Apply STR or DEX to damage with a touch attack?


Advice

The Exchange

I'm making an unchained rogue who uses the Magic talents all the time.

I'm planning to buy Deliquescent Gloves to deal 1d6 acid damage on touch attacks, which will proc sneak attack

I want to add DEX to damage, or STR to damage (which I will convert to DEX via U-Rogue's ability)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help me with any way at all to do this.

If anyone can come up with a good string search keywords then that would be great too because I can't think of how to avoid melee feats when searching.


VMC Magus to gain Spellstrike at level a millionth, or just dip Magus.

Grand Lodge

As far as I know, touch attacks NEVER add STR or DEX to damage. They simply do not work that way.

Touch attacks are all about just touching the foe. There is no punching through a body's resistances or hitting a vulnerable pressure point.

Only way to get STR or DEX with a touch attack is to deliver with an unarmed/natural attack or pick up 2 levels of magus. Of course, the attacks are no longer touch attacks at that point.


Secret Wizard wrote:
VMC Magus to gain Spellstrike at level a millionth, or just dip Magus.

I don't see how the item listed by TC would interact at all with Spellstrike as it is not a spell. Plus Spellstrike hits regular AC, not touch, which is what he seems to be after.

Anyway I think your plan is flawed TC. Going from memory (someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken), if you have a touch attack, using it is a standard action. It can't be used as part of a full attack. So yeah you can do your touch and deal sneak attack with it, but you are only ever getting that one attack in a round if you go that route.

Also as far as I know there is no way to add strength or dex damage to touch attack like this, so I believe you are out of luck.


Well...

You could be a gunslinger or trench fighter to get dex to touch attacks, though that's clearly not what you're asking for. If you look at VMC magus as Secret Wizard is suggesting, you might be able to get flamboyant arcana and arcane deed to add your level to damage. Besides that, I can't say much.

Edit: The 12th level Monk Unchained can get a kit power to a touch attack as a standard action, and there's a 9th-level Magus Arcana that lets you get a full attack off against touch ac. This doesn't really solve your problem, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:


Anyway I think your plan is flawed TC. Going from memory (someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken), if you have a touch attack, using it is a standard action. It can't be used as part of a full attack. So yeah you can do your touch and deal sneak attack with it, but you are only ever getting that one attack in a round if you go that route.

You are mistaken. Some people think that a "make a touch attack" standard action exists. It does not. "Touch a single friend" is a standard action, but a touch attack is just an attack. You can even use your held Shocking Grasp as an AoO.

Sovereign Court

Casual Viking wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:


Anyway I think your plan is flawed TC. Going from memory (someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken), if you have a touch attack, using it is a standard action. It can't be used as part of a full attack. So yeah you can do your touch and deal sneak attack with it, but you are only ever getting that one attack in a round if you go that route.

You are mistaken. Some people think that a "make a touch attack" standard action exists. It does not. "Touch a single friend" is a standard action, but a touch attack is just an attack. You can even use your held Shocking Grasp as an AoO.

Yep - while I don't think there's a way to get dex or str to damage with touch attacks. (I certainly hope not - it'd be OP.) Deliquescent gloves are great for rogues & ninjas with TWF beyond the added damage as they can use them on their own against highly armored targets, and if they have SA somehow the damage is still quite respectable. For everyone else, the damage is really too low to be viable.

The Exchange

IIRC there are some spells that add your strength mod to spell damage.

I could totally be wrong.

Maybe someone could think of a search term to search through the spells tab of d20pfsrd.com?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

5 levels of gunslinger and using a gun :3


Bandw2 wrote:
5 levels of gunslinger and using a gun :3

I'm more a fan of 3 levels of Trench Fighter (Fighter archetype), taking Amateur Gunslinger for Quick Clear, and then a single level of Mysterious Stranger with choosing not to turn Amateur Gunslinger into extra Grit. 4 level dip instead of 5, keep Quick Clear, get both Charisma and Dex to damage.

