Unarmed Strike + Touch Spell

[daemonslye]

If you were wearing gauntlets or spiked gauntlets with
GMW cast on them, would you get the bonus to your touch?
Or only if you use these "as weapons"?

What about divine favor?

Thanks

~D

 

[Brekki]

The touching the opponent that is part of a touch spell is part of the same action. An unarmed attack that is ment to do damage is an attack action. So you can only combine the two if you cast the touch spell, and hold it until your next action.

Also, when you try do damage someone you use a whole different tactic then when you try to touch someone. A damaging attack needs force behind it, a touch doesn't, so I don't think that when the normal attack misses you should still be able to deliver the touch spell.

Touch spells can not be delivered when wearing gauntlets I believe, nor can they be enhanced with GMW because they are not truly weapons.

Divine favor works with all attacks.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up as I understand the rules too.

What he's suggesting isn't that unreasonable for a house rule I suppose, but then monk characters would always be casting and then waiting for the next round to punch/deliver the touch spell, which (I guess) is offset by the delay (I'm still undecided here).

IceBear

 

[hong]

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.

I would be quite happy to go with b). I seriously doubt the game is going to break because of it.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, I don't think it would "break" anything either. It just doesn't seem right that someone has two options and would never choose one. I guess the one round delay is enough.

IceBear

 

[FlimFlam]

I would personally give the Monk the choice. There is a similiar magic item in Sword and Fist (I think maybe a potion). The way it works is like this.

You can either make a normal unarmed attack trying to hit the standard AC of your opponent. If you hit, the attack deals unarmed damage and the spell is discharged.

OR

You can just do a melee touch attack to discharge the spell. In which case you need to hit the opponents AC as if it was a melee touch attack BUT you do not get to do damage with the unarmed strike, you just discharge the spell.

But I would give them the ability to choose which attack they want to do ahead of time.

JMHO...

 

[IceBear]

I do believe that is the current ruling by the Sage, but the original posters wanted to modify this so that if the unarmed strike missed, the normal AC, but hit the touch AC it would not do the unarmed strike damage but still deliver the touch spell. This does make sense.

IceBear

 

[Stalker0]

The one problem I might have with this arrangement is if you allow spring attack to work for it. then it could start causing problems.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, and it would be REALLY hard to argue against it.

IceBear

 

[AGGEMAM]

Look it is pretty simple rules-wise.

A touch attack is an armed attack, normally if you have two weapons and only a single attack action you must choose which weapon you will attack with, the same holds true for touch attacks.

However there is nothing wrong with delivering a touch attack as an off-hand attack if you have a full-attack action to spend.