PDA

View Full Version : Touch Spells + Unarmed Attacks



MiniMoose
2010-06-19, 01:06 PM
So I was reading and I never realized you could hold the charge of a touch spell in your hand and use it later, including during an unarmed strike. So, this got me thinking of a character that seems fun. I would be a Shaman (OO) for the first 6 levels, wearing a monk's belt. After that 10 levels enlightened fist and probably back to 4 level shaman.

What I want to do on my turn is prepare an inflict spell and punch an enemy, dealing ok unarmed dmg (monks belt brings to 1d8, after ten levels of enlightened fist 2d6) and the inflict spell would add some amount of d8s (I would be able to spontaneaously cast heal spells in case we fight undead).

So my question is

Is there any good way to be able to cast a spell and make an unarmed attack in the same turn? All I can see so far is Quicken Spell and that's a +4. I wouldn't mind like a +1 or +2 if I could just bring it from a standard to a move action. Anyone know of a feat that allows this?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-19, 01:08 PM
Do Shamans get Turn Undead? I forget.

If they do, Divine Metamagic: Quicken, and a whole bunch of Nightsticks.

MiniMoose
2010-06-19, 01:14 PM
Do Shamans get Turn Undead? I forget.

If they do, Divine Metamagic: Quicken, and a whole bunch of Nightsticks.

They do, and I was thinking of this but it would require 5 uses of turn, and I was looking for something I could do a little more often per day.

Zaq
2010-06-19, 01:18 PM
A Shaman would be out of luck, but the Duskblade class is pretty much about exactly this. They use actual weapons instead of unarmed strikes, but that's not the point.

Also, I'm pretty sure that at least one of the gishy monky PrCs does this. I forget which one. Enlightened Fist? Sacred Fist? Maybe Jade Phoenix Mage (less of a monky thing, but meh)? My memory fails me.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-19, 01:20 PM
So I was reading and I never realized you could hold the charge of a touch spell in your hand and use it later, including during an unarmed strike. So, this got me thinking of a character that seems fun. I would be a Shaman (OO) for the first 6 levels, wearing a monk's belt. After that 10 levels enlightened fist and probably back to 4 level shaman.

What I want to do on my turn is prepare an inflict spell and punch an enemy, dealing ok unarmed dmg (monks belt brings to 1d8, after ten levels of enlightened fist 2d6) and the inflict spell would add some amount of d8s (I would be able to spontaneaously cast heal spells in case we fight undead).

So my question is

Is there any good way to be able to cast a spell and make an unarmed attack in the same turn? All I can see so far is Quicken Spell and that's a +4. I wouldn't mind like a +1 or +2 if I could just bring it from a standard to a move action. Anyone know of a feat that allows this?
Well, the primary way to deliver an unarmed attack and a touch spell in the same turn is...casting the spell. You can deliver touch spells as unarmed strikes as they are cast.

tyckspoon
2010-06-19, 01:20 PM
Also, I'm pretty sure that at least one of the gishy monky PrCs does this. I forget which one. Enlightened Fist? Sacred Fist? Maybe Jade Phoenix Mage (less of a monky thing, but meh)? My memory fails me.

The arcane/monk one does it, but I don't remember its actual name. Might be the Enlightened Fist.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 01:23 PM
Well, the primary way to deliver an unarmed attack and a touch spell in the same turn is...casting the spell. You can deliver touch spells as unarmed strikes as they are cast.Except you make a touch attack, not an unarmed strike.

MiniMoose
2010-06-19, 01:24 PM
Well, the primary way to deliver an unarmed attack and a touch spell in the same turn is...casting the spell. You can deliver touch spells as unarmed strikes as they are cast.

I've looked all around and I can't find this rule written in any books? What page/book says this?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-19, 01:27 PM
I've looked all around and I can't find this rule written in any books? What page/book says this?

See the "Touch Spells" entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm). It specifies that you can use unarmed attacks instead of touch attacks to deliver the spell. Basically you accept a worse hit chance to be allowed a melee attack's damage.

MiniMoose
2010-06-19, 01:31 PM
See the "Touch Spells" entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm). It specifies that you can use unarmed attacks instead of touch attacks to deliver the spell. Basically you accept a worse hit chance to be allowed a melee attack's damage.

Unless I'm reading the wrong area, it only says while holding the charge you are allowed to make an unarmed strike to discharge it. That's different since the unarmed attack would be a standard action as would casting the spell, so I couldnt do it all on one round.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-19, 01:34 PM
Unless I'm reading the wrong area, it only says while holding the charge you are allowed to make an unarmed strike to discharge it. That's different since the unarmed attack would be a standard action as would casting the spell, so I couldnt do it all on one round.

In that same entry you see this info on touch spells: To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target.

I don't see why the "touch->unarmed" substitution couldn't be done right on the casting round.

---
Here's the complete entry block (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#touchSpellsinCombat):

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-19, 01:36 PM
They do, and I was thinking of this but it would require 5 uses of turn, and I was looking for something I could do a little more often per day.

Again: a whole bunch of Nightsticks.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 01:37 PM
In that same entry you see this info on touch spells: To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target.

I don't see why the "touch->unarmed" substitution couldn't be done right on the casting round.Because you lack actions. If you use a standard action to cast the spell, you don't have any actions left for a normal attack.

MiniMoose
2010-06-19, 01:41 PM
I don't see why the "touch->unarmed" substitution couldn't be done right on the casting round.


It takes longer time to punch something than just touch it. remember your turn is considered 6 seconds, and an action taking 1 more second can make it a longer action. Also, if it doesn't say anywhere you can do a substitution, its a safe assumption you can't.


Again: a whole bunch of Nightsticks.

I would need more than 1 night stick per additional use of this metamagic. I dont know if I feel like spending all my money on night sticks and then have like no other magic items.

Escheton
2010-06-19, 01:42 PM
The spell flower spell allows you to hold a charge in each arm.
Monks don't need to use their arms for unarmed strikes.
So...thats nice.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-19, 02:26 PM
A touch attack is just as much of a standard action as an unarmed attack.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 02:29 PM
A touch attack is just as much of a standard action as an unarmed attack.But the former can be made as a part of casting a spell.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-19, 02:36 PM
Which doesn't mean an unarmed attack can't.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 02:41 PM
Which doesn't mean an unarmed attack can't."Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target."

"If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely.

…Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge."


So, you can only discharge the spell with unarmed attack when you're holding a spell, and you can only hold a spell if you don't use it the same round you cast it.

Morph Bark
2010-06-19, 04:37 PM
"Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target."

"If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely.

…Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge."


So, you can only discharge the spell with unarmed attack when you're holding a spell, and you can only hold a spell if you don't use it the same round you cast it.

...does this mean that, potentially, a dragon could cast a touch spell, hold the charge, and discharge it while using any of its natural attacks during a full attack?

Can you hold the charge of multiple touch spells at once?

Greenish
2010-06-19, 04:56 PM
...does this mean that, potentially, a dragon could cast a touch spell, hold the charge, and discharge it while using any of its natural attacks during a full attack?Yes.

Can you hold the charge of multiple touch spells at once?Escheton mentioned a spell that allows it above. I hadn't heard of it before.

Morph Bark
2010-06-19, 05:11 PM
Yes.
Escheton mentioned a spell that allows it above. I hadn't heard of it before.

:smalleek:

I think my players can be thankful of the fact my next campaign will have very few dragons in it, partly due to it being E6.

And I'm totally favouriting this page as it gave me some ideas for Homebrewing.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 05:51 PM
I don't see why the "touch->unarmed" substitution couldn't be done right on the casting round.
Nor do I. Your body is holding the charge from the moment you finish casting the touch attack spell spell, and that casting also grants you a bonus attack in the same round, limited to making an attempt at delivering the charge.

An attack is an attack. There's no difference in the time different types of attacks take, in the rules. You're making a tradeoff here: reduced chance of hitting for the chance of increased damage.

But the former can be made as a part of casting a spell.
That's certainly not what the rules say. Since you can move between casting the spell and making the attack to deliver it, if you were still in the act of casting you would provoke AoOs from anyone when you entered a square in which they could reach you. If any of those AoOs hit you, your ongoing casting could be disrupted -- retroactively.

Since the rules don't mention any of that, let's not go down that blind alley, shall we? Casting a touch spell grants you a bonus attack that you can use in the same round, limited to an attempt at delivering that spell. That's it. There's no "as a part of casting" going on.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 06:10 PM
An attack is an attack. There's no difference in the time different types of attacks take, in the rules. You're making a tradeoff here: reduced chance of hitting for the chance of increased damage.It doesn't say you get an attack: it says you get to touch the enemy.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 06:20 PM
It doesn't say you get an attack: it says you get to touch the enemy.
Touching the enemy requires an attack. Either a touch attack or an unarmed attack will touch the enemy and discharge the spell.

Rothen
2010-06-19, 06:34 PM
Complete Arcane has a paragraph on Feats and Weaponlike Spells.