That aside, if you go that route then you still have ranged weapon Sneak Attack issues, at least until you get the awesome 15 rank ability from the stealth skill unlock. I imagine TC doesn't want to wait that long.

Silver Crusade

1. There is a magus arcana (Accurate Strike, 2 arcane points, swift action) that lets you resolve all of your attacks as touch attacks until the end of your turn. Requires 3 levels of magus.
2. A brilliant energy weapon ignores armor and shield bonuses to AC. At a +4 bonus, it is expensive though.

Both of these still allow you to add your Str (or Dex) to your damage rolls.


Casual Viking wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:


Anyway I think your plan is flawed TC. Going from memory (someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken), if you have a touch attack, using it is a standard action. It can't be used as part of a full attack. So yeah you can do your touch and deal sneak attack with it, but you are only ever getting that one attack in a round if you go that route.

You are mistaken. Some people think that a "make a touch attack" standard action exists. It does not. "Touch a single friend" is a standard action, but a touch attack is just an attack. You can even use your held Shocking Grasp as an AoO.

1) The item says nothing about being considered armed, so this melee touch attack provokes AoO for doing it.

2) As a magic item, when it doesn't state an activation cost it defaults to "standard action" as per the rules.


Are you running this as a home game? Or PFS? Or what? If it's a home game, just convince the DM that it's not game-breaking to not have it as a standard action to activate every single use- maybe just a standard action to activate for the next round or something. Sneak Attack should take care of itself damage-wise.

Oh, and if you want to be armed, get a Wayfinder with a cracked Deep Red Sphere Ioun Stone. Costs about 700 between the two items, and gives you Improved Unarmed Strike.


Skylancer4 wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:


Anyway I think your plan is flawed TC. Going from memory (someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken), if you have a touch attack, using it is a standard action. It can't be used as part of a full attack. So yeah you can do your touch and deal sneak attack with it, but you are only ever getting that one attack in a round if you go that route.

You are mistaken. Some people think that a "make a touch attack" standard action exists. It does not. "Touch a single friend" is a standard action, but a touch attack is just an attack. You can even use your held Shocking Grasp as an AoO.

1) The item says nothing about being considered armed, so this melee touch attack provokes AoO for doing it.

2) As a magic item, when it doesn't state an activation cost it defaults to "standard action" as per the rules.

I'm aware of how magic items work. But this glove doesn't "allow you to make a touch attack", it states your touch attacks now do 1d6 acid damage. It has no provisions for not doing acid damage. I read it as an always-on item, with no activation action (other than donning the gloves), similar to the ability of a Holy weapon.

I also disagree on the opportunity attack thing. You're right that the item doesn't specifically state that it counts as armed, but, (1) it's clearly closer to "delivering a touch spell" than "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts", (2) Paizo writers are more likely to ignore detailed interactions with existing rules and assuming that the readers understand their intent than write an item meant to be used for melee attacks and neglecting to mention that it provokes.


You can disagree, but unfortunately it doesn't state that it is armed. So as written you are making a touch attack and provoking for doing so.

The Exchange

Skylancer4 use common sense; if the touch is going to do something bad to your opponent, then they don't want to get touched by it.
When you use a touch attack from a spell, it only counts as armed if the touch is a bad touch. For example if you used Shrink Object and tried to touch an object you aren't already holding, while threatened, then you would provoke because the opponent doesn't care about getting touched by a touch that isn't a bad touch


Covert Operator wrote:

Skylancer4 use common sense; if the touch is going to do something bad to your opponent, then they don't want to get touched by it.

When you use a touch attack from a spell, it only counts as armed if the touch is a bad touch. For example if you used Shrink Object and tried to touch an object you aren't already holding, while threatened, then you would provoke because the opponent doesn't care about getting touched by a touch that isn't a bad touch

Unfortunately this game doesn't run on "common sense".

