Unarmed Strike + Touch Spell

[RJSmalls]

If I'm attacking unarmed, while holding the charge of a Touch spell, why I should I not be able to:

a) deliver unarmed damage and discharge the spell on a successful to-hit roll, or

b) discharge the spell, but not deliever damage, if my to-hit roll was not enough to hit him normally, but good enough to hit his Touch AC.

Bottom line: I think an Unarmed Strike that misses your opponent's AC but still hits his Touch AC should deliver a Touch Spell attack (if you're holding the charge). Convince me otherwise, please.

FYI - the Sage ruled otherwise. Here's the copy and paste:

QUESTION: Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike
to deliver a spell with touch range? If so, how do you
resolve the attack?

SAGE: Yes, you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch
spell. Since casting a spell is a standard action, you
usually have to wait until your next turn to make the
unarmed attack. Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the
same way you resolve any other unarmed strike. The
attacker has to beat the defender's Armor Class with all
adjustments, including armor and shield, added in. (The
attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch
the opponent.) If the attacker doesn't have the Improved
Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of
opportunity. (Striking for damage exposes the attacker to
more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a
spell.) If the attack is a hit, the attacker deals unarmed
damage and discharges the spell. If the attack is a miss,
the attacker is still holding the charge.

 

[IceBear]

What you describe makes sense to me. I think the Sage was ruling based on balance(ie to give a monk character a reason NOT to try delivering a touch spell with an unarmed attack). With the way you describe, the monk would never try a normal touch attack.

Logically, the way you describe it makes sense, but from a game balance sense, maybe the Sage is right.

IceBear

 

[dkilgo]

I agree with Icebear.

 

[RJSmalls]

Hmm

Icebear,

I thought of that - perhaps it was game balance that drove him to that conclusion. And if that's the case, I guess it begs the question as to whether game balance would, indeed, be unduly affected were we not to rule it the way I originally posted?

On a related side-note, I almost wish the FAQ contained a little supportive documentation to see why the Sage ruled something the way he did. For example, in this case, if they added the caveat of "While I understand my ruling may not necessarily be realistic, I feel the capability for a missed Unarmed Strike to hit a target's Touch AC and thus deliver a Touch Spell negatively affects game balance and is not with the intent or spirit of the Core Rules."

A simple sentence here or there, I think, would help remove some confusion and lessen the flame traffic on boards such as this one. If you give a guy an answer, that's one thing; but if you show him how to determined the answer, well - that's quite another.

My $.02.

RJ

(Still looking for one or two 30+ yrs. old gamers in the Crofton, MD, area for a new 3E Campaign.)

 

[AGGEMAM]

Re: Hmm

(Still looking for one or two 30+ yrs. old gamers in the Crofton, MD, area for a new 3E Campaign.)

If I knew what MD stood for, but I guess it is not in northern europe, I would happily join !!

 

[dkilgo]

MD is Maryland, right?

 

[RJSmalls]

Heh

MD = Maryland or Medical Doctor.

In this case, it's the former, and I wish I were the latter.

 

[dkilgo]

no kidding!

 

[IceBear]

Re: Hmm

Icebear,

I thought of that - perhaps it was game balance that drove him to that conclusion. And if that's the case, I guess it begs the question as to whether game balance would, indeed, be unduly affected were we not to rule it the way I originally posted?

On a related side-note, I almost wish the FAQ contained a little supportive documentation to see why the Sage ruled something the way he did. For example, in this case, if they added the caveat of "While I understand my ruling may not necessarily be realistic, I feel the capability for a missed Unarmed Strike to hit a target's Touch AC and thus deliver a Touch Spell negatively affects game balance and is not with the intent or spirit of the Core Rules."

A simple sentence here or there, I think, would help remove some confusion and lessen the flame traffic on boards such as this one. If you give a guy an answer, that's one thing; but if you show him how to determined the answer, well - that's quite another.

My $.02.

RJ

(Still looking for one or two 30+ yrs. old gamers in the Crofton, MD, area for a new 3E Campaign.)

Well, if I weren't in Canada I'd join (just turned 32 in Nov).

When I say balance, I mean they like choices with 3E. There tends to be tradeoffs all the time. In general, if something is an ALWAYS, it's not balanced. The tradeoff here is the touch attack is easier to make but does less damage, vs the harder to make attack that would do more damage. If we went with your ruling, we no longer need to make the choice - we just go for the hard attack and either hit for the extra damage, just deliver the touch attack, or miss. It's the removal of making the PC choose that's the balance issue.

Again, I agree with you that what you say makes sense and I doubt you'll be breaking the game by going that way, but I can see the Sage's point of view too.

And yes, we've all been wishing for awhile that the Sage would put some of his thoughts behind his decisions down with the decisions themselves.

IceBear

 

[RJSmalls]

Eureka!

I think one my players just came up with an answer that effectively addresses realism and game balance.

Let's say a character casts a Touch spell. Per the rules, he may now move and deliver his Touch attack, all the same round. This is different than most actions, since he's making two standard actions (casting spell, attacking) in the same round.

Or...

The character may cast the spell, but wait until the next round to make an Unarmed Strike against the opponent. In this instance, I'd allow a successful hit to do both Unarmed damage and discharge the spell. If the PC hit the target's Touch AC, but missed his regular AC, then just the Touch Spell is discharged by no Unarmed damage is assigned.

This answers Icebear's point about forcing the player's to make decisions, I think. The PC can choose to attack with an Unarmed Strike and deliever a Touch Spell in the same round, but he couldn't Cast the spell and then do an Unarmed Strike in the same round he cast it in. Basically, the PC may wait one round after casting to do Touch Spell + Unarmed Strike, or he may attempt to deliver the Touch Spell the round he casts the spell, but not via an Unarmed Stirke (since an Unarmed Strike is handled in the Touch Spell caveat allowing both casting and delivery to be in the same round).

I think I may have just made it more confusing than what it needs to be. Hopefully those of you who are interested can see this is an answer that addresses both game balance and realism aspects of the original question.

RJ