Improved Unarmed Strike: You can add the damage of your unarmed strike to the damage of a touch spell by delivering the spell as a regular melee attack instead of a melee touch attack. The defender gets the full benefit of armor and shield, but if the attack hits, the unarmed strike deals normal damage over and above any damage the spell does as it is discharged. If the unarmed strike misses, then the spell is not discharged. If the unarmed strike scores a critical hit, damage from the spell is not multiplied.

Just my 2 cents.

Escheton
2010-06-19, 06:36 PM
Thats handy to know. But yeah, you either touch the guy/gal directly after casting or you hold it and punch someone. You can't do both. No having and eating that fistcake.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 06:42 PM
Thats handy to know. But yeah, you either touch the guy/gal directly after casting or you hold it and punch someone. You can't do both.
I don't think you realize that Complete Arcane statement said exactly the opposite.
You can add the damage of your unarmed strike to the damage of a touch spell by delivering the spell as a regular melee attack instead of a melee touch attack. There's no waiting for subsequent rounds required.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 06:43 PM
Touching the enemy requires an attack. Either a touch attack or an unarmed attack will touch the enemy and discharge the spell.Well I'll be damned. It does appear that you (and Snake-Aes) are correct.

Hmm, there's bound to be some novel applications of this…

Escheton
2010-06-19, 06:49 PM
I don't think you realize that Complete Arcane statement said exactly the opposite. There's no waiting for subsequent rounds required.

I only see that you can in fact punch him to deliver the spell. I don't see that you can do so as part of the casting. As the normal touch attack would be.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 06:52 PM
Well I'll be damned. It does appear that you (and Snake-Aes) are correct.

Hmm, there's bound to be some novel applications of this…
Yes, if you've got Spring Attack. (Other feats make things even more fun.)
Benefit: When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Since "attack action" isn't ever defined in the game, it fits all of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only option that actually uses the term)
attack of opportunity
bonus attack, such as provided by Improved Trip or casting a touch spell

Cast the spell. Spring to your enemy, trip them (not provoking due to Improved Unarmed Strike) and deliver the spell, smack them with the bonus from Improved Trip, add a Snap Kick, and Spring away.

I do love a round chock full of action.


I only see that you can in fact punch him to deliver the spell. I don't see that you can do so as part of the casting. As the normal touch attack would be.
I'm repeating myself here. There is no "as part of the casting" involved with delivering a touch attack spell. That's just not there in the rules.
In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. ... to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. The attack is merely in the same round in which you cast the spell. It's just like any other attack except it must be an attempt to touch an opponent. And as we've seen, that can be a touch attack or a regular unarmed attack.

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 02:27 AM
Yes, if you've got Spring Attack. (Other feats make things even more fun.) Since "attack action" isn't ever defined in the game, it fits all of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only option that actually uses the term)
attack of opportunity
bonus attack, such as provided by Improved Trip or casting a touch spell

Cast the spell. Spring to your enemy, trip them (not provoking due to Improved Unarmed Strike) and deliver the spell, smack them with the bonus from Improved Trip, add a Snap Kick, and Spring away.

I do love a round chock full of action.
Awesome! :smallsmile:

However, a DM that frowns upon this might ask where the melee weapon (required by the Spring Attack feat) appears? IUS causes you to be considered armed, but your unarmed strike still isn't considered a melee weapon, is it?

Also, if the casting of the spell is a Standard Action, how do you get the time to Trip from? That's also a Standard Action, isn't it?

I ask because I want to learn, not to pick nits. :)

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 03:32 AM
However, a DM that frowns upon this might ask where the melee weapon (required by the Spring Attack feat) appears? IUS causes you to be considered armed, but your unarmed strike still isn't considered a melee weapon, is it? Yes, it is. The distinction here is between melee and ranged.
Weapon Categories

Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories.


Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
Melee and Ranged Weapons
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.


Also, if the casting of the spell is a Standard Action, how do you get the time to Trip from? That's also a Standard Action, isn't it?
No, a trip attempt is an attack. That can be any of the various attack actions:

standard action attack
full attack action
attack of opportunity
bonus attack

Trip

You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack.
Casting a touch attack spell gives you a bonus attack, limited to attempting to touch your target, in that round.

I ask because I want to learn, not to pick nits. :) Understood, and appreciated.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-20, 04:05 AM
Because it was asked (and not specifically answered)... no, you cannot "hold a charge" and cast another spell. The act of casting a spell causes the held spell to discharge.

The only exception (that I know of) to this is the spell "Spell Flower".

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 04:23 AM
Yes, it is. The distinction here is between melee and ranged.
Ok, understood.


No, a trip attempt is an attack. That can be any of the various attack actions:

standard action attack
full attack action
attack of opportunity
bonus attack

Casting a touch attack spell gives you a bonus attack, limited to attempting to touch your target, in that round.
Now I get it. The spell gets delivered with the Trip, not with the bonus attack granted from the Improved Trip feat after the Trip attack.

Thank you. It's a fantastic combination, especially if you can find a touch spell that damages and dazes the opponent. The two attacks after the Trip attempt would then gain Sneak Attack damage.

The full round could be:

Cast Hunter's Eye (swift)
Cast the attack spell.
Move, trip, touch with spell
Deliver bonus attack from Improved Trip on the dazed and prone target.
Deliver bonus attack from Snap Kick on the dazed and prone target.
Move your remaining squares (Spring Attack)

Feat intensive, but fun. :smallsmile:

Thank you.

Escheton
2010-06-20, 05:38 AM
Just no. Because your hand is charged with a spell it is considered an armed attack. Making the touch attack an armed attack that does not provoke.
You can't substitute that specific attack with any other attack just because it counts as an attack. And proceed to blow the action economy because you willfully misinterpreted a rule.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 06:36 AM
Cast the spell. Spring to your enemy, trip them (not provoking due to Improved Unarmed Strike) and deliver the spell, smack them with the bonus from Improved Trip, add a Snap Kick, and Spring away.

I do love a round chock full of action.With Knock-Down, you could make the first attack (delivering the spell) as a normal unarmed strike. The potential damage from the spell would count for triggering Knock-Down, too.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 01:02 PM
You can't substitute that specific attack with any other attack just because it counts as an attack.
What substitution do you think is involved here?
Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target.
Making a Trip Attack

Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target.
There is no substitution here, although Rothen's quote from Complete Arcane would permit one. It's a straightforward touch attack.

And proceed to blow the action economy because you willfully misinterpreted a rule. I'm misinterpreting nothing. Rather, you're reading some restriction into the "you may also touch" stipulation that's simply not there. Casting a touch spell provides a bonus attack, with limitations. My example strung together other bonus attacks and a split move action with the bonus from casting a touch attack spell. The "action economy" is paid for by the feats required:

Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Improved Unarmed Strike
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Snap Kick
That's not exactly a small cost.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 01:07 PM
What substitution do you think is involved here?
There is no substitution here, although Rothen's quote from Complete Arcane would permit one. It's a straightforward touch attack.
I'm misinterpreting nothing. Rather, you're reading some restriction into the "you may also touch" stipulation that's simply not there. Casting a touch spell provides a bonus attack, with limitations. My example strung together other bonus attacks and a split move action with the bonus from casting a touch attack spell. The "action economy" is paid for by the feats required:

Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Improved Unarmed Strike
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Snap Kick
That's not exactly a small cost.

Strictly speaking, the trip requires an unarmed touch attack, and spell-charged touch attacks are armed, and they aren't tripping weapons. Personally I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to trip with the deliver touch... but that's not what the rules allow.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 01:17 PM
Strictly speaking, the trip requires an unarmed touch attack, and spell-charged touch attacks are armed
It's a little bit of work to keep all the rules straight here, but you're really not armed; you're only considered armed for purposes of adjudicating attacks of opportunity.
Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 01:21 PM
It's a little bit of work to keep all the rules straight here, but you're really not armed; you're only considered armed for purposes of adjudicating attacks of opportunity.

The wording implies that the touch spell charge is a weapon. It even applies for weapon features like sneak attack and weapon focus.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 01:36 PM
The wording implies that the touch spell charge is a weapon. It even applies for weapon features like sneak attack and weapon focus.
OK, let's step through your reasoning. You'd rule it impossible to execute an unarmed trip attempt while holding a spell charge, because your foot suddenly doesn't qualify as a tripping weapon anymore. Then of course you also can't make an unarmed trip attack if you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, again because your foot has become a better weapon.

No, I really can't buy that argument. "Considered" is used when something really isn't in a particular category. Spell-charged touches and Improved Unarmed Strikes need to be considered weapons for some cases precisely because they aren't weapons and thus don't qualify otherwise.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 01:38 PM
OK, let's step through your reasoning. You'd rule it impossible to execute an unarmed trip attempt while holding a spell charge, because your foot suddenly doesn't qualify as a tripping weapon anymore. Then of course you also can't make an unarmed trip attack if you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, again because your foot has become a better weapon.

No, I really can't buy that argument. "Considered" is used when something really isn't in a particular category. Spell-charged touches and Improved Unarmed Strikes need to be considered weapons for some cases precisely because they aren't weapons and thus don't qualify otherwise.

