Unarmed Strike + Touch Spell

[IceBear]

No, the FAQ that he's posted above has shown that the Sage agrees that you CAN deliever a touch spell as part of an unarmed strike. No need to get into two weapon fighting, and I've known that this was allowed for quite some time. What he's trying to do is to allow the monk to deliver the touch spell even if he misses with the unarmed strike (but hits the Touch AC).

While we've been discussing monks here, I could forsee a druid (with the right feats) delivering a touch spell with a bite attack.

IceBear

 

[niastri]

Yes, to the Fly-by Attack part.

No, to the Spring Attack part.

To explain, Spring Attack requires you to make a melee attack, which you are not becasue you are casting a spell of which the touch attack is part of. And Fly-by Attack allow you to make a partial action, so casting a spell of which a touch attack is part of is allowed.

Actually, no, they won't let me even cast the spell and touch in the same action, they make me cast the spell and swoop using flyby the next round.

There is no reason to not attack in that situation, unless you can't really hit the target's non touch AC.

I thought it was a partial action as well, but they took that to be a mistake and errata'd it themselves.

 

[dkilgo]

While we've been discussing monks here, I could forsee a druid (with the right feats) delivering a touch spell with a bite attack.

I think that is quite feasable, with the appropriate feats of course.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

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.

Unfortunately, the combat mechanics of D&D are simplified in order to promote ease of use, understanding, entertainment, and "game balance" (although one might observe, wryly, that they can at times achieve none of these aims). Similar arguments based on "logic" are used to promote the idea that armour should not make a person harder to hit, only harder to injure, and therefore armour should provide damage reduction (IMHO this fails to appreicate the very game mechanic that AC represents in D&D - AC is representative of how hard something is to damage, not to hit - but that's a whole other discussion).

If you want logic to dictate every game mechanic in D&D combat, think on this:

I want to merely touch my opponent, somewhere, somehow, in order to discharge my touch spell. Therefore, I don't need to put much physical effort into the attack, and I only need to touch my opponent somewhere, and I because of that I need not put myself into a particularly vulnerable situation when making the touch attack. So: (a) Why should I get my Str bonus to the attack roll? (b) Why don't I get my Dex bonus to my attack roll? (c) Why don't I get a dodge bonus to my AC for the next round?

I want to hit my opponent where it hurts, and discharge the spell at the same time. Therefore, I need to time my attack, direct it with precision, and put considerable force behind it. By doing so I might open myself up to a counter-attack. Just because the number I roll on a d20 would indicate a successful touch attack if I had been pursuing the combat tactic in the previous paragraph does not mean that I actually touched my enemy in this case, because I was actually trying a completely different attacking tactic. I could well have missed him by the proverbial country mile.

In short, using logic to explain an abstract combat system doesn't work and gives rise to more questions than it answers. I suggest you go with the Sage. It'll work out much better in the long run.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[dkilgo]

My brain hurts after that one Al'Kelhar.

<--Something entirely too easy to do these days...-->

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Unarmed Strike + Touch Spell

Blah blah blah

In short, using logic to explain an abstract combat system doesn't work and gives rise to more questions than it answers. I suggest you go with the Sage. It'll work out much better in the long run.

Logic has bugger-all to do with it. It's a choice between one alternative that intuitively makes sense if you don't think too hard, and another one that doesn't.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Actually, no, they won't let me even cast the spell and touch in the same action, they make me cast the spell and swoop using flyby the next round.

What do you say no to ?

Fly-by does let you do what you want, off course, you provoke an AoO.

But it certainly lets you take a move and during this make a partial action, that partial action could be casting a touch spell and make a touch attack because that is part of the spell.

Since the partial action must be taken somewhere during your move you could only cast the touch spell when you where within touch range of your target, which (casting the spell, that is) usually provokes an AoO from the target.