Touch attacks and Unarmed strikes

[starwed]

Although possibly a typo, Greater Psionic Shot. Psionic shot specifies unarmed strikes, but greater psionic shot says "When you use the Psionic Fist feat, your unarmed attack or attack with a natural weapon deals an extra 4d6 points of damage instead of an extra 2d6 points."

That's a bit dubious, but still... ^_^

In any case, it's more the principle I"m arguing. If an effect modifies unarmed attacks, then should it modify (melee) touch attack spells? For the purposes of this argument, I don't really care whether such effects exist.

 

[KarinsDad]

In any case, it's more the principle I"m arguing. If an effect modifies unarmed attacks, then should it modify (melee) touch attack spells? For the purposes of this argument, I don't really care whether such effects exist.

Actually, it is fairly critical to the discussion.

If no such effects exist in the game, then a) why discuss it and b) the designers probably did not think to or want to introduce such an effect. It seems kind of pointless to discuss if there is not a game reason to do so.

 

[starwed]

If no such effects exist in the game, then a) why discuss it

Blasphemy!

the designers probably did not think to or want to introduce such an effect.

The problem with this line of thought is, why is there an "unarmed attack" category at all, if that category has no use in the game rules?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wait, so a ranged touch spell, such as disintegrate, is an unarmed attack?

He said 'range "touch"', not 'ranged touch'.

As in spells with a Range: Touch entry, not spells with a Range: Close or whatever entry.

Disintegrate does not have a range of 'Touch'.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

No, you didn't. You said "The below rules seem to indicate you could indeed use feats, spells, etc that improve your unarmed attacks to improve your touch attacks chance of success." This was in response to the general question of the OP that does not say touch attack spells.

Of for the love of... Skip it, consider it a misunderstanding.

Wait, so a ranged touch spell, such as disintegrate, is an unarmed attack?

Hypersmurf had it right, but this is interesting....

No, it is not "attacking in melee without a weapon."

However when you "hold the charge" you are, per the attack rules, considered to "armed" even though unarmed and can make an AoO (however the heck that works with a ranged touch attack).

Interesting and bizarre. It appears that this is indeed an ranged unaremd attack roll - how odd and no in accordance with the unarmed attack rules.

Anyway, short answer, no, it's not an unarmed attack except by some twisted logic and creative reading of the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem with this line of thought is, why is there an "unarmed attack" category at all, if that category has no use in the game rules?

It has use to explain rules. It does not have use with regard to modifiers for the entire category (TMK). There are no magic items (again TMK) that give a bonus to the to hit and/or damage of all Unarmed Attacks.

The only portion of the unarmed attack category that applies to touch spells is the section on "Armed" Unarmed Attacks. The rest of the touch spell rules are found in the spell rules.

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

...

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

The section is really discussing Unarmed Melee Attack, not Unarmed Spell Attacks. The only reason touch attack spells are even here is to indicate that the caster is armed when holding a charge and can make attacks of opportunity.

But, the entire category is not used in the rules with regard to modifiers (TMK).


Hence again, why discuss it if there are no game rules to support such a feature? It has nothing to do with the OP's question. And it has nothing to do with the rules or the game as written for that matter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However when you "hold the charge" you are, per the attack rules, considered to "armed" even though unarmed and can make an AoO (however the heck that works with a ranged touch attack).

You can't hold the charge on a ray like Disintegrate.

You can only hold the charge on a touch spell. What is a touch spell?

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells...

Disintegrate does not have a range of touch; it is not a touch spell, and thus the rules for Holding The Charge under Touch Spells In Combat are inapplicable.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

You can't hold the charge on a ray like Disintegrate.

You can only hold the charge on a touch spell. What is a touch spell?

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells...

Disintegrate does not have a range of touch; it is not a touch spell, and thus the rules for Holding The Charge under Touch Spells In Combat are inapplicable.

-Hyp.

Well, okay then. No "ranged unarmed attack" weirdness. Good.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Of for the love of... Skip it, consider it a misunderstanding.

I'm just trying to respond to your points in the context of the original question. If you stray from the subject and don't tell anyone, how in the world am I supposed to read your mind?

 

[glass]

Do feats that benefit unarmed strikes or natural weapons also effect touch attacks?

Are there any?

EDIT: No, apparently not. FWIW, were there any, I agree with Artoomis* that they would modifiy touch attacks to deliver spells (etc), but it hardly matters.


glass.

* Now that's not something I say very often.