That's why I'm saying that personally I'd allow it, but the rule, by itself, doesn't.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 01:48 PM
That's why I'm saying that personally I'd allow it, but the rule, by itself, doesn't.
So we agree on how to play the game, despite disagreeing on the rules? That's a case that doesn't come up all that often. Kinda refreshing. :smallsmile:

Keld Denar
2010-06-20, 02:41 PM
How are you spring attacking and casting a spell in the same round? I mean, you could do your combo if you cast a spell in round 1, then sprung attack and delivered the touch in round 2.

If this IS what you ment, then how is it abusing action economy AT ALL? I guess I'm confused on this one.

Now, if you had Fly-by Attack, instead of Spring Attack, you CAN take a standard action (instead of just an attack) as part of your "spring", allowing you to fly in, cast a touch spell, trip with it, etc, and then fly away. Less feat intensive, but requires you have a fly speed, for whatever that's worth.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 02:48 PM
How are you spring attacking and casting a spell in the same round?

You cast a touch attack spell, using a standard action. This provides a bonus attack, limited to use to deliver the spell in that round.
You Spring to an enemy. This uses part of a move action.
You make your touch or unarmed strike attack. This uses your bonus from casting the touch attack spell. (Both a spell-charged touch and an unarmed strike count as light melee weapons.)
You Spring away. This uses the other part of your move action.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 02:50 PM
You cast a touch attack spell, using a standard action. This provides a bonus attack, limited to use to deliver the spell in that round.
You Spring to an enemy. This uses part of a move action.
You make your touch or unarmed strike attack. This uses your bonus from casting the touch attack spell. (Both a spell-charged touch and an unarmed strike count as light melee weapons.)
You Spring away. This uses the other part of your move action.


Hm, I do believe the bonus attack must be part of the casting action.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 02:57 PM
Hm, I do believe the bonus attack must be part of the casting action.
Gee, I've already addressed this twice here. You're confusing two different sets of rules regarding touch spells. Here are the rules for touch attack spells from the Combat chapter:
In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. ... to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. The touch is in the same round, but it's definitely not "part of the casting".

The Magic chapter has different rules for non-attack touch spells (Player's Handbook, page 175):
You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. They're both touch spells, but touching willing targets and making touch attacks have different rules. Only touching willing targets is done "as part of the casting".

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 03:03 PM
I can work with that, bud damn is that muddy.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 03:05 PM
I can work with that, bud damn is that muddy.Not really. I don't know how "You may take your move … between casting the spell and touching the target" could be clearer.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 03:07 PM
Not really. I don't know how "You may take your move … between casting the spell and touching the target" could be clearer.

no no, I mean the touching willing targets bit.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 03:15 PM
no no, I mean the touching willing targets bit.
That's how you can use Teleport to move a whole group without everybody having to cram into the same square.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-20, 03:23 PM
That's how you can use Teleport to move a whole group without everybody having to cram into the same square.

:p i thought it was the linked hands.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 03:27 PM
That's how you can use Teleport to move a whole group without everybody having to cram into the same square.You're just looking for excuses to not to participate in the group hug. :smallannoyed:

Keld Denar
2010-06-20, 03:39 PM
Huh, and here I was thinking that Spring Attack was a full round action. After reading it, I guess I was wrong. Clever...

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 04:19 PM
Huh, and here I was thinking that Spring Attack was a full round action. After reading it, I guess I was wrong. Clever...
That feat is just full of odd phrasing. Some people used to read it as granting a bonus move action. At least Rules Compendium cleared that one up (from page 13):
Spring Attack provides an exception to a more fundamental rule, letting you interrupt your own move action to make an attack, then resume the move.

Keld Denar
2010-06-20, 04:24 PM
If fails at that though. Instead of move + standard or standard + move, you get 1/2 move + attack + 1/2 move. You sacrifice 3 feats AND your standard action for the ability to make a single attack action while you move.

Bad design. Dunno where I got the idea that it was a full round action though...

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 04:29 PM
If fails at that though. Instead of move + standard or standard + move, you get 1/2 move + attack + 1/2 move. You sacrifice 3 feats AND your standard action for the ability to make a single attack action while you move.

Yeah, it's not a GOOD combination, but it is a fun one. :)

From what I understand, though, Spring Attack doesn't contribute much to the fun. With IUS, Improved Trip and Snap Kick, you can still do the main trick:

1) Cast Spell
2) Move
3) Trip Attack and deliver the spell
4) Punch prone target in the face.
5) Snap Kick prone target.

There's gotta be some Enlightened Fist-fun to be had with this. ;)

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 04:41 PM
Yeah, it's not a GOOD combination, but it is a fun one. :)

From what I understand, though, Spring Attack doesn't contribute much to the fun.
Well, to make the most of it you need to understand how you'd come to have Spring Attack in the first place: because you got the prerequisites as a byproduct of qualifying for a 1-level dip into Shadowdancer for Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight. That means while you Spring to your enemy you're also going to Hide (with no penalty because you're moving), and deny them their DEX to AC plus give you +2 to hit them. You also try to Hide while attacking, but that imposes a -20 penalty so it might not work. But when you Spring away you again get to Hide without a penalty.

So even against an enemy with a good Spot ability you'll be able to mess with them (zap them with a spell, trip them prone, hit twice for damage, and add sneak attack) every round, and still be unseen and thus not targetable on their turn.

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 04:53 PM
Well, to make the most of it you need to understand how you'd come to have Spring Attack in the first place: (Awesome-sauce wiped away for forum decency)
:smallbiggrin: This made me laugh out loud (much to my sleeping wife's annoyance)

That is fantastic. So, the base ingredients to this Cake of Awesome is Monk 2 (for IUS and Combat Reflexes), a dash of Rogue, some Fighter (to get the stupid Dodge and Mobility feats, maybe there are better ways than Fighter?), Shadowdancer 1, some caster class (Conjurer for additional Abrupt Jaunt-fun?) and then Unseen Seer as icing on the cake, to enable extra-fun Sneak Attack damage and further casting?

The judges rule: Shadowlicious! It's not even THAT cheesy, as the classes kinda mesh together :)

Greenish
2010-06-20, 04:58 PM
(to get the stupid Dodge and Mobility feats, maybe there are better ways than Fighter?)Cobra Strike Monk 2: IUS, Dodge, Mobility, Evasion. Alternatively get Dodge as some other feat, Mobility from armour and take Passive Way Monk for Combat Expertise and Imp. Trip.

olentu
2010-06-20, 05:08 PM
Well, to make the most of it you need to understand how you'd come to have Spring Attack in the first place: because you got the prerequisites as a byproduct of qualifying for a 1-level dip into Shadowdancer for Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight. That means while you Spring to your enemy you're also going to Hide (with no penalty because you're moving), and deny them their DEX to AC plus give you +2 to hit them. You also try to Hide while attacking, but that imposes a -20 penalty so it might not work. But when you Spring away you again get to Hide without a penalty.

So even against an enemy with a good Spot ability you'll be able to mess with them (zap them with a spell, trip them prone, hit twice for damage, and add sneak attack) every round, and still be unseen and thus not targetable on their turn.

This seems of somewhat limited use to me.

Edit: Though I suppose in some specific cases the carrying over of the damage could be of use but other then that.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 05:18 PM
I generally do it as mostly Rogue, given that you can buy two of the feats, and rent a couple more. Mobility you get as an armor enhancement (Magic Item Compendium). Improved Unarmed Strike you get either cheaply with Bracers of Striking (Magic of Faerûn) or more effectively with a Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic). With Use Magic Device and a wand of Heroics you can supply Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, since they're both FBFs.

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 05:25 PM
Cobra Strike Monk 2: IUS, Dodge, Mobility, Evasion. Alternatively get Dodge as some other feat, Mobility from armour and take Passive Way Monk for Combat Expertise and Imp. Trip.
Yeah, I looked through the SRD variants, but since you can't multiclass Monk Variant 1 with Monk variant 2 (I assume?) I ignored them. ;)

Cobra Strike Monk is better than the normal version, though.

Human Rogue 1/Cobra Strike Monk 2 with Combat Reflexes as the 1st level human feat solves the problem nicely. This leaves us with ( I believe ) 1 level of Wizard before we take 1 level of Rogue or Scout (for skill points and skirmish, haha) to get into Unseen Seer (for casting, skill points and sneak attack), and then Shadowdancer.

Something like Rogue 1/Cobra Strike Monk 2/Wizard 1/Scout 1/Unseen Seer 2/Shadowdancer 1 ought to enable our guy to perform all this fun stuff at level 8. He's missing 5 levels of casting, though, so he'll lag behind in other areas. :)

EDIT: And yes, Curmudgeons use of Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe is cheating! ;)

olentu
2010-06-20, 05:25 PM
I generally do it as mostly Rogue, given that you can buy two of the feats, and rent a couple more. Mobility you get as an armor enhancement (Magic Item Compendium). Improved Unarmed Strike you get either cheaply with Bracers of Striking (Magic of Faerûn) or more effectively with a Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic). With Use Magic Device and a wand of Heroics you can supply Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, since they're both FBFs.

