Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alchemist" data-source="post: 1748111" data-attributes="member: 6594">Fair enough. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Except that chill touch very explicitly states "creature or creatures touched" as well as the fact that it may be used more than once.  We see neither of these properties in dissolving touch, only a vague statement about denaturing that has no known rules relevance.  I don't interpret that statement to mean you can't hold the charge because, afaik, you don't "use" the charge until you touch somebody.I'm going to assume you meant dissolving weapon, not dissolving touch.  The word except could indeed refer to multiple changes to the description, but you're still stuck with only one target.  Are we then to assume that you have to focus all of your unarmed attacks on a single target without mentioning that important tidbit in the description?  Why would the description be so different from that of chill touch, where they make it very obvious you get more than one bang for your buck?  I can't read designers minds either, but I can take an educated guess at what they probably meant when they wrote the rules.As an aside, todays article at wizards about reading spell descriptions touches on this very topic.  <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040907a" target="_blank">Here</a> it talks about:  "Descriptive text usually doesn't bother saying what the spell does not do: The list of things a spell can't do is theoretically endless, so the spell description usually doesn't even attempt to do so. Instead, the descriptive text tries to explain what the spell does as succinctly as possible. If you don't find something in a spell's descriptive text, it's a pretty good bet the spell doesn't do it." (emphasis mine)  However you feel about the Sage Advice Skip has given out in the past, he is one of the designers that we are second guessing here, essentially telling us that if it isn't spelled out, it probably isn't happening.If I were to guess how the power would be written to accomodate what is being suggested, I take my cues from a power like Claws of the Vampire.  It has a duration and quite explicitly states how it improves your natural (in this case, claw) attack for the duration.  And it sure as heck wouldn't be 2nd level. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Edit:  Damn you, Dr Awkward!  That's what I get for making tea while I composed my response. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification