|
Not relevant to my point.
How can you execute an Unarmed Strike? Hand, of course. But also legs, knees, elbows, headbutts, and several other limbs.
How can you execute a Natural Attack? There's all kinds, such as Bites, Gores, Claws, Hooves, Tail Swipes...the list goes on.
And per RAW, you can use all of those limbs and attacks to deliver a Touch Spell. Most of which, aren't associated with the hands that you assume you'd normally deliver the spell.
Point is, delivering the spell simply through your hands (or some other form of contact) is different than making an attack that just-so-happens to have a rider effect on top of it, which means these are different matters of delivering the spell (and by the rules, different results from carrying it out from the different methods of delivering the spell).
It depends on the class. Most only use their fist for an unarmed strike. Monks and Brawlers use everything.
But, if a wizard delivers it with a fist, claw, tail.... well, those are weapons they can have training in.Your point seems to say that since it can be any weapon... it doesn't matter the weapon. My point is that it always matters what weapon you use. As you always apply your training to a weapon on your attacks.
Also, nothing actually seems to limit a caster from using their hand to deliver a touch attack.
|
|
Hmm,If you are holding a armaed natural atack,which action you are using?Standard or atack action?Can you even make a full atack with armed unarmed strike?And wouldnt your spell discharge only once?İf so what is the point of this discussion?
There are some touch spells that offer multiple touches. And your first attack could miss.
|
There are some touch spells that offer multiple touches. And your first attack could miss.Hmm,If you are holding a armaed natural atack,which action you are using?Standard or atack action?Can you even make a full atack with armed unarmed strike?And wouldnt your spell discharge only once?İf so what is the point of this discussion?
Are those spells counted as weapons?
|
|
Except it's not the same. You do not get to apply US bonuses to touch attacks because they are different things, unless you have an ability that allows you to do so. Just like you can't apply US bonuses to Natural Attack and vice-versa without something that allows you to do so.You use the same weapon regardless. The fact that the weapon doesn't have to hit with enough force to deal its normal damage should not matter.
For instance, you can make a touch attack with a claw. You are still using the claw to make the touch attack and should benefit from any training in the use of that claw.
Remember, the difference here is only that to get the desired effect we only need to touch the creature and not hit it hard enough to do damage. Doing so would use the same training you have in using the weapon you are performing the touch with.
True you can't apply US bonuses to claws. Two different weapons. A touch attack is not itself a weapon, though. It is a method by which you can use a weapon. A giant frog uses its tongue as a touch attack... does that mean its tongue isn't a weapon? Nope. It is still a natural attack, because its natural weapon is its tongue.
In fact, there is nothing to prevent someone with a longsword choosing to make a touch attack against an opponent. It just does no damage, as they have no additional ability which grants their damage on a touch attack. But if their only goal was to touch someone... well, that should be entirely possible. Such as the case of a person with a glove covered in contact poison.
It depends on the class. Most only use their fist for an unarmed strike. Monks and Brawlers use everything.
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
Everyone is at least able to use kicks and head butts.
|
|
Plus if a wizard tries to cast haste and try to get benefit from haste while full atacking to normal ac at what level 15?Let him.
Lorewalker which spells are those?
Touch attacks are not standard actions(no more so than a person with a longsword is forced to only use a standard action) so the wizard does not need to go against normal ac.
I'm not going to go through all of them. But if you don't believe they exist... look up Chill Touch.
|
|
Are those spells counted as weapons?There are some touch spells that offer multiple touches. And your first attack could miss.Hmm,If you are holding a armaed natural atack,which action you are using?Standard or atack action?Can you even make a full atack with armed unarmed strike?And wouldnt your spell discharge only once?İf so what is the point of this discussion?
I think not, specially since the multiple touch spell sneak attack faq for the scorching ray, which was kinda illogical for me (if they are attacks, and the opponent is flat-flooted, it should trigger sneak attack for each one of the attacks).
Multiple touch spells clearly were not made in order to be treated as regular attacks, in many ways.
Don't confuse a Volley rule with denying multiple attacks.
Scorching ray is a spell that grants multiple attacks in one attack action(cast). Whereas something like chill touch just persists until you run out of uses. But each use is an attack action.The point to that FAQ was to deny extra damage for each attack action an ability gives. Such as a spell like Telekinesis which can launch 15 attacks in one action.
|
|
Plus if a wizard tries to cast haste and try to get benefit from haste while full atacking to normal ac at what level 15?Let him.
Lorewalker which spells are those?
Touch attacks are not standard actions(no more so than a person with a longsword is forced to only use a standard action) so the wizard does not need to go against normal ac.