Eh it still seems like a often unnecessary use of cash to bother casting all those spells as a rogue just for the condensed damage. I suppose it could be ok for a party enemy but since they can have whatever they need for levels the extravagance still seems unnecessary.

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 05:30 PM
Eh it still seems like a often unnecessary use of cash to bother casting all those spells as a rogue just for the condensed damage. I suppose it could be ok for a party enemy but since they can have whatever they need for levels the extravagance still seems unnecessary.

From what I understand of Curmudgeon, he prefers to use Rogues, since they're relatively low on the Tier-ladder. Using Tier 1s and Tier 2s just doesn't provide much fun for a Funt of Knowledge like him. :)

Me, I need all the Tier 1s I can find. ;)

olentu
2010-06-20, 05:35 PM
From what I understand of Curmudgeon, he prefers to use Rogues, since they're relatively low on the Tier-ladder. Using Tier 1s and Tier 2s just doesn't provide much fun for a Funt of Knowledge like him. :)

Me, I need all the Tier 1s I can find. ;)

I don't see what that has to do with either the as it seems to me often unnecessary use of cash or spell slots just to condense damage as a melee sneak attacker with shadowdancer levels in a party given the alternative of just tripping and hitting the target without the spell.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 05:35 PM
with Combat ReflexesAre you going to be making many AoO with your 5' reach d6 strike while hiding away from the enemy?

I mean, Combat Reflexes is a great feat, but I don't see why this particular build would need it.

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 06:00 PM
Are you going to be making many AoO with your 5' reach d6 strike while hiding away from the enemy?

I mean, Combat Reflexes is a great feat, but I don't see why this particular build would need it.

Because it's hard to get into Shadowdancer without it?

Greenish
2010-06-20, 06:01 PM
Because it's hard to get into Shadowdancer without it?Bah, stupid PrC with it's stupid requirements… :smallannoyed:

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 06:09 PM
I don't see what that has to do with either the as it seems to me often unnecessary use of cash or spell slots just to condense damage as a melee sneak attacker with shadowdancer levels in a party given the alternative of just tripping and hitting the target without the spell.

It's a thought excercise, not a suggestion for an actual "Use it in a two year campaign" character. I'm taking the concept suggested by Curmudgeon and running with it for a while to see where it ends up.

EDIT: But, yes, it has gone a bit off topic, so I end my excercise here. :)

Thespianus
2010-06-20, 06:11 PM
Bah, stupid PrC with it's stupid requirements… :smallannoyed:

:smallsmile:

olentu
2010-06-20, 06:19 PM
It's a thought excercise, not a suggestion for an actual "Use it in a two year campaign" character. I'm taking the concept suggested by Curmudgeon and running with it for a while to see where it ends up.

Er yes but would not feedback on the propositions be of worth in determining where it will end up.

Edit: I see well then no matter.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 06:33 PM
Eh it still seems like a often unnecessary use of cash to bother casting all those spells as a rogue just for the condensed damage. A wand of Heroics is a good general use tool, since it can provide a variety of Fighter Bonus Feats on demand. I've actually only used the Combat Expertise + Improved Trip strategem a couple of times when it seemed (based on some stealthy reconnoiter and Gather Information use) that there were one or two particular enemies that would be hard to deal with (high AC and saves both) except up close and personal. But if you're making touch attacks and have bonuses from both being visually undetectable and the enemy being prone, it's not that hard to keep knocking individual enemies down -- both literally and in hit points.

It's not the condensed damage that's the goal, but to overwhelm them with more offense than they can defend against. One enemy had 100% fortification so my Rogue's sneak attack did nothing. But I took him down 12 points of STR with Crippling Strike and Savvy Rogue. Once he dropped below STR 13 he couldn't use Power Attack or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain). And having a tripping weapon (or even Improved Trip) gives you diddly to defend against trip attacks.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 06:40 PM
Once he dropped below STR 13 he couldn't use Power Attack or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain).You don't need 13 strength for EWP (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#exoticWeaponProficiency): Spiked Chain.

olentu
2010-06-20, 06:41 PM
A wand of Heroics is a good general use tool, since it can provide a variety of Fighter Bonus Feats on demand. I've actually only used the Combat Expertise + Improved Trip strategem a couple of times when it seemed (based on some stealthy reconnoiter and Gather Information use) that there were one or two particular enemies that would be hard to deal with (high AC and saves both) except up close and personal. But if you're making touch attacks and have bonuses from both being visually undetectable and the enemy being prone, it's not that hard to keep knocking individual enemies down -- both literally and in hit points.

It's not the condensed damage that's the goal, but to overwhelm them with more offense than they can defend against. One enemy had 100% fortification so my Rogue's sneak attack did nothing. But I took him down 12 points of STR with Crippling Strike and Savvy Rogue. Once he dropped below STR 13 he couldn't use Power Attack or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain). And having a tripping weapon (or even Improved Trip) gives you diddly to defend against trip attacks.

Ok so you were alone and without the spells the opponent would have killed you with readied actions before you would have been able to do enough strength damage. That seems overly specific.

Edit: And of course the loss of power attack must have kept the enemy form killing you with readied actions after.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 07:30 PM
You don't need 13 strength for EWP (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#exoticWeaponProficiency): Spiked Chain.
Right you are. I was misremembering. I just recall that it was two feats, including Power Attack, that the DM later said I'd invalidated with all the STR damage.

Ok so you were alone and without the spells the opponent would have killed you with readied actions before you would have been able to do enough strength damage.
No, readied actions wouldn't have helped because Ready's just a plan, and you have to be able to detect the triggering condition using the character's senses (unlike divination magic); since I had excellent Hide and Move Silently that wasn't an issue. But keeping that guy prone so he would have to use a move action to stand up meant he never had a full round with which to charge. And he basically only had two offensive tricks: charging and hitting at 20' reach with the spiked chain.

My goal was to get in there and tie up their big charger dude, keeping him away from our squishy party members who were mostly hanging back behind cover because of all the enemy archers. The squishies were trying to recover from being hit by 3-4 Dispel Magics; the enemies had superior initiative and all their casters cut loose with the same spell at about 250' range, knocking down most of the party's buffs. And, of course, except for me in my forward scouting role the whole party was within a 20' radius. :smallannoyed:

I never did get hit by their charger or their casters (yay evasion!), but I sustained a few arrow wounds from archers randomly targeting bunches of squares in the area. Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight, which prevented me from being targeted, was what saved my butt. The Heroics wand and the feats it gave me were purely to contain the enemy. Since I had Snap Kick, even if I missed with my first trip attack I'd get another one, and I never missed twice in the same round. The +4 to hit from Improved Trip made enough difference that I had an OK shot with two tries of making the enemy prone. The bonus attack from the feat was where I got the chance to add the Crippling Strike STR damage. And after enough Crippling Strike damage it got easier to make the trip opposed STR checks.

olentu
2010-06-20, 07:34 PM
Right you are. I was misremembering. I just recall that it was two feats, including Power Attack, that the DM later said I'd invalidated with all the STR damage.

No, readied actions wouldn't have helped because Ready's just a plan, and you have to be able to detect the triggering condition using the character's senses (unlike divination magic); since I had excellent Hide and Move Silently that wasn't an issue. But keeping that guy prone so he would have to use a move action to stand up meant he never had a full round with which to charge. And he basically only had two offensive tricks: charging and hitting at 20' reach with the spiked chain.

My goal was to get in there and tie up their big charger dude, keeping him away from our squishy party members who were mostly hanging back behind cover because of all the enemy archers. The squishies were trying to recover from being hit by 3-4 Dispel Magics; the enemies had superior initiative and all their casters cut loose with the same spell at about 250' range, knocking down most of the party's buffs. And, of course, except for me in my forward scouting role the whole party was within a 20' radius. :smallannoyed:

I never did get hit by their charger or their casters (yay evasion!), but I sustained a few arrow wounds from archers randomly targeting bunches of squares in the area. Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight, which prevented me from being targeted, was what saved my butt. The Heroics wand and the feats it gave me were purely to contain the enemy. Since I had Snap Kick, even if I missed with my first trip attack I'd get another one, and I never missed twice in the same round. The +4 to hit from Improved Trip made enough difference that I had an OK shot with two tries of making the enemy prone. The bonus attack from the feat was where I got the chance to add the Crippling Strike STR damage. And after enough Crippling Strike damage it got easier to make the trip opposed STR checks.

So he could not find you even with the -20. In that case why spring attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 07:59 PM
So he could not find you even with the -20. In that case why spring attack.
Well, I didn't know he couldn't find me with a -20 penalty; I just know that he never acted as if he'd both successfully Spotted me and also had a readied action. But if I'd made full attacks I would have to be within 5' of that enemy when I finished my turn. Half of the hits I took were from archers using readied actions to shoot in adjacent squares when I hit their charger. They also shot a bunch of full attacks into squares adjacent and 5' away, but thanks to Spring Attack I wasn't there. Tripping and making two subsequent hits in a round confused them and made them think I was using 3 iterative attacks.

olentu
2010-06-20, 08:08 PM
Well, I didn't know he couldn't find me with a -20 penalty; I just know that he never acted as if he'd both successfully Spotted me and also had a readied action. But if I'd made full attacks I would have to be within 5' of that enemy when I finished my turn. Half of the hits I took were from archers using readied actions to shoot in adjacent squares when I hit their charger. They also shot a bunch of full attacks into squares adjacent and 5' away, but thanks to Spring Attack I wasn't there. Tripping and making two subsequent hits in a round confused them and made them think I was using 3 iterative attacks.

Well I suppose it can not be helped if the archers did not know the mechanics of improved trip and yet did know the mechanics of iterative attacks even though both are mechanical abstractions. That however makes the situation even more specific then it would have been given the archers knowing some game mechanics and not others.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 08:19 PM
Well I suppose it can not be helped if the archers did not know the mechanics of improved trip and yet did know the mechanics of iterative attacks
It wasn't Improved Trip that threw them; it was the combination with Snap Kick. Since I was getting in multiple hits after tripping the guy, it was reasonable of them to assume I was making full attacks. I think the DM did a good job of playing this realistically for enemies operating off of partial information.

olentu
2010-06-20, 08:24 PM
It wasn't Improved Trip that threw them; it was the combination with Snap Kick. Since I was getting in multiple hits after tripping the guy, it was reasonable of them to assume I was making full attacks.

Well if it was snap kick that actually made the difference then what was the worth of casting all those expensive spells if you would not have died to the archers readied actions.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 08:44 PM
Well if it was snap kick that actually made the difference then what was the worth of casting all those expensive spellsTo keep the chain tripper tripped?

olentu
2010-06-20, 08:45 PM
To keep the chain tripper tripped?

One can trip without casting a spell.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 08:47 PM
One can trip without casting a spell.Well yeah, but getting Imp. Trip makes it quite a bit better.

olentu
2010-06-20, 08:49 PM
Well yeah, but getting Imp. Trip makes it quite a bit better.

One can use improved trip without casting the touch spell which was what I meant earlier.

Edit: I was not in any way at all talking about getting the feats. I was not even paying attention to that part.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 08:50 PM
One can use improved trip without casting the touch spell.One can't use Improved Trip without having the feat. You cast the Heroics to get Imp. Trip. Then you go on your merry way tripping people.

[Edit]:
I was not even paying attentionSo it appears.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 08:51 PM
Well if it was snap kick that actually made the difference then what was the worth of casting all those expensive spells if you would not have died to the archers readied actions.
The point was that I kept our de-buffed spellcasters from being killed by their charger. Besides my Rogue/Shadowdancer our party had a Ranger/something archer, a Divine Metamagic Cleric who lost all his all-day buffs, a Bard/Sublime Chord, and a Wizard. The Ranger was the guy who actually killed the charger that I kept knocking down; he also managed to kill an enemy spellcaster's familiar flying to observe the party. Our Wizard spent nearly all his time failing to cast spells, because a couple of enemy archers used readied actions to disrupt his spellcasting; when he did manage a Mirror Image one barrage of arrows wiped that out immediately. The Cleric got spooked with all his buffs gone and did a bunch of ineffectual stuff like healing fairly minor arrow wounds, and throwing up Wall of Stone in front of the enemy archers. (That just gave them extra cover.) The Bard was the only spellcaster who actually did anything useful; she used bardic music and spells (while staying behind a rock) to replace dispelled buffs until the Wizard and Cleric felt safe enough to get off their butts.

olentu
2010-06-20, 08:52 PM
The point was that I kept our de-buffed spellcasters from being killed by their charger. Besides my Rogue/Shadowdancer our party had a Ranger/something archer, a Divine Metamagic Cleric who lost all his all-day buffs, a Bard/Sublime Chord, and a Wizard. The Ranger was the guy who actually killed the charger that I kept knocking down; he also managed to kill an enemy spellcaster's familiar flying to observe the party. Our Wizard spent nearly all his time failing to cast spells, because a couple of enemy archers used readied actions to disrupt his spellcasting; when he did manage a Mirror Image one barrage of arrows wiped that out immediately. The Cleric got spooked with all his buffs gone and did a bunch of ineffectual stuff like healing fairly minor arrow wounds, and throwing up Wall of Stone in front of the enemy archers. (That just gave them extra cover.) The Bard was the only spellcaster who actually did anything useful; she used bardic music and spells (while staying behind a rock) to replace dispelled buffs until the Wizard and Cleric felt safe enough to get off their butts.

And yet the touch spell still seems like an unnecessary addition.

Edit: Sorry about being unclear but the thread was labeled "Touch Spells + Unarmed Attacks" and it seemed like touch spells were still being discussed.

Edit: Hmm interesting now that I think about it by the spring attack argument it seems that one can not actually make a touch attack in the same round as casting a spell except in a few quite specific cases.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 09:05 PM
And yet the touch spell still seems like an unnecessary addition.

Edit: Sorry about being unclear but the thread was labeled "Touch Spells + Unarmed Attacks" and it seemed like touch spells were still being discussed.
OK, to get us back on topic I'll state that in addition to the pre-combat Heroics buffs, I also used a wand of Vampiric Touch; that's the spell that went off on the trip touch attacks. That was only at CL 6, so I didn't do major amounts of damage (and that's why the Ranger actually got the kill). I was expecting to get a boatload of temporary hit points from the spell by the addition of sneak attack damage, but that didn't work out at all because of the charger's 100% fortification.

olentu
2010-06-20, 09:19 PM
OK, to get us back on topic I'll state that in addition to the pre-combat Heroics buffs, I also used a wand of Vampiric Touch; that's the spell that went off on the trip touch attacks. That was only at CL 6, so I didn't do major amounts of damage (and that's why the Ranger actually got the kill). I was expecting to get a boatload of temporary hit points from the spell by the addition of sneak attack damage, but that didn't work out at all because of the charger's 100% fortification.

Well that is fine but most the specifics of feats I am ignoring so as not to get into a mostly unrelated argument.

However more interestingly is the apparent fact that quite possibly by the spring attack argument one can not generally make the touch attack in the round that the spell is cast.

Also as an aside as I seem to have missed this but where is the text stating that an unarmed touch attack is made with a weapon.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 09:26 PM
However more interestingly is the apparent fact that quite possibly by the spring attack argument one can not generally make the touch attack in the round that the spell is cast.Except with touch attack spells.

Also as an aside as I seem to have missed this but where is the text stating that an unarmed touch attack is made with a weapon.Unarmed Strike is a weapon, so obviously an unarmed touch attack is made with one.

olentu
2010-06-20, 09:28 PM
Except with touch attack spells.
Unarmed Strike is a weapon, so obviously an unarmed touch attack is made with one.

Er no since the touch spells section does not change the action time of making an attack.

An unarmed attack is not necessarily an unarmed strike so far as has been presented.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 09:34 PM
Also as an aside as I seem to have missed this but where is the text stating that an unarmed touch attack is made with a weapon. Spring Attack needs a melee weapon, and there are two citations, depending on whether you're making a regular or touch melee attack, that state that's what an unarmed attack is. The Combat chapter of the Player's Handbook, under "Touch Spells in Combat":
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Your melee weapon in this case is the spell charge with which you're armed.

The Equipment chapter, under "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons":
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 09:36 PM
Er no since the touch spells section does not change the action time of making an attack.But when you cast a touch spell you get to touch someone with it on the same round. Seriously, didn't we go over this already?

An unarmed attack is not necessarily an unarmed strike so far as has been presented.Unarmed Strike is the weapon you use to make unarmed attacks.

olentu
2010-06-20, 09:36 PM
Spring Attack needs a melee weapon, and there are two citations, depending on whether you're making a regular or touch melee attack, that state that's what an unarmed attack is. The Combat chapter of the Player's Handbook, under "Touch Spells in Combat": Your melee weapon in this case is the spell charge with which you're armed.

The Equipment chapter, under "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons":

And yet an unarmed attack is not necessarily an unarmed strike.


But when you cast a touch spell you get to touch someone with it on the same round. Seriously, didn't we go over this already?
Unarmed Strike is the weapon you use to make unarmed attacks.

You do but since it must be taken that the touching is not part of casting the spell it must be its own action. This would be the attack action and as the casting a spell section does not change the length of the action it still takes a standard action.

