blow or something else happens: how is that problematic in your world? I was so hoping you'd say that.
Let's look at something Dave (and Jiggy until it was eraased) had said that seems to represent the dissenters
Dave Justus wrote: So if I am trying to punch the guy in plate mail, I might be aiming for his throat that is only covered by a chain mesh, rather than a steel plate. If I miss by one, that doesn't mean I touched his armor, it might mean that because I was trying for a more difficult attack in order to penetrate his armor he was able to dodge using his dodge feat. If I am just trying to deliver a touch spell instead though, I have a lot more options, and can go for much easier targets. We can prove this is false in the game rules. How? illusory armor using Silent Image. If what Dave says is true, then I can gives someone illusion armor that looks like plate mail and a person would miss even when exceeding Touch AC because they are "trying for a more difficult attack to penetrate his armor" And yet, if the attacker fails his saving throw and thinks he's fighting someone with real plate mail who in fact has no armor whatsoever, does the attacker ever miss if he exceeds the targets touch AC?
No. Never.
The rules mandate that if a person has no armor and I exceed their touch AC with a weapon attack, I hit. It doesn't matter if I believe they are wearing plate mail and I aim for a joint, I always hit when I exceed the touch ac. This unequivocally means that when I exceed the touch AC, I make physical contact with a weapon.
The only exceptions to this rule are when the game introduces things that give you a Dodge bonuses but don't work against Touch AC (simply for "balance" reasons). But that is clearly stating you avoided that attack.
Claxon wrote: I guess the major point here is, for the most part wizards and sorcerers should avoid getting fancy and trying to hit full AC for an extra 4 points of damage and just deliver the damn touch spell which will do so very much more. Which is why it's so much more juicy when that succubus smashes you with her claw attack that also happens to be carrying her vampiric touch.
Also liches. Liches are good ones too, since they can use their natural touch attack to deliver touch spells through, and those spells don't go off if their attack misses. This makes liches pretty dangerous if they have a charge held and care to smack you around a bit.
It can also be pretty cute for eldritch knights wearing gauntlets with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Not optimal, but cute.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