I'm not going to go through all of them. But if you don't believe they exist... look up Chill Touch.
İ didnt want to sound like me calling you a liar, lorewalker.I just didnt know.I was reffering to armed unarmed strike which goes againts normal ac.And isnt earlist a wizard can make a full atack is level 12 right?And maybe because ı am realy slow.I still dont see the point of this discussion.This was about sla's that was meant to work with haste.We wanted to change the manufactured weapon to something that can work with kinetic blade and warlocks bolt.
Not relevant to my point.
How can you execute an Unarmed Strike? Hand, of course. But also legs, knees, elbows, headbutts, and several other limbs.
How can you execute a Natural Attack? There's all kinds, such as Bites, Gores, Claws, Hooves, Tail Swipes...the list goes on.
And per RAW, you can use all of those limbs and attacks to deliver a Touch Spell. Most of which, aren't associated with the hands that you assume you'd normally deliver the spell.
Point is, delivering the spell simply through your hands (or some other form of contact) is different than making an attack that just-so-happens to have a rider effect on top of it, which means these are different matters of delivering the spell (and by the rules, different results from carrying it out from the different methods of delivering the spell).
It depends on the class. Most only use their fist for an unarmed strike. Monks and Brawlers use everything.
But, if a wizard delivers it with a fist, claw, tail.... well, those are weapons they can have training in.
Your point seems to say that since it can be any weapon... it doesn't matter the weapon. My point is that it always matters what weapon you use. As you always apply your training to a weapon on your attacks.
Also, nothing actually seems to limit a caster from using their hand to deliver a touch attack.
But they don't get those benefits if they don't use them as the intended purpose. It's the same reasoning behind why I can't, for example, use the pointy end of a Greatsword to deal Piercing damage, or the pommel of a Greatsword to deal Bludgeoning damage; because if I did, it'd be using the Greatsword outside of its intended use (which is to slice and cut things, not stab or smash things), and as such governs a whole set of rules which the intended usage of that weapon doesn't apply. In this case, Improvised Weapon attacks don't receive the same benefits as Weapon attacks.
Same concept with this. If I have Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), then I can't apply its benefits if I'm simply making a Touch Attack. Inversely, if I'm making an Unarmed Strike Attack, and have effects that only apply when I'm making Touch Attacks, then those likewise don't apply.
|
|
İ didnt want to sound like me calling you a liar, lorewalker.I just didnt know.I was reffering to armed unarmed strike which goes againts normal ac.And isnt earlist a wizard can make a full atack is level 12 right?And maybe because ı am realy slow.I still dont see the point of this discussion.This was about sla's that was meant to work with haste.We wanted to change the manufactured weapon to something that can work with kinetic blade and warlocks bolt.Plus if a wizard tries to cast haste and try to get benefit from haste while full atacking to normal ac at what level 15?Let him.
Lorewalker which spells are those?
Touch attacks are not standard actions(no more so than a person with a longsword is forced to only use a standard action) so the wizard does not need to go against normal ac.
I'm not going to go through all of them. But if you don't believe they exist... look up Chill Touch.
Wizards are not the only ones with touch attack spells. Bloodragers get them too. And they are full BAB.
Touch attacks do not typically use manufactured or natural weapons either.|
|
İ didnt want to sound like me calling you a liar, lorewalker.I just didnt know.I was reffering to armed unarmed strike which goes againts normal ac.And isnt earlist a wizard can make a full atack is level 12 right?And maybe because ı am realy slow.I still dont see the point of this discussion.This was about sla's that was meant to work with haste.We wanted to change the manufactured weapon to something that can work with kinetic blade and warlocks bolt.Plus if a wizard tries to cast haste and try to get benefit from haste while full atacking to normal ac at what level 15?Let him.
Lorewalker which spells are those?
Touch attacks are not standard actions(no more so than a person with a longsword is forced to only use a standard action) so the wizard does not need to go against normal ac.
I'm not going to go through all of them. But if you don't believe they exist... look up Chill Touch.
Wizards are not the only ones with touch attack spells. Bloodragers get them too. And they are full BAB.
Touch attacks do not typically use manufactured or natural weapons either.