Also as I said show that an unarmed attack must always be an unarmed strike.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 09:45 PM
You do but since it must be taken that the touching is not part of casting the spell it must be its own action. This would be the attack action and as the casting a spell section does not change the length of the action it still takes a standard action.
There's no standard action mentioned anywhere in Spring Attack. Attack action isn't defined in the D&D rules. It can be any of the following:

full attack action (the only option that includes the phrase)
standard action attack
attack of opportunity
bonus attack, such as provided by casting a touch spell

olentu
2010-06-20, 09:51 PM
There's no standard action mentioned anywhere in Spring Attack. Attack action isn't defined in the D&D rules. It can be any of the following:

full attack action (the only option that includes the phrase)
standard action attack
attack of opportunity
bonus attack, such as provided by casting a touch spell


Making an attack is a standard action as per PHB 139 anything that breaks this must say that it is doing so as you insist that the touch attack does not qualify as a non action since it is not made as part of the action of casting the spell. The spells section does not say it is doing so. If you have another source that contradicts this please post it.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 10:01 PM
You do but since it must be taken that the touching is not part of casting the spell it must be its own action. This would be the attack action and as the casting a spell section does not change the length of the action it still takes a standard action."Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target."

Also as I said show that an unarmed attack must always be an unarmed strike.You're making my head hurt. What bloody unarmed attack are you talking about? They're the same figging thing!

Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a

olentu
2010-06-20, 10:06 PM
"Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target."
You're making my head hurt. What bloody unarmed attack are you talking about? They're the same figging thing!
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a

So what does that have to do with anything. Casting a touch spell does not allow you to move if you are slowed since it does not over ride that seperate restriction. Similarly the spells section does not over ride the restriction on total actions in a round.

Does not over ride the PHB glossary.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 10:08 PM
Similarly the spells section does not over ride the restriction on total actions in a round.Specific trumps general.

Also, can you point out where it is said that Unarmed Strike and Unarmed attack are different entities?

olentu
2010-06-20, 10:12 PM
Specific trumps general.

Also, can you point out where it is said that Unarmed Strike and Unarmed attack are different entities?

It is not overriding the general since it is not changing the general. After casting the spell you can try to take the standard action to touch the target. You will fail due to having no more standard actions to take.

By the PHB glossary unarmed strikes are only successful blows and so until the blow is successful it is not an unarmed strike.

Greenish
2010-06-20, 10:17 PM
It is not overriding the general since it is not changing the general. After casting the spell you can try to take the standard action to touch the target. You will fail due to having no more standard actions to take.Except you get the touch from casting the spell.

By the PHB glossary unarmed strikes are only successful blows and so until the blow is successful it is not an unarmed strike.What does that have to do with anything?

olentu
2010-06-20, 10:21 PM
Except you get the touch from casting the spell.
What does that have to do with anything?

Er you do get the touch but it remains a standard action unless you are saying that the touch is a part of casting the spell and thus a nonaction.

So that means that until one has successfully made the blow it is not an unarmed strike and thus not a weapon.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 10:21 PM
Making an attack is a standard action as per PHB 139 So you've found an example of making an attack that's a standard action. Congratulations. Then on page 143 it states that making a full round of attacks is a full attack action, specifically using the term "attack action", which your citation lacks.

You've only provided an example of an attack action. For the standard action attack to be the only attack action, you'd need to find rules text stating that a full attack action isn't an attack action. And repeat for attack of opportunity, and for bonus attack.

Lhurgyof
2010-06-20, 10:45 PM
Ok, ok, ok. this is all REALLY silly and ridiculous, but in trying to put icing on the cake, could you use a stunning feat along with the spell unarmed strike?
If so, I'm trying to find a way to do it with Freezing the Lifeblood and Death Blow to allow a free coup de grace. Any help, guys? xD

olentu
2010-06-20, 10:52 PM
So you've found an example of making an attack that's a standard action. Congratulations. Then on page 143 it states that making a full round of attacks is a full attack action, specifically using the term "attack action", which your citation lacks.

You've only provided an example of an attack action. For the standard action attack to be the only attack action, you'd need to find rules text stating that a full attack action isn't an attack action. And repeat for attack of opportunity, and for bonus attack.

I am sorry but without a specific exception the rule stands and exceptions only apply to what they are making the exception for.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 11:05 PM
I am sorry but without a specific exception the rule stands and exceptions only apply to what they are making the exception for.
What exception to what rule? The term "attack action" isn't defined in D&D, but that exact phrase is used in the specification for "full attack action". So I could claim that the Spring Attack feat gives you a bonus move action which you can split around a full attack action, as that's what best fits the exact text of the rules.

Can you find an exception to this rule? :smallsmile:

Lhurgyof
2010-06-20, 11:09 PM
Ah, I got it! Quickened touch spell, use an unarmed strike to deliver the "Freezing the lifeblood", paralyzing them. And then Coup de Grace them as a standard action using "Death Blow".
Use Spring attack to get to them, kill them, then move back.
Sounds like that would work, any suggestions?

olentu
2010-06-20, 11:11 PM
What exception to what rule? The term "attack action" isn't defined in D&D, but that exact phrase is used in the specification for "full attack action". So I could claim that the Spring Attack feat gives you a bonus move action which you can split around a full attack action, as that's what best fits the exact text of the rules.

Can you find an exception to this rule? :smallsmile:

Making an attack is a standard action. That is the rule I have presented you do not have to like it but that is what it says.

Edit: As for spring attack you have already presented rules, I suppose, in the rules compendium that provide such an exception so as to allow spring attack to work.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-21, 12:52 AM
Making an attack is a standard action. That is the rule I have presented you do not have to like it but that is what it says.

Edit: As for spring attack you have already presented rules, I suppose, in the rules compendium that provide such an exception so as to allow spring attack to work.

An Attack of Opportunity is an attack that is not a Standard Action. The attack you get to make after successfully tripping someone with Improved Trip is an attack that is not a Standard Action.

When you cast "Orb of Force", that is a Standard Action... and then you attack with the spell.

When you cast "Shocking Grasp", that is a Standard Action... and then you attack (melee touch attack or Unarmed Strike (by CArc ruling)) with the spell.

Need I go on?

olentu
2010-06-21, 01:01 AM
An Attack of Opportunity is an attack that is not a Standard Action. The attack you get to make after successfully tripping someone with Improved Trip is an attack that is not a Standard Action.

When you cast "Orb of Force", that is a Standard Action... and then you attack with the spell.

When you cast "Shocking Grasp", that is a Standard Action... and then you attack (melee touch attack or Unarmed Strike (by CArc ruling)) with the spell.

Need I go on?

And yet the rule remains and so those are either exceptions or do not work the way that you think they do. That is the rule anything that breaks this must say it does or it does not. Please actually present contradictory rules. I would suggest possibly checking the rules compendium as that may have a modified reprint of the combat rules I sort of remember that. Possibly even a section on action types (perhaps non action), a table of actions, and of course the section on attacks if they exist.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 03:33 AM
And yet the rule remains and so those are either exceptions or do not work the way that you think they do. That is the rule anything that breaks this must say it does or it does not. Please actually present contradictory rules. I would suggest possibly checking the rules compendium as that may have a modified reprint of the combat rules I sort of remember that. Possibly even a section on action types (perhaps non action), a table of actions, and of course the section on attacks if they exist.

You present an example of an attack action which is a standard action and claim it is the norm and that unless something contradicts it, it works like that. It's not the norm. There are many variations of attacks. The text doesn't have to specifically contradict the "attack action is a standard action" because it's an example of an attack action.

You won't find a contradiction to what you are saying because non is needed. You won't find a contradiction that ice-cream is chocolate flavored, because it's an example of a flavor and not the norm. You don't have to specifically contradict that when you are eating vanilla ice-cream it doesn't taste like chocolate.

olentu
2010-06-21, 03:44 AM
You present an example of an attack action which is a standard action and claim it is the norm and that unless something contradicts it, it works like that. It's not the norm. There are many variations of attacks. The text doesn't have to specifically contradict the "attack action is a standard action" because it's an example of an attack action.

You won't find a contradiction to what you are saying because non is needed. You won't find a contradiction that ice-cream is chocolate flavored, because it's an example of a flavor and not the norm. You don't have to specifically contradict that when you are eating vanilla ice-cream it doesn't taste like chocolate.

So you mean when the rules say that making an attack is a standard action that is not what they actually are saying. That is what the rules say and barring a presentation of some superseding rules that is not changed except for exceptions.

Edit: One exception could be if the touch attack was part of the same action as casting the spell and would thus not be an action but that has been disproved or so I am told.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 04:00 AM
So you mean when the rules say that making an attack is a standard action that is not what they actually are saying.
Yes, you can make an attack as a standard action. Nobody is trying to contradict that. But the rules don't say that a standard action is the only attack action, because a full attack action is also an example of an attack action. So is an attack of opportunity. So is a bonus attack.

That is what the rules say and barring a presentation of some superseding rules that is not changed except for exceptions.
This is where you are wrong. You are confusing an example (one of the four types of attack action) with a limiting statement (the only type of attack action). No exception is needed, because you don't have a limiting definition of "attack action" in the rules.

olentu
2010-06-21, 04:06 AM
Yes, you can make an attack as a standard action. Nobody is trying to contradict that. But the rules don't say that a standard action is the only attack action, because a full attack action is also an example of an attack action. So is an attack of opportunity. So is a bonus attack.

