Touch spells

[whatisitgoodfor]

Oooooh.


I think I'm going to have to tell my Bluff Rouge playing friend to start threatening people with a finger. (not the middle one)


Seriously, if you lived in a high magic world and saw some guy wearing robes or a bunch of holy symbols trying to poke you with his finger you'de probably be pretty worried about it.

 

[IceBear]

Oooooh.


I think I'm going to have to tell my Bluff Rouge playing friend to start threatening people with a finger. (not the middle one)


Seriously, if you lived in a high magic world and saw some guy wearing robes or a bunch of holy symbols trying to poke you with his finger you'de probably be pretty worried about it.

Sure, but from a game rule mechanics point of view how does someone know. Like you said, someone could pretend to cast a spell and then try to touch them. Besides, with 3E, you don't necessarily have to look like a typical spell caster to be a spellcaster. What if they cast a still, silenced touch spell? What if you don't live in a high magic world? What if you are a mindless animal? Why don't you get the AoO against the man trying to touch you?

Again, I agree with what you're saying, but in my role as devil's advocate here, you can see that the rule mechanics are a little off.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

You know, despite what it says in that PHB passage quoted above, Whatisitgoodfor's interpretation is the only one that fits. Why, for example, should a stupid (or mindless) monster react differently to a touch attack spell? Despite the PHB stating the monster reacts as if the character is armed, the only way it makes sense is is the AoO is not dependent on the defender's reaction but the attacker's action. Thus, I'll have to go with Whatisitgoodfor.

IceBear