But what is the point unarmed strikes deosnt work with haste anyway.İt has to be some sort of a weapon right.And if they have natural atacks such as sorceres or bloodreagers it already works.So probably because ı am exhausted so ı cant understand but what is the point?We never tried to change the weapon part.Just manufactured.By raw natural atacks already works.
|
|
But they don't get those benefits if they don't use them as the intended purpose. It's the same reasoning behind why I can't, for example, use the pointy end of a Greatsword to deal Piercing damage, or the pommel of a Greatsword to deal Bludgeoning damage; because if I did, it'd be using the Greatsword outside of its intended use (which is to slice and cut things, not stab or smash things), and as such governs a whole set of rules which the intended usage of that weapon doesn't apply. In this case, Improvised Weapon attacks don't receive the same benefits as Weapon attacks.
Same concept with this. If I have...
A melee weapon must first and foremost touch a creature. Sometimes that means touching with a sharp side, a pointy end or a flat bit. Nothing about gaining the ability to make a touch attack with that weapon also prevents you from knowing how to use your weapon. A touch attack is a method by which you can use a weapon to achieve a goal that does not require that the weapon pierce through armor. It only needs to touch the armor.
|
|
But what is the point unarmed strikes deosnt work with haste anyway.İt has to be some sort of a weapon right.And if they have natural atacks such as sorceres or bloodreagers it already works.So probably because ı am exhausted so ı cant understand but what is the point?We never tried to change the weapon part.Just manufactured.By raw natural atacks already works.
An unarmed strike weapon is not a natural weapon nor is it manufactured(except in select cases). It falls under the same issue with haste as the other concerned items.
|
|
But what is the point unarmed strikes deosnt work with haste anyway.İt has to be some sort of a weapon right.And if they have natural atacks such as sorceres or bloodreagers it already works.So probably because ı am exhausted so ı cant understand but what is the point?We never tried to change the weapon part.Just manufactured.By raw natural atacks already works.An unarmed strike weapon is not a natural weapon nor is it manufactured(except in select cases). It falls under the same issue with haste as the other concerned items.
Ah,Now ı get it.So a single thing can make this work.Adding'' except unarmed strike'' and we are golden.
A melee weapon must first and foremost touch a creature. Sometimes that means touching with a sharp side, a pointy end or a flat bit. Nothing about gaining the ability to make a touch attack with that weapon also prevents you from knowing how to use your weapon. A touch attack is a method by which you can use a weapon to achieve a goal that does not require that the weapon pierce through armor. It only needs to touch the armor.But they don't get those benefits if they don't use them as the intended purpose. It's the same reasoning behind why I can't, for example, use the pointy end of a Greatsword to deal Piercing damage, or the pommel of a Greatsword to deal Bludgeoning damage; because if I did, it'd be using the Greatsword outside of its intended use (which is to slice and cut things, not stab or smash things), and as such governs a whole set of rules which the intended usage of that weapon doesn't apply. In this case, Improvised Weapon attacks don't receive the same benefits as Weapon attacks.
Same concept with this. If I have...
But you're making a Touch Attack with the spell, not with the weapon. Therefore, benefits that apply to the weapon DON'T apply to the spell.
|
|
But you're making a Touch Attack with the spell, not with the weapon. Therefore, benefits that apply to the weapon DON'T apply to the spell.
I think what he means is a touch atack is a atack action and if we change haste to weapon from a manufactured weapon people would go mayhem with full atackhing touch spell by holding spells + haste.İ dont see the big issue though people can still do it with natural atacks which both bloodrager and sorc can get easyly.
|
|
But you're making a Touch Attack with the spell, not with the weapon. Therefore, benefits that apply to the weapon DON'T apply to the spell.A melee weapon must first and foremost touch a creature. Sometimes that means touching with a sharp side, a pointy end or a flat bit. Nothing about gaining the ability to make a touch attack with that weapon also prevents you from knowing how to use your weapon. A touch attack is a method by which you can use a weapon to achieve a goal that does not require that the weapon pierce through armor. It only needs to touch the armor.But they don't get those benefits if they don't use them as the intended purpose. It's the same reasoning behind why I can't, for example, use the pointy end of a Greatsword to deal Piercing damage, or the pommel of a Greatsword to deal Bludgeoning damage; because if I did, it'd be using the Greatsword outside of its intended use (which is to slice and cut things, not stab or smash things), and as such governs a whole set of rules which the intended usage of that weapon doesn't apply. In this case, Improvised Weapon attacks don't receive the same benefits as Weapon attacks.
Same concept with this. If I have...
The spell is not a weapon, in the case of melee touch attacks(what I'm talking about, as opposed to ranged touch attacks). The spell discharging is a consequence of touching something with the limb that holds the spell. You attack with the limb and not the spell.
|
|
I think what he means is a touch atack is a atack action and if we change haste to weapon from a manufactured weapon people would go mayhem with full atackhing touch spell by holding spells + haste.İ dont see the big issue though people can still do it with natural atacks which both bloodrager and sorc can get easyly.