Rules as written the item is sloppy, I think we can all agree. It doesn't say anything about being treated as "holding a charge" or being "armed" so if you walk into PFS with such an item, don't expect it to work the way your "common sense" would tell you. Feel free to search the forums for the words "table variance" to see just how off your "common sense" and what happens at PFS tables in actuality.

There is also dev commentary about how the term "attack" can also be meant to imply standard action attack, but hey someone else already stated there is no such thing in the rules. That melee touch attack is strictly an attack however it is gained. But the Paizo employees stated otherwise. Someone else can dig it up if they want, but I'm not going to because it will just lead to "that isn't official FAQ/errata" so it really isn't worth it.

Common sense has no real bearing on an exception based rule set. It wouldn't be the first time what they published and what they meant to publish was at odds.


Fortunately for those who interpret RAW (in general, not for this item in particular) to mean what Skylancer4 is saying...this touch attack is not an unarmed strike. Skylancer4 is absolutely correct that this item doesn't qualify as an armed attack by a strict reading, but, held to that standard of scrutiny, it doesn't qualify as an unarmed strike either. And there is no rule that an attack must be one of those two.


Attack Real AC then you can add STR or DEX all you want.

The Exchange

Tom S 820 wrote:
Attack Real AC then you can add STR or DEX all you want.

But I get free action touch attacks in the round I cast a spell.

As a clarification for what I am after, I'm looking for a way to add STR (or DEX) to damage with Touch spells and Deliquescent Gloves. I'm basically convinced now that its not possible.

The Exchange

Skylancer4:
I'm entirely sure that this list is not exhaustive. There are other ways of making armed unarmed attacks, such as Disarm using your hands when you have Improved Disarm (and that's just one example so don't disprove this and act like you disproved the argument)

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks wrote:

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).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

The Exchange

Casual Viking wrote:
Fortunately for those who interpret RAW (in general, not for this item in particular) to mean what Skylancer4 is saying...this touch attack is not an unarmed strike. Skylancer4 is absolutely correct that this item doesn't qualify as an armed attack by a strict reading, but, held to that standard of scrutiny, it doesn't qualify as an unarmed strike either. And there is no rule that an attack must be one of those two.

Its not an Unarmed Strike but it is an Unarmed Attack (of the "Armed" variety, if I may say so myself)


Covert Operator wrote:
Skylancer4 use common sense; if the touch is going to do something bad to your opponent, then they don't want to get touched by it.

This cracks the can of worms on one of the strangest rules in this game.

If you are just touching the orc with a non-threatening finger, he gets an AoO so he might kill you before you even get to touch him. Why? He is NOT AFRAID of your finger so he attacks you.

"Really? A dumb finger? You cannot even hurt me with that so I'm going to clobber you right now!"

But if you are touching him with a glowing finger, now that orc cannot do anything about it. Why? he is VERY AFRAID of your finger so he decides not to kill you before you touch him.

"Ack! A glowing finger. Well, go ahead and touch me with your magic, there is nothing I can do about it."

What's the difference? It's the same orc and the same finger and the same touch attack. But when the finger is harmless and non-threatening ("unarmed") it provokes and you might die, but when that finger is glowing and threatening ("armed") it doesn't provoke and you can touch him with no risk to yourself.

Backward and stupid.

Common sense would say that the harmless finger doesn't provoke because the orc doesn't care while the dangerous finger provokes because the orc really wants to kill you before you touch him with that spell. Or even more common sense says they should both provoke equally - if the orc can hit you with a non-glowing finger then he should also be able to hit you with a glowing finger.

Long story short, there is no common sense in this rule.

By RAW, there is nothing about those gloves that prevents an AoO so apparently they are not scary to the enemies so they take a free shot at you to kill you for not scaring them.

As to the OP's question, you're right, you don't add ability scores to magical damage, even on touch spells. I don't know of any class ability or feat or magic that changes this, except if you want to get into Magus and use SpellStrike which won't really help you with your gloves.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

okay in reality if he thinks the non-dangerous finger is dangerous he doesn't get an AoO, the AoO is from him not trying to dodge your attacks, and thus simply getting a easy hit in. easy as that.


