Touch spells & normal attacks
- Thread starter Quidam
- Start date
Lord Pendragon
First Post
No.
D&D does not specify why a certain attack misses.* When you make a melee attack that falls short of the target's AC, you cannot be certain that the target's armor is what foiled the attack. It could just as easily have been the target's dex bonus. Or the target's natural 10 points of AC.
If you are holding a touch spell, you can either:
A. Make a touch attack against your target's touch AC. If you hit, you discharge the spell, but do no additional damage.
B. Make a standard melee attack against your target's full AC. If you hit, you do natural weapon damage + discharge the spell.
*Edited to add: The one exception I can think of are cover bonuses, which are treated as an "additional" AC value. However, other bonuses, when present, have no cardinal order in which they are applied, and therefore my point remains. You can't be sure why a melee attack failed, and without that, you can't say that the same attack equals a successful touch attack.
D&D does not specify why a certain attack misses.* When you make a melee attack that falls short of the target's AC, you cannot be certain that the target's armor is what foiled the attack. It could just as easily have been the target's dex bonus. Or the target's natural 10 points of AC.
If you are holding a touch spell, you can either:
A. Make a touch attack against your target's touch AC. If you hit, you discharge the spell, but do no additional damage.
B. Make a standard melee attack against your target's full AC. If you hit, you do natural weapon damage + discharge the spell.
*Edited to add: The one exception I can think of are cover bonuses, which are treated as an "additional" AC value. However, other bonuses, when present, have no cardinal order in which they are applied, and therefore my point remains. You can't be sure why a melee attack failed, and without that, you can't say that the same attack equals a successful touch attack.
Last edited:
Quidam
First Post
touch ac
Hm. I'd thought that if the attack hits the touch AC, you touch the target, regardless of whether you were attacking normally or as a touch attack.
I thought it would be like the rules for cover- if you miss by the amount the cover added, you hit the cover. If you miss by the amount of dex & deflect &c, you touch.
So there's no way to tell if you've touched the target unless you're specifically trying to touch it?
Hm. I'd thought that if the attack hits the touch AC, you touch the target, regardless of whether you were attacking normally or as a touch attack.
I thought it would be like the rules for cover- if you miss by the amount the cover added, you hit the cover. If you miss by the amount of dex & deflect &c, you touch.
So there's no way to tell if you've touched the target unless you're specifically trying to touch it?
The Hanged Man
First Post
Cover is the only area where the "amount of miss" actually matters. All other attacks simply hit, or miss. For flavor, I usually treat an attack that hits the touch AC, but misses b/c of armor, as bashing the person but being deflected by armor, but that's just flavor and has no effect on the game.
If you'd like, you can always houserule to that effect, but I'd be careful about doing that. It makes spell-storing weapons and monsters w/ touch attacks much more powerful than they should be.
If you'd like, you can always houserule to that effect, but I'd be careful about doing that. It makes spell-storing weapons and monsters w/ touch attacks much more powerful than they should be.
