Can you use a Touch attack on an attended object?


Rules Questions


Can you make a touch attack (whether ranged or melee) against an object that is worn, wielded, or otherwise attended? If so, what's the AC, or how is it resolved?

There's a 100-post long thread with regards to Disintegrate's use against worn armor over Here. A large part of it is of people disagreeing that it can target an attended object in the first place. Other spells, such as Node of Blasting and Rusting Grasp may benefit from this thread.

Some potentially helpful material:

Smashing Objects
Sunder
PRD's Magic Section Especially in regards to Aiming a Spell and Range (touch)
Touch Attacks
Touch spells in melee have been ruled to usually be done with the hand

Some people have suggested it is resolved as if a Sunder maneuver, using your hand (melee touch) or the ray (in disintegrate's case). Some suggest assigning an AC to the item as per Smashing Objects. Some claim success with a simple touch attack against the attending creature (Especially with regards to Rusting Grasp). Others still seem to houserule, or propose methods not clearly described in the RAW.

What's your take, and what rules have been missed or looked over?
It'd be appreciated to have any inferences made accompanied by a link to the relevant rules.


The answer is there aren't rules for targeting worn equipment with something like disintegrate so it's simply not possible, you must target the creature.

Things like sunder, steal, and disarm maneuvers have specific rules for how they function and allow you target specific items on a target rather than the character themselves.


Consider, then, Rusting Grasp. When being used to target armor or weapon, the spell is clearly using a target of " one nonmagical ferrous object". The spell also possesses a range of Touch. The spell is fairly clearly meant to function on items, specifically, even if it doesn't directly do damage to them (Either reduces the AC granted or outright destroys)

It is a melee touch attack vs. an object. (EDIT: Attended object, no less)

Are you suggesting that that is also impossible?


I would say yes to melee and no to ranged, and melee would be resolved as a sunder combat maneuver, which is made in place of a melee attack.

Sunder:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

And as melee touch attacks are melee attacks, I would treat them as such.

-----

On the other hand, ranged touch attacks are ranged attacks, and if a gunslinger is not able to harm an attended item with his shotgun, neither should the mage with his ray.

One could think that this ruling was not on propose, but if you see the fighter's archetype (archer), he has the following ability:

Trick Shot:
At 3rd level, an archer can choose one of the following combat maneuvers or actions: disarm, feint, or sunder. He can perform this action with a bow against any target within 30 feet, with a –4 penalty to his CMB. Every four levels beyond 3rd, he may choose an additional trick shot to learn. These maneuvers use up arrows as normal.

At 11th level, he may also choose from the following combat maneuvers: bull rush, grapple, trip. A target grappled by an arrow can break free by destroying the archer’s arrow (hardness 5, hit points 1, break DC 13) or with an Escape Artist or CMB check (against the archer’s CMD –4).

This ability replaces Armor Training 1, 2, 3, and 4.

It is pretty obvious that they didn't want us to use these combat maneuvers with ranged attacks.

-----

However, if one looks at the "damaging objects" section:

Damaging Objects:
When attempting to break an object, you have two choices: smash it with a weapon or break it with sheer strength.

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.

Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

They say you attack attended and unattended objects with sunder, which is only melee, but later on they imply you can attack objects with ranged attacks.

-------

As I see it, they meant unattended objects can be attacked by ranged attacks, as they don't move. On the other hand, hitting an attended object which moves with the person who carries it cannot be done from a distance.


I disagree that the Rusting Grasp requires a Sunder combat maneuver; It's mentioned absolutely nowhere in the spell, and instead mentions a melee touch attack several times. There is no mention of a specific DC or AC to beat, or how it is calculated either, implying that it's a melee touch attack against an AC determined or presumed elsewhere. (Such as the touch AC of the attending character)

Since both Rusting Grasp and Node of Blasting have the same range and similar targets (Each one an item, not specified to be attended or not), I would argue that both follow the same rules. Rusting Grasp has the added effect of provoking an attack of opportunity from an attempt to touch a wielded weapon, despite a touch attack not normally provoking such. (This would also be strange if it were resolved via a Sunder combat maneuver, as that maneuver would normally provoke an AoO anyways.)

