Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 3047639" data-attributes="member: 111"></blockquote>Touch AttacksSome attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. [/quote]Interesting.&nbsp; I did miss this earlier.&nbsp; This section says NOTHING about a &quot;touch&quot; being different form a &quot;hit&quot; - it only talks about how the AC is different.&nbsp; The ONLY place a &quot;touch&quot; is specified as being a distinct thing is for spells.Actually, there is no explicit rule that a touch is not a type of hit.&nbsp; Let's draw from the SRD and the &quot;Combat Statistics&quot; section:There you have it.&nbsp; The actual use of the word &quot;hit&quot; is used twice - the second time in regard to &quot;It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you&quot; under that armor section&nbsp; This section also points out that &quot;some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee)...&quot;The wrod &quot;hit&quot; is not actually used in the Touch Attack section here, but as it was used above, and this section clearly is to differentiate the AC needed for a Touch Attack, it seems clear that a successful Touch Attack is a &quot;hit&quot; in the sense that the attack roll used exceeded the applicable AC. In other words, either a results or Touch Attack results in a &quot;hit.&quot;&nbsp; There is, of course, a difference.&nbsp; A &quot;hit&quot; from a Touch Attack has not penetrated physical armor (etc.) and so no normal weapon damage can be done.&nbsp; Whether or not other kinds of damage (such as energy damage) form a weapon might be done is certainly a matter for debate due to the use of the &quot;succesful hit&quot; language - as this very topic illustrates.I have now pointed out no fewer than two instances where a successful Touch Attack results in something called a &quot;hit.&quot;&nbsp; A &quot;succesful hit&quot; is not a techincal, narrow term in D&amp;D, it's simply when an attack roll (of any type) is successful.At the very least, this topic ought to make it clear that the rules can be read to support either point of view, so a even a &quot;No House Rule&quot; DM should decide which way to rule.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 3047639, member: 111"] [/quote]Touch Attacks Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. [/quote] Interesting. I did miss this earlier. This section says NOTHING about a "touch" being different form a "hit" - it only talks about how the AC is different. The ONLY place a "touch" is specified as being a distinct thing is for spells. Actually, there is no explicit rule that a touch is not a type of hit. Let's draw from the SRD and the "Combat Statistics" section: There you have it. The actual use of the word "hit" is used twice - the second time in regard to "It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you" under that armor section This section also points out that "some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee)..." The wrod "hit" is not actually used in the Touch Attack section here, but as it was used above, and this section clearly is to differentiate the AC needed for a Touch Attack, it seems clear that a successful Touch Attack is a "hit" in the sense that the attack roll used exceeded the applicable AC. In other words, either a results or Touch Attack results in a "hit." There is, of course, a difference. A "hit" from a Touch Attack has not penetrated physical armor (etc.) and so no normal weapon damage can be done. Whether or not other kinds of damage (such as energy damage) form a weapon might be done is certainly a matter for debate due to the use of the "succesful hit" language - as this very topic illustrates. I have now pointed out no fewer than two instances where a successful Touch Attack results in something called a "hit." A "succesful hit" is not a techincal, narrow term in D&D, it's simply when an attack roll (of any type) is successful. At the very least, this topic ought to make it clear that the rules can be read to support either point of view, so a even a "No House Rule" DM should decide which way to rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification