Touch spells: were they always like this?

[Li Shenron]

Those of you familiar with older versions of D&D rules...

Was it always so that when casting a Touch spell, you could attack over and over without losing the charge (until you hit)?

Or did the touch spell discharge on a miss, in any of the previous editions?

Sometimes this question comes to my mind, because I often feel like some touch spells (Slay Living, 3.0 Harm) would have been more balanced if you couldn't simply try again next round until you hit.

 

[nittanytbone]

In 1E there is much debate on the Dragonsfoot Forums over "magic fingertips."

I tend to err on the side that touch spells are one-shot hit-or-lose-it attempts in 1E. You also went against full AC most of the time. Many touch spells do not offer saving throws, so your "save" in effect was your AC, and if the aggressor could make multiple attempts it would be overpowering. It isn't like you can try and tag someone five times with a Fireball!

 

[3d6]

It used to be that touch range spells were against normal AC and failed if you missed. Also, wizards had a much worse THAC0 in previous editions than they have BAB in 3.x (a wizard in previous editions have a BAB-equivalent of 1/4 their level, compared to 1/2 now).

In short, touch spells sucked.

 

[FEADIN]

It used to be that touch range spells were against normal AC and failed if you missed. Also, wizards had a much worse THAC0 in previous editions than they have BAB in 3.x (a wizard in previous editions have a BAB-equivalent of 1/4 their level, compared to 1/2 now).

In short, touch spells sucked.

+1.

 

[nittanytbone]

It used to be that touch range spells were against normal AC and failed if you missed. Also, wizards had a much worse THAC0 in previous editions than they have BAB in 3.x (a wizard in previous editions have a BAB-equivalent of 1/4 their level, compared to 1/2 now).

In short, touch spells sucked.

Not if you were a multiclass or dualclass magic-user... Or if you were going against a "soft target..." Or if you were a cleric using something like "Cause Fear..."

 

[3d6]

I guess I should of said "touch spells sucked if you were a single-class mage"; as fighter/mages and fighter/clerics did indeed do pretty well with touch spells.

 

[billd91]

Not if you were a multiclass or dualclass magic-user... Or if you were going against a "soft target..." Or if you were a cleric using something like "Cause Fear..."

Nevertheless, there was a huge difference between situations. You still needed to hit the full AC while in 3E, some targets are shockingly easy to hit with a touch attack (dragons in particular) because most of their AC component is ignored by a touch attack.

 

[Li Shenron]

I see the change to touch attacks so that armor & shield doesn't help as a good change.

But why was it added that "you can make touch attacks round after round"? What is the real rationale behind it? And why do many touch spells have no saving throw?

Often these changes are said to "balance" the disadvantage of having to go into melee... but since when Clerics and Druids are afraid of that?

 

[Darklone]

I don't like the no saving throw for orbs and similar spells at all. Fine, you have your touch AC for that... but it's not too easy to increase your touch AC. In a game where classes have defense bonus this would be ok...

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't like the no saving throw for orbs and similar spells at all. Fine, you have your touch AC for that... but it's not too easy to increase your touch AC. In a game where classes have defense bonus this would be ok...

At least if you miss those ranged touch attack rolls the spell is wasted: you have one chance only.

Melee touch spells are the only ones (although perhaps some exception exists) that by default you can try over and over to deliver to your target, until you do hit it. Without a saving throw, there is no chance* for the target to avoid the spell, unless it manages to kill/disable you before...

*[this of course doesn't factor Spell Resistance in, but SR alone is not enough IMHO]