I do not suggest any mayhem. My entire point was to explain that a touch range spell is not a weapon. The limb delivering the spell is the weapon.
|
|
The spell is not a weapon, in the case of melee touch attacks(what I'm talking about, as opposed to ranged touch attacks). The spell discharging is a consequence of touching something with the limb that holds the spell. You attack with the limb and not the spell.But you're making a Touch Attack with the spell, not with the weapon. Therefore, benefits that apply to the weapon DON'T apply to the spell.A melee weapon must first and foremost touch a creature. Sometimes that means touching with a sharp side, a pointy end or a flat bit. Nothing about gaining the ability to make a touch attack with that weapon also prevents you from knowing how to use your weapon. A touch attack is a method by which you can use a weapon to achieve a goal that does not require that the weapon pierce through armor. It only needs to touch the armor.But they don't get those benefits if they don't use them as the intended purpose. It's the same reasoning behind why I can't, for example, use the pointy end of a Greatsword to deal Piercing damage, or the pommel of a Greatsword to deal Bludgeoning damage; because if I did, it'd be using the Greatsword outside of its intended use (which is to slice and cut things, not stab or smash things), and as such governs a whole set of rules which the intended usage of that weapon doesn't apply. In this case, Improvised Weapon attacks don't receive the same benefits as Weapon attacks.
Same concept with this. If I have...
Wait where do you see touch atacks count as unarmed strikes?I know this is stupid but yeah.İt has to say that.
|
|
Wait where do you see touch atacks count as unarmed strikes?I know this is stupid but yeah.İt has to say that.
A touch attack is not a weapon. It is a method to use a weapon that only cares if you touch the creature as armor can not block the effect. Touch attacks do not count as unarmed strikes. A touch attack can come from any type of weapon. It just happens that the average touch spell is delivered with a hand.
|
|
Wait where do you see touch atacks count as unarmed strikes?I know this is stupid but yeah.İt has to say that.A touch attack is not a weapon. It is a method to use a weapon that only cares if you touch the creature as armor can not block the effect. Touch attacks do not count as unarmed strikes. A touch attack can come from any type of weapon. It just happens that the average touch spell is delivered with a hand.
So an erretra should add ''except unarmed strikes''.That would fix the issue right?Blessing of fervor works for all ı guess but it is just to expensive.Both in items and spell slots.
|
|
So an erretra should add ''except unarmed strikes''.That would fix the issue right?Blessing of fervor works for all ı guess but it is just to expensive.Both in items and spell slots.Wait where do you see touch atacks count as unarmed strikes?I know this is stupid but yeah.İt has to say that.A touch attack is not a weapon. It is a method to use a weapon that only cares if you touch the creature as armor can not block the effect. Touch attacks do not count as unarmed strikes. A touch attack can come from any type of weapon. It just happens that the average touch spell is delivered with a hand.
No, as that would exclude unarmed strikes. It should include them. It does not currently include the bulk of unarmed strikes by RAW.
There is no issue with using your additional attacks to discharge more than once per turn. There is a FAQ about that, even, clarifying multiple attacks in a turn can discharge multiple uses of a multi-touch spell.|
|
Just to be clear, touch attacks do count as 'armed' unarmed attacks. But, by raw, unarmed attacks don't qualify as weapons.
They do qualify as light weapons but not manufactured weapons which is what prevents a wizard or a priest from benefitting from haste.I dont count sorc and bloodrager because they can get claws if they want.
|
|
No, as that would exclude unarmed strikes. It should include them. It does not currently include the bulk of unarmed strikes.So an erretra should add ''except unarmed strikes''.That would fix the issue right?Blessing of fervor works for all ı guess but it is just to expensive.Both in items and spell slots.Wait where do you see touch atacks count as unarmed strikes?I know this is stupid but yeah.İt has to say that.A touch attack is not a weapon. It is a method to use a weapon that only cares if you touch the creature as armor can not block the effect. Touch attacks do not count as unarmed strikes. A touch attack can come from any type of weapon. It just happens that the average touch spell is delivered with a hand.
Wait ı thought you were againts armed unarmed strikes working with haste.
|
|
If a weapon is being used, then it isn't an unarmed melee touch.Just to be clear, touch attacks do count as 'armed' unarmed attacks. But, by raw, unarmed attacks don't qualify as weapons.Depends on the unarmed weapon used.
Sure it is. A claw is an unarmed attack. A fist is an unarmed attack. A claw is an armed unarmed attack and a fist is unarmed unarmed attack unless you have something making it armed.