This is where you are wrong. You are confusing an example (one of the four types of attack action) with a limiting statement (the only type of attack action). No exception is needed, because you don't have a limiting definition of "attack action" in the rules.

Why yes there is no definition on attack action and thus anything that anyone says is an attack action is a houserule unless it is explicitly spelled out as such but for the moment I am choosing not to consider that. However regardless of if it is an attack action or not making an attack is a standard action as the rules say.

Edit: Because I am choosing not to consider that I request that you not bring it up unless you can show that the action in question is explicitly defined as an attack action. I ask this because if consideration of that is forced then unless as I said one can show that it is explicitly an attack action I will have to say that the rules are not defined and basically anything is DM fiat. I would prefer that not happen as that would stall the discussion completely and probably without resolution.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 04:12 AM
Why yes there is no definition on attack action and thus anything that anyone says is an attack action is a houserule unless it is explicitly spelled out as such but for the moment I am choosing not to consider that. However regardless of if it is an attack action or not making an attack is a standard action as the rules say.

No, one of the ways to make an attack is a standard action.

The PHB includes the standard rules that players will usually need if they are only using the PHB. How many ways do you think the PHB offers of casting a spell as a standard action and getting another standard action to touch the target, considering they feel the need to say that you can do both in the same round? Why would they feel the need to state that you can do it if you have enough actions, if such a thing seems to be overly obvious? It's like saying in the attack section that you can move before and after an attack if you have two move actions in a round.

olentu
2010-06-21, 04:16 AM
No, one of the ways to make an attack is a standard action.

The PHB includes the standard rules that players will usually need if they are only using the PHB. How many ways do you think the PHB offers of casting a spell as a standard action and getting another standard action to touch the target, considering they feel the need to say that you can do both in the same round? Why would they feel the need to state that you can do it if you have enough actions, if such a thing seems to be overly obvious? It's like saying in the attack section that you can move before and after an attack if you have two move actions in a round.

The rules being sensible and not having redundant pieces is not a requirement. Me personally I would have gone for the not an action stance if I had to make a guess without looking into the rules but as I said apparently this has been disproved.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 04:24 AM
However regardless of if it is an attack action or not making an attack is a standard action as the rules say.

Edit: Because I am choosing not to consider that I request that you not bring it up unless you can show that the action in question is explicitly defined as an attack action.
A full attack action is explicitly an attack action. It's right in the name.

olentu
2010-06-21, 04:28 AM
A full attack action is explicitly an attack action. It's right in the name.

That is not the action in question and so is not no matter and I will not change topics to discuss such a thing at the moment. Additionally that has as I said nothing to do with how long an action takes to complete.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 04:45 AM
Additionally that has as I said nothing to do with how long an action takes to complete.
If making an attack is always a standard action, there can be no full attacks. There can be no attacks of opportunity. There can be no bonus attacks.

An attack action can be a standard action. Please show me in the rules where it says an attack action is always a standard action. You can't.

olentu
2010-06-21, 04:53 AM
If making an attack is always a standard action, there can be no full attacks. There can be no attacks of opportunity. There can be no bonus attacks.

An attack action can be a standard action. Please show me in the rules where it says an attack action is always a standard action. You can't.

It says it is and thus that is the default unless you can show differently. It can of course not say always since exceptions could exist. However it does say that "making an attack is a standard action" and that means that making an attack is a standard action barring exceptions. Sure this causes problems but I did not write the rules and can not fix it.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 05:08 AM
It says it is and thus that is the default unless you can show differently.
You're making that up, because that's not what the rules say. Here's what they do say:
attack

Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.
Any of numerous actions = not just standard actions.

Escheton
2010-06-21, 05:13 AM
Rule lawyering aside (WHAT?!!!) one of the options of a standard actions is an attack. If you have a high bab or certain feats you can make multiple attacks by taking a full round action.
A touch spell gives you a free touch, that counts as an attack too not provoke an AoO. (This is likely too make it like a ray attack and not cost you 2 rounds of delivery always)
You can forego this touch to hold the charge to use other forms of delivery such as a punch.

olentu
2010-06-21, 05:13 AM
You're making that up, because that's not what the rules say. Here's what they do say:
Any of numerous actions = not just standard actions.

Yes they could be any of the numerous types of standard actions barring exceptions. The selection you presented does not preclude the fact that the rules say making an attack is a standard action since that standard action can be any of several types of attacks.

Thespianus
2010-06-21, 05:16 AM
It says it is and thus that is the default unless you can show differently. It can of course not say always since exceptions could exist. However it does say that "making an attack is a standard action" and that means that making an attack is a standard action barring exceptions. Sure this causes problems but I did not write the rules and can not fix it.

Does an Attack of Opportunity take a Standard Action too? The bonus attack from Snap Kick? The bonus touch attack you get from casting a spell with range Touch?

Sliver
2010-06-21, 05:19 AM
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely.

Looks like you can discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it by default.


Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Hey, this says that you can't hold a charge on some spells and have to discharge them when you cast them! Meaning that you can touch them at the same round you cast. "But it refers to willing creatures that can be touched without an attack" you might say. But note that water walk isn't a willing target only spell, so you can use it as a touch attack, but by your reading, you can't. Hmmm...

So there are two options: the part that says that you may (may, not as "it's possible if you have the means" but "you can do it if you want") deliver a touch spell as a touch attack on the same round as you cast it means that you get that touch attack as a bonus for the round. Which seems to be exactly what the text says.

Or that we add something that the text doesn't say just because one of the attack actions was an example of making an attack as a standard action and find contradictions for that reading.

Not everything that you don't agree upon is really a houserule or DM fiat.

olentu
2010-06-21, 05:27 AM
Looks like you can discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it by default.



Hey, this says that you can't hold a charge on some spells and have to discharge them when you cast them! Meaning that you can touch them at the same round you cast. "But it refers to willing creatures that can be touched without an attack" you might say. But note that water walk isn't a willing target only spell, so you can use it as a touch attack, but by your reading, you can't. Hmmm...

So there are two options: the part that says that you may (may, not as "it's possible if you have the means" but "you can do it if you want") deliver a touch spell as a touch attack on the same round as you cast it means that you get that touch attack as a bonus for the round. Which seems to be exactly what the text says.

Or that we add something that the text doesn't say just because one of the attack actions was an example of making an attack as a standard action and find contradictions for that reading.

Not everything that you don't agree upon is really a houserule or DM fiat.

No that is just what happens if one does and with quickened spells there is certainly the possibility that it could happen. Thus they need to say what would happen in such a case since it could quite possibly come up.

Please note that since an actual touch attack is only required in the case of an opponent and so one may touch multiple targets in a round since for friendly targets succeeding on an attack is not something that must be done. If the bit about touching an opponent was not there then touching an opponent would not be required to be an attack.

In the case of water walking one could attack on opponent or touch multiple friendlies. I see no problem.

Edit: Blah I am making less essence then I would like. I shall continue on the morrow and if any of this last post makes little sense then it was beacause I was tired. Do not hesitate to respond but I will not be back for a time.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 05:39 AM
In case of water walking one can't cast and touch an opponent by your reading... It requires an attack action, which the spell grants as a bonus attack. It doesn't require a standard action to attack. There are other ways to deliver an attack.

Lets pretend we have a specific book. A round counts as a hour, Standard action is 40 minutes and a move is 20, for simplicity.

Eat: To eat Food you have to spend 40 minutes on making it.
Full Course Action: You can have more Food if you spend 60 minutes without doing anything else.
Snack of Opportunity: You can eat a single snack without preparations.
Feat: Snack Reflexes: You can eat <Dex Mod> snacks in a round.
Guest Eating: Eating at the end of charge - You may eat after getting to your target. You eat at a +2 bonus (since eating free is eating good) but you get a -2 penalty to AC.
Bonus Eating: Various conditions.

Then there is an option for certain characters:

Eat Out (standard action): When you purchase food you may eat it in the same round. You may move before buying and eating the food, after that, or between buying and eating the food. You may hold the food to "discharge" of in a later round.

By your reading, since it says eating is a standard action and Eat Out is a standard action as well, you can't buy and eat the food in the same round, even though the text says you can. You will have to have a quickened Eat Out if you want to do both in the same round. But Quickened is an exception that isn't mentioned at all as a method of doing that, since the default is that you can do it anyway.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 05:41 AM
Yes they could be any of the numerous types of standard actions barring exceptions.
You've added that term, which is not in the rules.

You keep maintaining that making an attack is always a standard action. But making an attack, and then another, and then another is a full attack action, and full attack actions do not permit standard actions.

Making an attack of opportunity does not allow a standard action, but it's still making an attack.

Making a bonus attack after you've tripped someone using Improved Trip is making an attack, but that attack is never a standard action.

There is no default type of attack; the rules just don't say that. Since there is no default, there are no exceptions needed to a default specification.

What you think of as a default is merely one example of an attack type.

Lhurgyof
2010-06-21, 02:17 PM
Even if you find some rule that says that an attack is a standard action, Specific rules always "overturn" general rules. There's a specific rule that lets you take a touch attack in the same round as you cast a spell. There's also a specific rule stating that you can instead choose to use an unarmed strike.