Disintegrate, I'd argue, can target objects due to the "(object)" its saving throw, and the description of how that is handled in the magic section. It creates a ray, which is treated in all ways like a ranged weapon making a ranged touch attack. I would therefore argue that IF the above two spells are Not using the sunder combat maneuver, and are instead targeting some form of AC, that Disintegrate should be able to do the same. However, that's a stance I'd happily abandon if someone finds a reason for melee attacks to work and not ranged attacks that is Unrelated to the Sunder combat maneuver, or if it's proven the above two spells must use the Sunder combat maneuver. Forgive my assumption that ranged Sunders were possible without feats or class abilities.

Finally, I think the Smashing Items rule would make the use of these spells trivially easy, since you're typically dealing with an AC of 3 for a medium object.

Conclusion: I think the most likely way for such attacks to be made would be vs. the creature's touch AC.

Yes, this does raise some question as to whether a gunslinger should be able to do the same thing as Disintegrate's ray, and whether the ray should be able to target attended objects at all. I won't pretend that I can answer that. But for the sake of this thread, it still seems like the best answer.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In general, there is no way to target attended objects.

There are certain spells and combat maneuvers that allow, under certain circumstances, items to be targeted. These are allowed because specific rules exist for them, otherwise there is nothing that allows the targeting of an attended object.


dwayne germaine wrote:

In general, there is no way to target attended objects.

There are certain spells and combat maneuvers that allow, under certain circumstances, items to be targeted. These are allowed because specific rules exist for them, otherwise there is nothing that allows the targeting of an attended object.

...This is the issue. No such rules seem to exist that I've found that describe those circumstances. The description of Rusting Grasp implies its use on attended objects, but still doesn't give an AC to target. There are no rules saying that it Should be the touch AC of the opponent holding the targeted item; That's only an inferred guess.

You basically have a spell that wants to enable a touch attack against an object, but no other rules to support how it should play out, or how similar spells should play out (Such as the Node of Blasting).


Touch attacks from rusting grasp are versus the person just like Sunder Attacks are based on the creature, not the item.

There is nothing in rusting grasp that says you don't use the normal melee touch attack rules which as written are against the creature, just like the rust monster has to touch the target in order to affect his items.


wraithstrike wrote:

Touch attacks from rusting grasp are versus the person just like Sunder Attacks are based on the creature, not the item.

There is nothing in rusting grasp that says you don't use the normal melee touch attack rules which as written are against the creature, just like the rust monster has to touch the target in order to affect his items.

There is one major difference: The Targets of this spell. One target is a ferrous creature. The other target, arguably the one you want, is an Object.

This spell is targeting the Object, and not the creature holding it. So, although it's definitely not a leap in intuition to guess you're using the creature's touch AC, it's never actually implied your touch attack is vs. Them.

Grand Lodge

Rusting Grasp is a bit poorly worded. It's pretty clear that for attacks against a ferrous creature or to damage the armour of an enemy you make a touch attack against them. For attacks against a weapon:

PRD wrote:
Weapons in use by an opponent targeted by the spell are more difficult to grasp. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against the weapon. A metal weapon that is hit is destroyed. Striking at an opponent's weapon provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, you must touch the weapon and not the other way around.

So I'm guessing that you use the touch AC of the creature again since that is the simplest way of doing things and I can't see any other actual rule that would apply. It could be argued that the item should get a bonus to AC based on its size, or that the attack of opportunity that the opponent gets would apply a penalty to the touch attack similar to how an attack of opportunity provoked by a combat maneuver gives a penalty equal to the damage dealt, but that isn't really spelled out as the case. The spell just says that it's more difficult to grasp weapons.