A touch spell has its charge sitting in one of your limbs. If that limb has a weapon, such as a fist or a claw and you use that limb to touch a creature... you are using that weapon to attempt to touch a creature so the spell will discharge.
Where does it say this?Just to be clear, touch attacks do count as 'armed' unarmed attacks. But, by raw, unarmed attacks don't qualify as weapons.They do qualify as light weapons
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.
|
|
There is no issue with using your additional attacks to discharge more than once per turn. There is a FAQ about that, even, clarifying multiple attacks in a turn can discharge multiple uses of a multi-touch spell.That's for a magus using spell-strike, unless you're thinking about another FAQ...
It was relevant to show that it wouldn't be considered mayhem. That faq does not have to exist for someone only using their fist to deliver touch attacks to do so with each attack. As they literally can not prevent from doing so. They discharge with each touch, whether they touched as part of a touch attack or as part of a purposeful regular attack.
To be fair, someone else could try to touch your hand, such as by giving you a handshake, and the spell would discharge on them. This discharge is not controlled by the caster.
If a weapon is being used, then it isn't an unarmed melee touch.Just to be clear, touch attacks do count as 'armed' unarmed attacks. But, by raw, unarmed attacks don't qualify as weapons.Depends on the unarmed weapon used.Sure it is. A claw is an unarmed attack. A fist is an unarmed attack. A claw is an armed unarmed attack and a fist is unarmed unarmed attack unless you have something making it armed.
A touch spell has its charge sitting in one of your limbs. If that limb has a weapon, such as a fist or a claw and you use that limb to touch a creature... you are using that weapon to attempt to touch a creature so the spell will discharge.
Claws aren't Unarmed Attacks, nor are they Armed Unarmed Attacks. They're Natural Weapons. Whole different kind of animal compared to Unarmed Strikes.
|
|
Claws aren't Unarmed Attacks, nor are they Armed Unarmed Attacks. They're Natural Weapons. Whole different kind of animal compared to Unarmed Strikes.
""Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."
|
|
Claws aren't Unarmed Attacks, nor are they Armed Unarmed Attacks. They're Natural Weapons. Whole different kind of animal compared to Unarmed Strikes.""Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."Wait, don't 'armed' and 'unarmed' mean the opposite?
If a creature's attack counts as 'armed', then by definition it isn't 'unarmed'. No?
They do.But manufactured doesnt mean made by hand or doesnt refer to material being made of aswell.So ı wouldnt dwell on it.
|
|
I thought touch attacks can be delivered by any part of your body? Doesn't this mean that if anyone touches you at all, it discharges?There is no issue with using your additional attacks to discharge more than once per turn. There is a FAQ about that, even, clarifying multiple attacks in a turn can discharge multiple uses of a multi-touch spell.That's for a magus using spell-strike, unless you're thinking about another FAQ...It was relevant to show that it wouldn't be considered mayhem. That faq does not have to exist for someone only using their fist to deliver touch attacks to do so with each attack. As they literally can not prevent from doing so. They discharge with each touch, whether they touched as part of a touch attack or as part of a purposeful regular attack.
To be fair, someone else could try to touch your hand, such as by giving you a handshake, and the spell would discharge on them. This discharge is not controlled by the caster.
This is not untrue. Though, I've yet to run into a GM who would allow you to purposely hold a charge as a retribution against being attacked. Most tables I sit at the assumption is that the charge is held in the hand.
But, as far as everything I've read, by RAW there is no specific place the charge sits.|
|
Claws aren't Unarmed Attacks, nor are they Armed Unarmed Attacks. They're Natural Weapons. Whole different kind of animal compared to Unarmed Strikes.""Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."Wait, don't 'armed' and 'unarmed' mean the opposite?
If a creature's attack counts as 'armed', then by definition it isn't 'unarmed'. No?
You're running into Pathfinder's poor nomenclature here.
Armed and Unarmed mean two different things depending on the context.An 'armed' unarmed person can attack without worrying about provoking an AOO and can also perform AOOs.
An 'unarmed' unarmed person is the opposite.
An armed person wields a weapon which is not an unarmed weapon.(An armed person is also an 'armed' armed person)
An unarmed person does not wield a weapon which is not an unarmed weapon, and all creatures have an unarmed weapon of some kind.
|
|
Pretty sure I read somewhere that a spell or effect needs to be actively discharged by the creature, so getting hit with an unarmed strike or natural weapon won't discharge the spell/effect unless stated otherwise.
I'll quote it again...
" If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."