Punching and Touch Attack

[Bobbystopholes]

Scenario:
Cleric wearing a spiked gauntlet casts Inflict Critical Wounds and attempts to punch a foe. The foe's AC is 18 (10+2 Shield+5 Chainmail+1 Dex) and his Touch AC is 11 (10+1 Dex). The Cleric's melee attack bonus is +10 but rolls a 5 for a 15 to hit. This means the punch glances off the armor, but the touch attack is made causing 4d8+9 to the foe. Is this accurate?

Here is what I think the possiblities are:
1) Beat the AC and cause 1d4+strength from the gauntlet and 4d8+9 [will for half] from the Inflict Spell
2) Beat the Touch AC but miss the Full AC and cause no damage from the gauntlet and 4d8+9 [will for half] from the Inflict Spell
3) Miss both ACs and cause no damage, still holding the charge

Am I correct in this?

 

[Artoomis]

The PHB has definate rules for this:

You may choose to either attempt to inflict damage from your first while delivering the Touch Attack, in which case you strike against your opponent's regular AC only. If you miss his regular AC then you miss BOTH the damaging attack and the touch attack.

OR

You attempt to touch only, using only the opponent's Touch AC.

 

[Bobbystopholes]

Cool. While I don't quite agree with it, I will follow it. I mean, you can accidentally touch your friends and set off a touch attack so why not a glancing blow on an opponent? Then again, that might be a house rule.


Do you remember what page?

 

[Artoomis]

Cool. While I don't quite agree with it, I will follow it. I mean, you can accidentally touch your friends and set off a touch attack so why not a glancing blow on an opponent? Then again, that might be a house rule.


Do you remember what page?

Pages 119, 125-6 and 151. But I can't find that rule on any of those pages.

Hmmm...... Maybe it was Sage ruling?

What I CAN find - from the FAQ:

If a spellcaster is wearing gauntlets, could the
character cast a spell with a touch range and perform an
unarmed strike in addition to the spell's effects? Could
a spellcaster wearing spiked gauntlets do an armed
strike in addition to the spell's effects?

No, you cannot deliver a touch spell through a weapon
attack. You can, however, still make a melee touch attack
to deliver a spell with touch range while wearing
gauntlets.

AND:

Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike
to deliver a spell with touch range? If so, how do you
resolve the attack?

Yes, you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch
spell. Since casting a spell is a standard action, you
usually have to wait until your next turn to make the
unarmed attack. Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the
same way you resolve any other unarmed strike. The
attacker has to beat the defender's Armor Class with all
adjustments, including armor and shield, added in. (The
attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch
the opponent.) If the attacker doesn't have the Improved
Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of
opportunity. (Striking for damage exposes the attacker to
more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a
spell.) If the attack is a hit, the attacker deals unarmed
damage and discharges the spell. If the attack is a miss,
the attacker is still holding the charge.

I don't see the difference between doing the latter and the former except in a rules technicality, but there you have it.

The glancing blow thing is easy to answer - if it truly was a glancing blow it would have hit for some damage - keeping in mind the abstract nature of hit points.

 

[da chicken]

Also note that because you can't deliver touch spells through a weapon, you technically can't deliver touch spells through Spiked Gauntlets. You can only use an Unarmed Attack.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

If you miss with the unarmed strike, you have missed. You cannot deliver the touch spell if you miss. The "glancing blow" is just flavor. You either attack against his full AC with an unarmed strike or against his touch AC with a melee touch attack. You cannot make an unarmed strike, miss, and deliver a touch attack with the same melee attack if the attack roll was high enough for the touch attack but not for the unarmed strike. If you have a second, iterative attack because of your BAB, you may try again with one or the other, if you did not cast the spell that round.

The cleric can only deliver the spell with a melee touch attack with the gauntlets. They are a weapon otherwise, not an unarmed strike.


Edit: The cleric cannot use the spiked gauntlets to deliver the spell, no more than he can do this via his mace or a dagger. Normal guantlets, however, can be used to deliver the spell, either with a melee touch attack or with an unarmed strike.

 

[hong]

The glancing blow thing is easy to answer - if it truly was a glancing blow it would have hit for some damage - keeping in mind the abstract nature of hit points.

A glancing blow can be a hit that deals damage. It can also be truly a glancing blow that doesn't do anything.

D&D's entire _combat system_ is abstract, and that includes armour adding to your AC. If full plate's AC +8 meant that everyone genuinely missed you, it would be like some sort of mystical force field that prevented blows from physically connecting. This is clearly absurd. AC incorporates an element of physical deflection, so that attacks bounce off your armour or are absorbed by its thickness or hardness. Now you could argue that the best way to represent this is via DR, but we've had that argument six million times + 1 already. For now, armour adds to your AC instead of DR, and we're stuck with it.

Therefore, I don't have any real problem with attacks that fail to deal damage still managing to touch the target. This seems a lot more reasonable than what's in the PHB or the FAQ, and doesn't need so much handwaving to justify it (or at least any more handwaving than the combat system as a whole needs).

 

[Bobbystopholes]

After reading the PHBs, I agree with Hong. I'll bring it up to the DM and ask his opinion. That's the one I will use. When my turn to DM comes, I'll use the rule I originally posted.

The only thing that I would rule is that to make the melee attack (and make the extra punch damage), you would have to cast one round then punch the next. This seems very balanced to me.

You got choices:
Scenario 1:
Round #1, cast Inflict Critical Wounds, move, touch opponent (4d8+9)

Scenario 2:
Round #1, cast Inflict Critical Wounds, move
Round #2, full attack action with Gauntlets (multiple attacks if possible), first successful attack deals punch and/or spell damage (according to the rules in the first post) (4d8+1d4+9+strength bonus).

Armor isn't as abstract as Hit Points are. This seems very easy after reading the PHB.

 

[kreynolds]

Round #1, cast Inflict Critical Wounds, move, touch opponent (4d8+9)

Unless you're hasted or you quicken the spell, good luck pulling all that off in one round.

 

[kreynolds]

Also note that because you can't deliver touch spells through a weapon, you technically can't deliver touch spells through Spiked Gauntlets. You can only use an Unarmed Attack.

Incorrect. From the DnD FAQ, page 23, left column...

If a spellcaster is wearing gauntlets, could the character cast a spell with a touch range and perform an unarmed strike in addition to the spell's effects? Could a spellcaster wearing spiked gauntlets do an armed strike in addition to the spell's effects?

No, you cannot deliver a touch spell through a weapon attack. You can, however, still make a melee touch attack to deliver a spell with touch range while wearing gauntlets.