Unarmed attack + touch spell

[Egres]

Just note the bad wording of the PHB: in fact a Touch Spell is an unarmed attack, and combining an unarmed attack with a touch spell is quite redundant.

I think "you may make a normal unarmed strike (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge" would be better.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Just note the bad wording of the PHB: in fact a Touch Spell is an unarmed attack, and combining an unarmed attack with a touch spell is quite redundant.

I think "you may make a normal unarmed strike (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge" would be better.

The problem with that revision is that it doesn't allow for combining touch spells with trips, grapple attempts, etc.

 

[Egres]

The problem with that revision is that it doesn't allow for combining touch spells with trips, grapple attempts, etc.

Right.

But that wouldn't be a bad limitation, IMHO.

 

[Jhulae]

Just note the bad wording of the PHB: in fact a Touch Spell is an unarmed attack, and combining an unarmed attack with a touch spell is quite redundant.

I think "you may make a normal unarmed strike (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge" would be better.

Well, not really. Normal unarmed attacks (without Improved Unarmed Attack) draw AoOs. You specifically do not draw an AoO if you're attempting to make a touch attack to deliver a spell. You're considered 'armed'.

 

[Egres]

Well, not really. Normal unarmed attacks (without Improved Unarmed Attack) draw AoOs. You specifically do not draw an AoO if you're attempting to make a touch attack to deliver a spell. You're considered 'armed'.

Right.

But you are making an unarmed attack nonetheless.

An "armed" unarmed one, but still an unarmed attack.

Minor nitpick: the feat's right name is Improved Unarmed Strike.