Warlock's Eldritch Blast?

Caliban said:
Ah, no that is incorrect. Touch spells are not only melee touch attacks. From that same section, on page 141: "Touch Attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks ... and ranged touch attacks (for touches made with magic rays, for example)."

Touch spells are spells with Range: Touch.

Touch Attacks come in two types, but since Touch spells have a range of Touch, you can't make ranged touch attacks with them.

You can make a ranged touch attack with a spell that allows it, but it's not a touch spell.

Also, when you use the word "Touch" two many time in one post, it starts to look really weird.

-Hyp.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Caliban said:
I'm not sure what your point is here. So what if it is needed for multiple things?

Just saying, that the existance of its mentioning does not automatically imply what you are saying, since there is at least one other obvious use for that part. :)

Ah, no that is incorrect. Touch spells are not only melee touch attacks. From that same section, on page 141: "Touch Attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks ... and ranged touch attacks (for touches made with magic rays, for example)."

Yeah, but now read the part right after the "Touch spells in combat" heading, not the one after "Touch Attacks". The whole section is only for spells with a range of touch. The mentioning of ranged touch attacks under the "Touch Attacks" heading is surely just for completeness' sake.

Where does it state this? It would seem to me that the ranged touch attack has to come after you are done casting the spell, since the spell is what generates the effect you are making the attack with.

It says so in the spell description (also for melee touch attacks, mind you, but for those the "Touch spells in combat" section specifies, that they are seperate and can be made with a move action between the spellcasting and the attack or even rounds after thanks to the "Holding the charge" rules, which both only apply to spells with a range of touch and thus melee touch attacks).

So you feel that the most reasonable possibility is that you are right and the rules as written are wrong? Interesting.

No, I think it's obvious, that Full Attack actions can provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

Hypersmurf's comment is pretty valid, tho, that you can mix the attack types, so it should probably read "maybe" and explain that in the text. "No" definintely is wrong, because it's possible to make an attack as part of a Full Attack action, which definitely should provoke an Attack of Opportunity (and not one that is otherwise listed in the tables, such as Disarm or Grapple).

BTW, I remember, that you react quite strongly to comments like that one... ;)

Bye
Thanee
 
Last edited:

Hypersmurf said:
Touch spells are spells with Range: Touch.

Touch Attacks come in two types, but since Touch spells have a range of Touch, you can't make ranged touch attacks with them.

You can make a ranged touch attack with a spell that allows it, but it's not a touch spell.

Also, when you use the word "Touch" two many time in one post, it starts to look really weird.

-Hyp.

I'm not so sure. Check out the PHB glossary on page 314.

Touch Spell: "A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks."

Touch Attack: "An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch Attacks may be either melee or ranged."

And it says basically the same thing on page 140-141. It starts talking about a touch spell as if it was melee, but as goes on it's clearly talking about both. You can "touch' someone in melee or at range.

I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes though. The glossary is even more contradictory when it comes to "ranged weapons".


Ranged Weapon: "A thrown or projectile weapon designed for ranged attacks."
-Seems pretty cut and dried, spells aren't thrown or projectile weapons. But then:

Ranged Attack roll: "An attack roll made with a ranged weapon."
--If you are not making a ranged attack roll when using a ranged touch attack, what are you doing?

And spells and spell-like abilities are treated as weapons in the game mechanics for almost every purpose (other than being immune to Sunder). Melee touch spells make you "armed", you can take Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization in them, etc.
 

I also would consider a ranged touch attack as a ranged weapon.

But I still don't see how attacking provokes an AoO... it's the action, which does. That's why there is "Action type varies" for Grapple and such, which is no real action by itself.

If we can agree that the "Touch spells in combat" section makes the touch attack a Free Action (without actually naming it that way) for touch spells, a seperate action, which seperately provokes an AoO (using the rules for standard Attack actions, as the exception is mostly, that it can be made for free during the same round as the spellcasting - that stuff is really vague :\), then we would now only need to find out, whether that includes ranged touch attacks.

Touch Spell: "A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks."