Bandw2 wrote:
okay in reality if he thinks the non-dangerous finger is dangerous he doesn't get an AoO, the AoO is from him not trying to dodge your attacks, and thus simply getting a easy hit in. easy as that.

OK, so if he DOES "dodge your attacks", what benefit does that give him?

The Exchange

Well he's not going to get touched, of course. If your opponent is trying not to get touched, they're not going to step towards you and extend their hand because that'll get the touched, they're going to shy away.


Covert Operator wrote:
Well he's not going to get touched, of course. If your opponent is trying not to get touched, they're not going to step towards you and extend their hand because that'll get the touched, they're going to shy away.

That's not how it works at all.

If an enemy tries to make a touch attack against you, his being "armed" prevents you from making an AoO but your loss of the AoO does not prevent him from touching you - it doesn't give you any benefit at all, not even a point of AC.


So it goes like this:

GM: Your facing two goblins. One of them looks really smart and is probably a spellcaster judging by his gear. We'll call him "Doc". The other looks like a half-wit and probably can't even tie his own shoes. We'll call him "Dopey".
Player: What are they doing?
GM: Doc is trying to touch you with a glowing finger, obviously some kind of magic spell. Dopey is trying to touch you with his finger but there is no magic on it; it's just his finger.
Player: Do I get an AoO?
GM: Yes you do.
Player. Awesome. I attack Doc; I don't want him touching me with that magic, who knows WHAT it can do to me!
GM: You can't.
Player: Why not? You said I get an AoO.
GM: Yeah, but you can only hit Dopey.
Player: But I don't care about Dopey, he can't hurt me with his harmless finger.
GM: True, but Doc's finger is to scary for you to AoO.
Player: Scary?
GM: Yeah, like you said, Doc's finger could do anything to you. You are so busy dodging it that you cannot attack him.
Player: Sweet! So I get bonus AC against his magical finger?
GM: No.
Player: But you said I'm dodging it.
GM: Yeah, because it's scary. But there is no mechanical benefit to it, it's just roleplay fluff.
Player: So, I'm so busy dodging Doc that I cannot attack him, but I can still attack Dopey? Even while I'm dodging Doc?
GM: Sure. You're not dodging Dopey because his harmless finger is not a threat to you.
Player: Can I dodge him and stop dodging Doc, that way I can use my AoO against the goblin who can actually harm me?
GM: Nope, I'm afraid you must dodge the dangerous finger.
Player: So let me get this straight. The only goblin who can harm me is so dangerous that I MUST dodge him even though doing that gives me no mechanical benefit AND penalizes me by preventing an AoO, while at the same time I can still make an AoO against the harmless half-wit goblin that I don't care about?
GM: Yep, that's how it works.
Player: In what possible way does any of this make any sense?
GM: Pshaw, this isn't a simulation, it's fancy chess with lots of arbitrary game mechanics. Deal with it. Are you going to whack Dopey or not?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you wanted to be flat-footed against that touch attack, I might let you take an AoO.


KingOfAnything wrote:
If you wanted to be flat-footed against that touch attack, I might let you take an AoO.

Would you make me flat-footed if I take an AoO against other touch attacks that are not considered "armed"?

Of course not, the RAW lets me attack those. I'm not debating the RAW, just the common sense (really, the lack thereof) of it. Since another poster suggested that common sense would answer the OP's question, I thought I'd point out that common sense doesn't really apply very well to this rule.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

okay an AoO doesn;t mean you suddenly are swinging at him, it means that something happened that made him particularly weak agaisnt your onslaught. attacking with fists and not being trained properly to be a threat causes you to simply present yourself for a few good swings of his sword. When you have a touch spell, you can touch his sword and discharge it into him, (i mean touching his armor works so it;s pretty easy to assume) meaning you're not actually presenting yourself by getting so close to him.

