AFAIK, delivering a touch spell intentionally requires a standard action, not simply a regular attack (note that you cannot make a melee touch attack as part of a series of iterative attacks), so even though delivering a touch spell is considered an unarmed attack, I don't think you can do so as a (touch) attack of opportunity.
I think you can provided you hold the charge, now I don't know if you can threaten with it without IUS.
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
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.
edit: i take being armed to also mean that you threaten your normal reach. correct me if i'm wrong.
edit 2: as for the tongue, it has a 10 ft. range not 10 ft. reach so i don't think it threatens, but maybe i'm being too pedantic here.
You have a prehensile tongue with a range of 10 feet.
I think cuatroespada has it right.
If you had 10 foot reach you would threaten with a touch attack, but it says 10 foot range.
Here's the thing it doesn't say your considered armed while holding the charge only while making the attack. That's where the line gets a bit blurry, by RAW I don't think you can threaten with just the spell and no IUS, by what I allow at the table sounds good to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making a touch attack is a standard action, so could not be used as an AoO. Making an unarmed strike or natural attack (or magus with spellstrike and a weapon) could all deliver the spell along with the attack against normal AC.
I think cuatroespada has it right.
If you had 10 foot reach you would threaten with a touch attack, but it says 10 foot range.
Excellent, so gripplis can throw their tongues. : )
Here's the thing it doesn't say your considered armed while holding the charge only while making the attack. That's where the line gets a bit blurry, by RAW I don't think you can threaten with just the spell and no IUS, by what I allow at the table sounds good to me.
i'd say the second bolded sentence in the "holding the charge" section (as well as logic/reason) strongly implies that you're armed while holding the charge since it's about holding the charge and specifies a situation in which you are now "not armed" unless you'd normally be considered armed with that attack. i'm fairly certain the intent is that you are armed with touch spells not "you're armed only while you make the initial free touch attack with a touch spell" though admittedly it doesn't state this explicitly, so i'd be willing to hit FAQ.
Excellent, so gripplis can throw their tongues. : )I think cuatroespada has it right.
If you had 10 foot reach you would threaten with a touch attack, but it says 10 foot range.
they essentially do throw their tongues and then pull them back since they're still attached. *shrug*
but the point is that it doesn't have text like a whip, so if it had reach, we'd have to assume it didn't work adjacent, but since it has a 10 ft. range, it can obviously still attack adjacent. though, again, i might be descending into unintended pedantry.
Being able to deliver touch attacks at 10' is a pretty nice benefit. I don't know why you would expect it to be better than that.
I have been waiting for the right time to play my 'bad lick' cleric for ages.
Being able to pick up something implies that you can hold, I would be surprised at any GM ruling otherwise. I agree that you probably can't manipulate though.
You are correct that the unarmed penalty for a disarm that you are performing with your tongue doesn't make sense (or more specifically, not taking the penalty if you are armed and 10' away does't make sense). There are places in the rules where that happens. I don't see that being any sort of huge negative to the utility of the feat, but if having things on your character that don't make sense really bothers you, then perhaps that is a reason to not take it.
If you want to make a character focused on disarm or steal then I'd agree that Grippli with the agile tongue feat probably isn't the best way to go. The usefulness of this particular feat with those maneuvers is actually in some ways greater for characters not specialized in those maneuvers, since doing it at range means you don't have to worry about your attempt provoking. Obviously if you aren't specialized you aren't going to be reliable at them, My grippli cleric isn't going to disarm a full bab swordsman he is facing, but he has a great chance to steal a spell component pouch from a wizard, without needing to spend any other feats.
I guess I just have a hard time understand the thought process that says 'If it only did this one thing it would be a great feat, but since it does that thing, and some other things but it doesn't do the other things perfectly it sucks.'