Touch spells: were they always like this?

[XO]

Be Sensible

My players know that using a nice metallic weapon on a Will-o-wisp tends to be an electrifying experience: you take damage as though the creature had attacked you...

Think of someone standing there with a welder's rod in hand: the rod cares naught if you touch it or if it touches you, as it will happily weld / shock / zap you anyway.

Similarly, any discharge that doesn't make sense should be avoided.... "Touch" spell on undead, you say? Sure! Go ahead! What? You expect the negative charge of the undead to only be willfully released? THAT would be silly!

Touch attacks were house-ruled to shieldless / armorless in all but the most hermetic campaigns in 1E. Translation: only stupid DMs with a total lack of consideration did anything else. There were variations: an electrical charge did not behave as a fiery one. Nowadays, we would consider wooden versus metallci shield.

As to a charge or aura, it has to connect to discharge for a reason: it must go somewhere, but we used to diminish the charge if it failed to do anything for a bit.
You can not discharge into yourself, as you are the source of the charge: repeatedly hitting yourself in the forehead with a Shocking Grasp in hand does nothing.
You can discharge into anything you touch (ground when you touch a wall, in electrical terms).
"Anything" includes nearby creatures such as allies.

As things now go, lack of facing is a much more annoying problem in the RAW than touch could ever be. I am also increasingly annoyed at moaning about casters' powers. Casters are a thinking players' tool, and the non-thinking "duh" fighters get flustered because they keep bringing knives to a gunfight. Brains developed guns, not brawn. Brains or talent are also responsible for spells.

Don't like magic spells in D&D play? Play Harn! Play Monopoly! Play chess...

Are we to understand your AC35 fighting-machine got nailed?

 

[Darklone]

Don't like magic spells in D&D play? Play Harn! Play Monopoly! Play chess...

Are we to understand your AC35 fighting-machine got nailed?

I do like the core spells and the standard thing in D&D that you have certain ways how to defend against spells. Just IMHO that doesn't work with these additional orb spells (and Magic Missile).

My fighting machines rather had touch AC 25 than AC 35 . Bards go!

 

[XO]

Crit Damage

And I still favor multiplying instead of throwing multiple dice.

Nice linear statistical distribution. Ex: d12 X 3.

Instead of a "bell" distribution. Ex: 3d12, centering on a value of 19.5.

1) Easier to do
2) Less time wasted

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And I still favor multiplying instead of throwing multiple dice.

Nice linear statistical distribution. Ex: d12 X 3.

Instead of a "bell" distribution. Ex: 3d12, centering on a value of 19.5.

1) Easier to do
2) Less time wasted

Except that I never want to have a 1 in 12 chance of doing 3 points of damage on a critical hit.

DS

 

[XO]

We Have a (don't tell anyone) House Rule...

A CRITICAL hit will not do less than full weapon damage.

Didn't want to reveal our secret, but now that you twist my arm...

No, I don't feel like running stats on that.

So for a greataxe, on a confirmed crit, you would do 3 X d12 with a minimum of 12...

Who wants sucky crits ....

 

[wildstarsreach]

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.

3rd ed brought the concept of Touch AC. From 77 until 3rd ed that I played there was always a debate of how do you get an easier way of hitting. We never came up with one.

 

[varzil]

I don't think touch attack spells are that much of a problem, actually. Every single class-mage I know of would rather cast any other spell then go into melee, especially with large and strong enemies which have a low touch ac but also have reach and do a lot of damage.

For the cleric... well true. Slay living and harm are good for that, but these are also the only ones. Slay living on a creature with low touch AC - that never works - low touch AC enemies have generally very high fortitude saves. In the end, only harm is a real pain in the ass - IMHO its just a problem with this specific spell you're stating and not a problem with the idea of touch spells and the rules behind like multiple attempts.

 

[Aaron L]

Touch attacks were house-ruled to shieldless / armorless in all but the most hermetic campaigns in 1E. Translation: only stupid DMs with a total lack of consideration did anything else. There were variations: an electrical charge did not behave as a fiery one. Nowadays, we would consider wooden versus metallci shield.

No one I knew ever did this.

 

[Deadguy]

Indeed I would go so far as to say that of the many RPGs that I have played over the years, D&D3.X is the only one to give explicit consideration of this matter [touch versus normal armour class]. I know that I really miss the concept when playing Earthdawn for example, or Ars Magica.

 

[Rahula008]

I was a DM for many years in 1Ed. The problem with crits doing that linear progression was that players were exposed to far more crits than a monster with a life expectancy of one battle. Thus, after long thought, and far too many pc deaths due to a 'lucky' max damage, I baned crits altogether. There was some moaning for a while but after a bit everyone agreed it was the right decision. Its a DMs job to 'threaten' death of the pc's not to actually kill them. That said I have found no problems so far with crits in 3.5.