The Exchange

DM_Blake wrote:
Of course not, the RAW lets me attack those. I'm not debating the RAW, just the common sense (really, the lack thereof) of it. Since another poster suggested that common sense would answer the OP's question, I thought I'd point out that common sense doesn't really apply very well to this rule.

I am OP, I suggested that, and the original question isn't being debated now.

Really you're saying that my 'common sense' argument isn't valid because the rules suck and make no (common) sense anyway. But I just don't buy that argument like you do.

Then the thread devolved into you saying it's ridiculous and others explaining it in-world, which doesn't work for you because you have a mindset that people aren't taking the attack because its "scary" when its actually because their target isn't opening themselves up for attack when they perform an armed touch attack.

The reason your Touch AC doesn't go down for unarmed touch attacks is because (IMO of course) unarmed touch attacks don't matter. They don't do anything bad, and would you want to track a 4th type of AC that is ONLY for defence against unarmed touch attacks? If yes, would you still want to track it knowing that unarmed touch attacks NEVER inflict upon you any problematic symptom? I know I don't.
So that's why you should think about how to fix rules before saying they're bad. If you tried to fix this it would be a corner case rule that NO-ONE would care about because it never comes up, except if you're playing devil's advocate.

Sovereign Court

Where does it say that touching in general provokes AOOs? An unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike does - a touch doesn't. (Of course - it wouldn't be the first time I was horribly wrong and missed something.)


Covert Operator wrote:
Then the thread devolved into you saying it's ridiculous and others explaining it in-world, which doesn't work for you because you have a mindset that people aren't taking the attack because its "scary" when its actually because their target isn't opening themselves up for attack when they perform an armed touch attack.

Oh, OK then.

So, if I cast, say, Vampiric Touch, or if I'm wearing Deliquescent Gloves filled with poison, and I stick out my hand and touch you with my finger, I'm not opening myself up. But if I DO NOT cast a spell or wear the gloves, and I stick out my hand and touch with with my finger, then somehow I AM opening myself up, because, for some reason, my extended finger, and by extension the rest of me too, is much more vulnerable in this second case.

Hogwash.

It's the RAW, but there is no logical "common sense" reason to explain why a magic finger is immune to attack and a normal finger is vulnerable to attack.

Covert Operator wrote:
The reason your Touch AC doesn't go down for unarmed touch attacks is because (IMO of course) unarmed touch attacks don't matter.

Your Touch AC doesn't go down for "unarmed" touch attacks and it doesn't go down for "armed" touch attacks either.

Both kinds of Touch Attacks go against your EXACT Touch AC, no more, no less. But you only get to make an AoO against the harmless one and not against the identical (but gloved) harmful one.

Covert Operator wrote:
They don't do anything bad, and would you want to track a 4th type of AC that is ONLY for defence against unarmed touch attacks?

Good news, "unarmed touch attacks" are not a thing. Unless that goblin just picked his nose, he can do nothing other than tickle you. Without magic, or some other means of making a touch attack, then an "unarmed touch attack" is just a friendly pat on the shoulder.

Covert Operator wrote:
So that's why you should think about how to fix rules before saying they're bad. If you tried to fix this it would be a corner case rule that NO-ONE would care about because it never comes up, except if you're playing devil's advocate.

LOL, the fix would not be to create a new AC applied only to harmless touch attacks because they still hit the same AC as harmful touch attacks, right?

If we're going to fix this at all, which I never advocated, then make the system treat all touches the same - it should not matter to the defender if Doc's finger is glowing and Dopey's isn't - if both goblins are sticking out their hand and touching with a finger, then the defender should be able to hit them equally. Or not. But applying different rules to two identical actions is the part that makes no common sense.

My whole point in the first place was when YOU told Skylancer4 to "use common sense", IMO the entire rule about touch attacks provoking is entirely devoid of common sense to begin with.