Sounds pretty clearly like only a melee touch attack to me.

Bye
Thanee
 
Last edited:

Thanee said:
Just saying, that the existance of its mentioning does not automatically imply what you are saying, since there is at least one other obvious use for that part. :)

But it doesn't imply anything against what I'm saying either. *shrug*



Yeah, but now read the part right after the "Touch spells in combat" heading, not the one after "Touch Attacks". The whole section is only for spells with a range of touch. The mentioning of ranged touch attacks under the "Touch Attacks" heading is surely just for completeness' sake.

Believe it or not, I did read the whole section.


It says so in the spell description ....

Ok, I'm not understanding you on this one. Where does it say this in the spell description?



BTW, I remember, that you react quite strongly to comments like that one... ;)

Bye
Thanee

Comments like which one?
 

Caliban said:
But it doesn't imply anything against what I'm saying either. *shrug*

Of course not.

Ok, I'm not understanding you on this one. Where does it say this in the spell description?

One random example... listing the description of the spell effect:

SRD said:
A magical arrow of acid springs from your hand and speeds to its target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The arrow deals 2d4 points of acid damage with no splash damage. For every three caster levels (to a maximum of 18th), the acid, unless somehow neutralized, lasts for another round, dealing another 2d4 points of damage in that round.

The ranged touch attack is listed as part of the spell effect. It's never said, that it is some kind of seperate action.

Only for "Touch spells" they imply that the touch attack is seperate. They do not really say, whether it is an action, however, there's some guesswork required (see above).

Comments like which one?

Caliban said:
So you feel that the most reasonable possibility is that you are right and the rules as written are wrong? Interesting.

Bye
Thanee
 

Thanee said:
I also would consider a ranged touch attack as a ranged weapon.

Then it provokes. Attacking with a ranged weapon provokes an AoO, as clearly stated in the rules.

But I still don't see how attacking provokes an AoO... it's the action, which does. That's why there is "Action type varies" for Grapple and such, which is no real action by itself.

Because the PHB says so. Page 137, Provoking an Attack of Opportunity, performing a distracting act, 2nd sentence: "Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions."

If we can agree that the "Touch spells in combat" section makes the touch attack a Free Action (without actually naming it that way) for touch spells, a seperate action, which seperately provokes an AoO (using the rules for standard Attack actions, as the exception is mostly, that it can be made for free during the same round as the spellcasting - that stuff is really vague :\), then we would now only need to find out, whether that includes ranged touch attacks.

I think it's pretty clear that it is a free action seperate from the casting of the spell. Otherwise you couldn't cast the spell, move, and then make the touch attack.



Sounds pretty clearly like only a melee touch attack to me.

Bye
Thanee

It sounds like it, but unfortunately that's not what it says.

I see what you and Hypersmurf are saying, and that's usually how I rule it. But whenever I look at the RAW instead of just what I think is reasonable, there is enough unclear wording to make me doubt it.
 
Last edited:

Thanee said:
But I still don't see how attacking provokes an AoO...

Read the section on AoOs in the PHB (not the SRD). 'Attacking with a ranged weapon' is given as provoking an AoO.

Sounds pretty clearly like only a melee touch attack to me.

Yup. Touch spells are delivered with touch attacks, but not all touch attacks result from touch spells :)

-Hyp.
 

Thanee said:
The ranged touch attack is listed as part of the spell effect. It's never said, that it is some kind of seperate action.

Yeah, but that's what happens after you finish casting the spell, not as part of casting the spell. You have to finish the spell (and resolve any concentration checks or attempts to interrupt it), before the spell effect is generated. Then you make the attack roll, and resolve that. It's two seperate events that occur on the same initiative count.


I'm not sure what you consider inflammatory about that statement, since you did state that the rules had to be incorrect when when I pointed out that they didn't quite agree with part of your interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Butting in among the rule miesters....

I'd argue that a spell (or blast in this case) may, as a mechanic, require an attack roll. I don't see why melf's acid arrow should provoke 2 AoO while magic missle only one. If the designers had intended that, I have to imagine they would have clearly specified such odd behavior.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top