In any case, the specific allowance to do this by this spell does not mean that there is a general rule that allows touch attacks against any item. The existance of sunder and spells like this is more like proof that you cannot target attended items unless using a spell or maneuver that grants the exception.


dwayne germaine wrote:


So I'm guessing that you use the touch AC of the creature again since that is the simplest way of doing things and I can't see any other actual rule that would apply. It could be argued that the item should get a bonus to AC based on its size, or that the attack of opportunity that the opponent gets would apply a penalty to the touch attack similar to how an attack of opportunity provoked by a combat maneuver gives a penalty equal to the damage dealt, but that isn't really spelled out as the case. The spell just says that it's more difficult to grasp weapons.

In any case, the specific allowance to do this by this spell does not mean that there is a general rule that allows touch attacks against any item. The existance of sunder and spells like this is more like proof that you cannot target attended items unless using a spell or maneuver that grants the exception.

I agree with your first paragraph, but feel pressed to emphasize that there are no rules for altering the AC according to size or penalizing the attack. It's a decent tip to GMs who feel it might be misused.

...So you think that Rusting Grasp is an isolated case, a spell that is unique in that it might target an attended item. Hmm...

There are clearly other spells meant to target objects that follow the same format. My question would be why you think a spell like Rusting Grasp would work, and a spell like Node of Blasting, Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon, Shrink Item, Shocking Grasp, or even the Light cantrip? Basically, they all have Touch as range, and all have Objects as targets. Why allow the spells to target allies' attended equipment which they still have to touch (even though most people wave off hitting friendlies with helpful spells)?

I've seen a few threads talking about a Magus using the Light cantrip with their Spellstrike ability. Many suggest using a sunder in place of the regular attack, but I've spotted no conclusion, nor do I see what would happen if it were a regular touch attack instead (without spellstrike).


Bane Wraith wrote:
I disagree that the Rusting Grasp requires a Sunder combat maneuver...

I was talking about touch attacks in general not that specific spell. The Rusting Grasp spell has a paragraph for in combat use:

"...you may employ rusting grasp in combat with a successful melee touch attack. Rusting grasp used in this way instantaneously destroys 1d6 points of AC gained from metal armor (to the maximum amount of protection the armor offers) through corrosion."

In this case it would be just a normal touch attack, not a sunder attemp. But anyother touch attack would require a sunder attemp in my opinion (unless, again, the spell would say otherwise)

-----

Bane Wraith wrote:
Since both Rusting Grasp and Node of Blasting have the same range and similar targets (Each one an item, not specified to be attended or not), I would argue that both follow the same rules.

Node of blasting, on the other hand, says nothing about using it in combat, and I beleive that when they do not say, they mean unattended. Anyway, you could not use sunder either as the touch attack for itself deals no damage but sets a trap for the next person that touches it. In my opinion they are quite different spells and should not work in the same way.

------

Nevertheless, If you want some rules to support your point of view, I would go to the touch spell section:

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...

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.

So technically you can hold the charge for Node of blasting and then try to make a sunder attemp or disarm attemp with your unarmed strike (if you aim at something in their hands) or a steal attemp (if you aim something he is not holding), you would probably deal no damage but as you are touching something while holding a spell, it would dischrge in that object.

Problems you may encouter with this wording is that when you grapple, for example, no one thinks that the first thing you touch is the armor, you may try to grab him and he tries to avoid you or move your arm with his hand, etc... Same thing could happen while disarming with an unarmed strike, the GM may say you need to grab his arm at some point and that there is no way of knowing which thing you touch first. And of course trying to steal an item not hold carries the same problem. Perhaps the maneuver involves some kind of touching before stealing so they wont notice your hand in their pockets.


Bane Wraith wrote:

Consider, then, Rusting Grasp. When being used to target armor or weapon, the spell is clearly using a target of " one nonmagical ferrous object". The spell also possesses a range of Touch. The spell is fairly clearly meant to function on items, specifically, even if it doesn't directly do damage to them (Either reduces the AC granted or outright destroys)

It is a melee touch attack vs. an object. (EDIT: Attended object, no less)

Are you suggesting that that is also impossible?