Skylander4's answer was an excellent one. It doesn't defy common sense any more than the whole rule does, and even better, it's well aligned with RAW.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Where does it say that touching in general provokes AOOs? An unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike does - a touch doesn't. (Of course - it wouldn't be the first time I was horribly wrong and missed something.)

"Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed." So anytime you make an attack roll and nothing has made you 'armed', you provoke an Attack of Opportunity.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Where does it say that touching in general provokes AOOs? An unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike does - a touch doesn't. (Of course - it wouldn't be the first time I was horribly wrong and missed something.)

Here:

SRD, Combat, Actions, Cast a Spell 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.

So if we have a rule telling you that touching with a spell does not provoke, it automatically implies that touching without one must provoke. If the general rule were that all touches don't provoke, then we wouldn't even need this text I quoted here - which meshes perfectly well with what Graystone posted right above this post.

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Where does it say that touching in general provokes AOOs? An unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike does - a touch doesn't. (Of course - it wouldn't be the first time I was horribly wrong and missed something.)
"Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed." So anytime you make an attack roll and nothing has made you 'armed', you provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

See - I read "unarmed" that case as an unarmed strike. Technically I'm not sure if touching them without dealing damage would even count as 'attacking'. *shrug* It's debatable.

DM_Blake wrote:
SRD, Combat, Actions, Cast a Spell 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.
So if we have a rule telling you that touching with a spell does not provoke, it automatically implies that touching without one must provoke. If the general rule were that all touches don't provoke, then we wouldn't even need this text I quoted here - which meshes perfectly well with what Graystone posted right above this post.

I would point out that while that's a reasonable RAI argument, it's certainly not a RAW argument. It could just as reasonably simply be a reminder. (Not the armed part - as that's important for AOOs - but the 'not provoke attacks of opportunity' part.) It certainly wouldn't be the only part of the rules where such was done.

So - there is a decent argument both ways.

If only certain touches provoke - it leads to all sorts of confusion.

If no touches provoke - it follows KISS more closely, and I can't really see any ways to abuse it since it only improves touches which don't actually do anything.

If there's a decent argument to do so - I always try to go with the KISS argument, so I'll keep ruling the latter.


DM_Blake wrote:
SRD, Combat, Actions, Cast a Spell 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.
So if we have a rule telling you that touching with a spell does not provoke, it automatically implies that touching without one must provoke. If the general rule were that all touches don't provoke, then we wouldn't even need this text I quoted here - which meshes perfectly well with what Graystone posted right above this post.

Therefore PCs get attacks of opportunity every time any monster, such as a Shadow, uses it's touch attack. There are no rules that say otherwise, especially not in the Shadows stats block for instance.


chaoseffect wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
SRD, Combat, Actions, Cast a Spell 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.
So if we have a rule telling you that touching with a spell does not provoke, it automatically implies that touching without one must provoke. If the general rule were that all touches don't provoke, then we wouldn't even need this text I quoted here - which meshes perfectly well with what Graystone posted right above this post.
Therefore PCs get attacks of opportunity every time any monster, such as a Shadow, uses it's touch attack. There are no rules that say otherwise, especially not in the Shadows stats block for instance.

Nice try.

It took me a few minutes to parse the rules to respond:

First, if you look at the Actions in Combat chart, it shows that "Attack (melee)" does NOT provoke, while "Attack (ranged)" and "Attack (unarmed)' do provoke.

Second, in that same section, under "Standard Actions, Attack" we have this rule: "Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet)"

That should be all you need, but in case anyone wants to suggest that a shadow is just an incorporeal person making an "unarmed" touch attack, we also have this, right above the last quote, under "Unarmed 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."

So, nope, Shadows (et. al.) don't provoke when they make their touch attacks.


Pinpoint poisener, l think it is called, allow you two touch attacks pr round where you can get sneek attack on. That is all i got.

