Question about attacks - missing but still meeting the Touch AC

[Zarius]

So, I'm not finding anything in the PF rules, and I don't recall it being answered in 3.5 (and Touch AC didn't EXIST in 2nd ed), so my question is brutally simple:

If I declare an attack and, as part of the attack, cast Forceful Strike, and I miss my attack, but I still meet/beat the Touch AC of my target, do I still hit with the spell? If not, does the spell carry over to the second iteration of my attack? Since it can be a touch spell, do I hold the charge?

[Dajur]

Quote:

You cast this spell as you strike a creature with a melee weapon, unarmed strike, or natural attack to unleash a concussive blast of force. You deal normal weapon damage from the blow, but also deal an additional amount of force damage equal to 1d4 points per caster level (maximum of 10d4).

Nope. This spell is a magical weapon(natural or unarmed) enhancement and you have to hit with the weapon for its effects to occur. With the bold wording, it looks like you can cast this spell after you hit, so you don't lose the spell. Otherwise it would say something to the effect of cast the spell before attempting to hit or before your attack.

[Dark Midian]

1. By RAW, no. You can choose to touch a creature while holding the spell or to strike them with a weapon, but not both.

2. Yes, it would extend to the next attack you make, and you can hold the charge. Remember that touching another creature, friend or foe, makes you discharge it onto whoever you touch.

[Dajur]

Although, some GM's may say that you have to declare the spell after you have rolled your attack, but before a hit is declared. This would fit rather nicely with the "as you strike" wording.

[Dajur]

Dark Midian wrote:

2. Yes, it would extend to the next attack you make, and you can hold the charge. Remember that touching another creature, friend or foe, makes you discharge it onto whoever you touch.

The spell duration is instantaneous, so it comes and goes the instant it is cast. I am not sure if it would last longer than the one strike.

[Derklord]

First, I'm pretty sure you can't even cast the spell without hitting the target. Second, despite the range, Forceful Strike is not really a touch spell - the only way to use the spell is as part of "a melee weapon, unarmed strike, or natural attack".

[Kristal Moonhand]

You cannot cast the spell if you miss with your weapon attack.

Also, Dajur, that is a poor understanding of how touch spells work. Shocking Grasp is also instantaneous and it definitely can be held.

[Dajur]

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

Also, Dajur, that is a poor understanding of how touch spells work. Shocking Grasp is also instantaneous and it definitely can be held.

You indeed can hold the charge of a touch attack. In this particular case, at least according to the text of the spell, I don't think it counts as a touch attack, and therefore can't be held.

[dragonhunterq]

Dajur wrote:

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

Also, Dajur, that is a poor understanding of how touch spells work. Shocking Grasp is also instantaneous and it definitely can be held.

You indeed can hold the charge of a touch attack. In this particular case, at least according to the text of the spell, I don't think it counts as a touch attack, and therefore can't be held.

It is a touch spell if used on a natural or unarmed attack, but not if used on a melee weapon.

range of spell wrote:

touch or reach of melee weapon

[MrCharisma]

Dajur wrote:

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

Also, Dajur, that is a poor understanding of how touch spells work. Shocking Grasp is also instantaneous and it definitely can be held.

You indeed can hold the charge of a touch attack. In this particular case, at least according to the text of the spell, I don't think it counts as a touch attack, and therefore can't be held.

I guess if an opponent had a way to negate an attack after you hit (CRANE WING?) then you could hold the charge. The spell has a range of "touch or ..." but I'd rule that counts as touch for the purposes of holding a charge.

(Also for the record, Kristal Moonhand you could have said that a less antagonistic way)

[Kristal Moonhand]

That was not antagonistic at all, but go off, I guess.

[MrCharisma]

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

That was not antagonistic at all, but go off, I guess.

Sorry, sometimes it's hard to tell intentions in text. Looking at it again it doesn't look that bad any more =P

Sorry if I sounded antagonistic too.