The rules of the spell specifically state what happens in the case of Rusting Grasp, and specifically tells you how to do it. It's allowed because the spell has rules for it specifically.

Pathfinder rules tell you what you're allowed to, not what you're not allowed to do (although sometimes they include reminders). There are no generic rules for targeting held or attended items, just specific examples of how things would work like the combat maneuvers Disarm, Sunder Steal, and specific spells like Rusting Grasp.

Since Disintegrate doesn't have specific rules to account for this, it's simply not allowed by the rules.

You could house rule too allow it to take affect...of course I wouldn't as a GM because it would probably becomes arbitrarily easy to target an enemies weapon and effectively remove them from combat with disintegrate with little possibility for recourse on their part.


This might be helpful:
Called Shots


...Perhaps I'm not emphasizing the main point clearly enough.

- The spells target an Object, not the Creature holding them.
- Everyone seems to overlook that, and consider spells like Rusting Grasp a Touch attack vs. the Creature holding the object.

@Drimoran: Yes, I agree with you that a surefire way to apply a spell like Node of Blasting in battle is to use a sunder combat maneuver with your touch, now considered an armed attack. If it connects, you've arguably touched what you wanted to touch, and should thus have enabled the spell.

However, I'm arguing that since its target and range are plausibly identical to Rusting Grasp, that it too should delivered like a Rusting Grasp. Rusting Grasp does not, in its description, tell you whose AC you are using. This seems largely overlooked and assumed to be the opponent's touch AC. The spell is still directly targeting an object on the opponent's person, not targeting the Opponent and then affecting the desired object.

In all other cases that I know of, if a spell lists X as the target, X's AC or saving throw is what's affected. If a spell with a range of Close or farther is targeting an attended object, there are rules for how that saving throw plays out. If a spell is targeting an attended object with a touch... Then people just assume it's the owner's touch AC, but there are no actual rules regarding it.

@Claxon: Perhaps it's a stretch to consider Disintegrate in the same category as these spells, considering one is a melee touch and the other is a ray with a ranged touch. There's no argument that, on a failed saving throw, having your armor or wand disintegrate instead of taking xd6 damage would be devastating. But, I was hoping to know if a general consensus could be found for how spells like Rusting Grasp were meant to target attended objects, and that happened to be one of the main spells in question in the past. If someone had found proof in that scenario that I simply missed, it would likely carry over to Rusting Grasp and Node of Blasting. At the very least, it would lend insight.

@Kyoni: Called shots are useful, but still a variant rule. Since we're dealing with a few core spells, and spells from some of the more mainstream books, I was hoping to avoid Called Shots as an answer. If anything, it'd make the spells less useful by forcing the spells to target normal AC and not touch AC.


actually I was talking about this

Quote:

Table: Called Shot Locations

Location Type Penalty
Head Tricky -5
- Ear Challenging -10
- Eye Challenging -10
- Neck Challenging -10
Chest Easy -2
- Heart Challenging -10
Vitals Tricky -5
Arm Easy -2
- Hand Tricky -5
Leg Easy -2

According to that table targeting a hand should get a -5 to attack rolls... seems about right for targeting a light weapon in your opponents grasp. I thought your gaming group might use this as a guideline to target specific body parts. You don't have to introduce the full Called Shot rules. ;-)


Kyoni wrote:


According to that table targeting a hand should get a -5 to attack rolls... seems about right for targeting a light weapon in your opponents grasp. I thought your gaming group might use this as a guideline to target specific body parts. You don't have to introduce the full Called Shot rules. ;-)

I think it'd be a bit wrong to borrow material from a variant system without taking into account the rest of it. For example, if you ignored the fact you can't use True Strike to help you in called shots, that'd just makes things ludicrously easy. I'd say touch attacks being converted to target regular AC would fall under the same idea.

I would Love to use called shots in most games. It's a great guideline in general, and it finally gives the more martial characters a chance to do something unique with their stupidly high attack rolls! But it's not going to cut it if looking for an answer to the original question within the confines of the main rules.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you use a Touch attack on an attended object? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.