The Exchange

DM_Blake wrote:
Covert Operator wrote:
Then the thread devolved into you saying it's ridiculous and others explaining it in-world, which doesn't work for you because you have a mindset that people aren't taking the attack because its "scary" when its actually because their target isn't opening themselves up for attack when they perform an armed touch attack.

Oh, OK then.

So, if I cast, say, Vampiric Touch, or if I'm wearing Deliquescent Gloves filled with poison, and I stick out my hand and touch you with my finger, I'm not opening myself up. But if I DO NOT cast a spell or wear the gloves, and I stick out my hand and touch with with my finger, then somehow I AM opening myself up, because, for some reason, my extended finger, and by extension the rest of me too, is much more vulnerable in this second case.

Hogwash.

It's the RAW, but there is no logical "common sense" reason to explain why a magic finger is immune to attack and a normal finger is vulnerable to attack.

You're saying that Skylancer4's interpretation makes no sense in-world or in mechanics. I agree. But you act like you disagree with me. And you've disagreed with me before about the same subject.

I'll, again, tell you the reason why it is no harder to touch someone taking an OA against you (when you make an unarmed touch attack) than it is to touch someone not taking an OA against you (when you make an armed touch attack):
Because nobody does unarmed touch attacks anyway, so there doesn't need for rules about it.

The Exchange

Cap. Darling wrote:
Pinpoint poisener, l think it is called, allow you two touch attacks pr round where you can get sneek attack on. That is all i got.

THE CROWD GOES WILD! CAP. DARLING HAS DONE IT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

You get a gold medal for being the first person to properly answer the OP!


Covert Operator wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:
Attack Real AC then you can add STR or DEX all you want.

But I get free action touch attacks in the round I cast a spell.

As a clarification for what I am after, I'm looking for a way to add STR (or DEX) to damage with Touch spells and Deliquescent Gloves. I'm basically convinced now that its not possible.

I saw this statement, and I feel that there is a possibility that you think that you get a free touch attack with every spell you cast. Just in case that's what you think and you are trying to use the deliquescent gloves to get a damaging attack off despite you not having cast a harmful touch spell, you don't.

If that's not what you think then you can ignore this post.

The Exchange

Hogeyhead wrote:
Covert Operator wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:
Attack Real AC then you can add STR or DEX all you want.

But I get free action touch attacks in the round I cast a spell.

As a clarification for what I am after, I'm looking for a way to add STR (or DEX) to damage with Touch spells and Deliquescent Gloves. I'm basically convinced now that its not possible.

I saw this statement, and I feel that there is a possibility that you think that you get a free touch attack with every spell you cast. Just in case that's what you think and you are trying to use the deliquescent gloves to get a damaging attack off despite you not having cast a harmful touch spell, you don't.

If that's not what you think then you can ignore this post.

I wanted to cast things like Touch of Gracelessness (i.e. non-damaging offensive touch spells)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think the biggest problem in this entire thread is that people are mistaking the attack roll with a single physical motion. It is not. It represents all of the physical actions that are involved in attacking someone. You are not casually poking someone with a finger. You are circling, shuffling, dodging, making multiple swipes at someone in the hopes of connecting the touch. Touch attacks do not provoke because you don't have to commit as fully with your opponent. A casual contact on their forearm, hand, etc.. is sufficient to deliver the magic. A unarmed attack is going to require you to commit a LOT more force to the action.....a grazing touch won't do, you need to get in there close enough to grab, punch, hook a leg around theirs, etc... It's a LOT more involved, which is what the Improved Unarmed Attack feat is for.....it represents training in that style of fighting which allows you to get past their defenses without exposing yourself to more risk than an attack with a weapon would generate.

This is also why Touch attacks ignore the physical elements of armor.....it doesn't matter if they have plate mail on, you're not trying to penetrate it, you just need to touch their wrist, etc... Unarmed attacks are vs. full AC, since you need to get in there and hit hard enough to make the guy in plate mail take notice.

This all has nothing to do with perceiving threats, it's about complexity of action and commitment of force.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Apply STR or DEX to damage with a touch attack? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.