What you are saying is technically correct, that an attack takes a standard action, but other specific rules (such as rules on the full-attack action, the attack of opportunity, etc, etc.) overrule it.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 02:35 PM
Even if you find some rule that says that an attack is a standard action, Specific rules always "overturn" general rules. There's a specific rule that lets you take a touch attack in the same round as you cast a spell. There's also a specific rule stating that you can instead choose to use an unarmed strike.

What you are saying is technically correct, that an attack takes a standard action, but other specific rules (such as rules on the full-attack action, the attack of opportunity, etc, etc.) overrule it.

He claims that the specific rule doesn't override the general one of "attack = standard action." He says that it just tells you it's not forbidden to make a touch attack with the spell the same turn you cast it, if you have the action to deliver it. Basically he claims the rule says "you can do it if you can do it."

Greenish
2010-06-21, 02:35 PM
Olentu, you're taking the line you keep repeating totally out of context. "Making an attack is a standard action" is in the subsection of Actions in Combat, Standard Action. It then goes on to list the types of attacks you can do as a standard action.

Ah, I got it! Quickened touch spell, use an unarmed strike to deliver the "Freezing the lifeblood", paralyzing them. And then Coup de Grace them as a standard action using "Death Blow".
Use Spring attack to get to them, kill them, then move back.
Sounds like that would work, any suggestions?That won't work, because Spring Attack doesn't allow you to make a standard action during movement.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 02:48 PM
First off you can discharge the touch spell on the same round you cast it by default.

I decided to check the rules compendium to see if its wording on touch spells is more clear then the SRD. [it is much more clear].


Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely.
The RC simply uses the word turn instead of round.

In the Rules compendium delivering a touch spell with an unarmed or natural attack has its own heading. So its not part of another rules paragraph.


If you hold the charge of a touch spell, you can make a normal unarmed attack or an attack with a natural weapon at a later time.

This makes it much more clear what was intended. You have to hold the charge to deliver it with an unarmed strike or natural attack, and your not holding the charge unless you don't discharge the spell in the same round you cast it.

Edit: Alright I checked the rules of the game articles and found in the old reading spell descriptions

Touch Spells: The duration for a touch spell doesn't begin until the caster touches a subject and delivers the spell to a recipient. Attempting to touch a recipient requires a melee touch attack and that is part of the action used to cast the spell during the round when the spell is completed

Alright so by default, touching an opponent is considered part of the same action as casting the spell. But touching is not the same as punching

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 02:55 PM
This makes it much more clear what was intended. You have to hold the charge to deliver it with an unarmed strike or natural attack, and your not holding the charge unless you don't discharge the spell in the same round you cast it.
That doesn't follow. Your body is holding the charge from the moment you finish casting a touch attack spell. If you hold the charge of a touch spell in your body you can make a touch attack, a normal unarmed attack, or an attack with a natural weapon, either in the round you cast the spell or at a later time.

Lhurgyof
2010-06-21, 03:00 PM
That won't work, because Spring Attack doesn't allow you to make a standard action during movement.
Oh. Well, will it work without spring attack added in?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 03:05 PM
That doesn't follow. Your body is holding the charge from the moment you finish casting a touch attack spell. If you hold the charge of a touch spell in your body you can make a touch attack, a normal unarmed attack, or an attack with a natural weapon, either in the round you cast the spell or at a later time.

It does follow if only touching an opponent can be considered part of casting the spell. You can cast a shocking grasp and touch an opponent as part of the same standard action.
But if you decided you want to punch him or claw him. Its like making a regular attack. The spell would have to be swift or perhaps they provoke an AoO.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 03:27 PM
It does follow if only touching an opponent can be considered part of casting the spell.
But that's never the case for a touch attack spell, as was previously shown in the second page of this thread. Only touch spells that are limited to willing targets include the touching "as part of casting".

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 03:54 PM
But that's never the case for a touch attack spell, as was previously shown in the second page of this thread. Only touch spells that are limited to willing targets include the touching "as part of casting".

And as I have shown on this page, it applies to all touch spells.
But you want further proof? Skip Williams explaining how to read spell descriptions of the book he wrote isn't enough for you.
In case you missed it in my post

Touch Spells: The duration for a touch spell doesn't begin until the caster touches a subject and delivers the spell to a recipient. Attempting to touch a recipient requires a melee touch attack and that is part of the action used to cast the spell during the round when the spell is completed

Alright so by default, touching an opponent is considered part of the same action as casting the spell. But touching is not the same as punching


In the rules compendium on the actions in combat table

Cast touch spell (1 standard action casting time) and touch one target

Is considered a standard action, it doesn't say willing target just one target.

How do ray spells work then, they can't be held and its a standard action to cast, but so is attacking...

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 04:03 PM
And as I have shown on this page, it applies to all touch spells.
But you want further proof? Skip Williams explaining how to read spell descriptions of the book he wrote isn't enough for you.
While that's just as entertaining as the errors Skip made when he was answering questions in the FAQ, it's not the RAW. Skip confused the rules for touch spells with willing targets (in the Magic chapter of the Player's Handbook) and the different rules for touch attack spells (in the Combat chapter). Skip wasn't the only author of the 3.5 rules, and I think it's likely he didn't write both the Magic and Combat chapters.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 04:04 PM
While that's just as entertaining as the errors Skip made when he was answering questions in the FAQ, it's not the RAW. Skip confused the rules for touch spells with willing targets (in the Magic chapter of the Player's Handbook) and the different rules for touch attack spells (in the Combat chapter). Skip wasn't the only author of the 3.5 rules, and I think it's likely he didn't write both the Magic and Combat chapters.

Prove the Rules of the Game Articles aren't RAW then. The FAQ is done by general WoTC employees not necessarily the guys who worked on the game books.

So then refute the rules compendium then, it says that casting and delivering a touch spell is a standard action. It doesn't say willing target just target.

You've yet to provide anything that SAYS delivering a touch spell isn't part of casting the spell against opponents. Yet I've provided evidence that it is.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 04:12 PM
So then refute the rules compendium then
There is no need to refute it. That table excerpt refers to page 126, where things are elaborated. The "and touch one target" is covered under the Allies and Touch Spells section. The Opponents and Touch Spells section specifies the rules as in the Player's Handbook Combat chapter.

When there's a dispute (or in this case, merely confusion) between tables and text, the text is always correct.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 04:28 PM
There is no need to refute it. That table excerpt refers to page 126, where things are elaborated. The "and touch one target" is covered under the Allies and Touch Spells section. The Opponents and Touch Spells section specifies the rules as in the Player's Handbook Combat chapter.

When there's a dispute (or in this case, merely confusion) between tables and text, the text is always correct.

The text doesn't say that its a standard action to cast a spell and another standard action to touch an opponent so try again.

Your entire argument hinges on this when they say.

Opponents and Touch Spells: To use a touch spell against an opponent during combat, you cast the spell and then touch that opponent. You can touch the opponent on the same turn you cast the spell

Or as the PHB page 140 says "You cast the spell then touch the subject either in the same round or anytime later"
It doesn't say ally or opponent. So you can't assume its either. It says after that you can move before or after casting the spell in the same round. Once again it does not say ally or opponent just subject. Which means it can be either an opponent or an ally.

That Rules of the Game article exists for people like you who need it spelled out as plainly as possible.

The FAQ also states that attacking with a spectral hand[which you used to make melee touch spells at a range], is part of the action of casting the touch spell to be delivered.
Delivering a spell is part of the casting.
But then you don't consider the FAQ rules but I thought it help add some weight to the intentions of touch spells.

When the SRD says "you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later"
Why do you assume same round only exists in the case of allies or quickened spells?
Just that one line

you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round
That means you can always choose deliver a touch spell in the same round you cast UNLESS you can find a specific rule that either in the spell description or else where that says you can't.
It doesn't say ally or opponent so its either. They mention allies in another paragraph as you can touch six instead of one in a single round. That's important enough to mention.

Now if you want to deliver a touch spell with a claw or a unarmed strike that is a different issue.

Oh and if a single mistake invalidates all of Skips work like the Rules of the Game Articles I guess the PHB isn't a valid rule source either because he worked on it.

Greenish
2010-06-21, 04:47 PM
The text doesn't say that its a standard action to cast a spell and another standard action to touch an opponent so try again.That's not what he Curmudgeon claims.

[Edit]: That's olentu's claim.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 04:53 PM
That's not what he Curmudgeon claims.

[Edit]: That's olentu's claim.

Sounds like what he's claiming.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 04:54 PM
The text doesn't say that its a standard action to cast a spell and another standard action to touch an opponent so try again.
I don't understand your point. I never claimed that there was a second standard action required in the casting round. That attack is granted by casting a touch attack spell, but it's just an attack (a bonus), and not a standard action.

Or as the PHB page 140 says "You cast the spell then touch the subject either in the same round or anytime later"
It doesn't say ally or opponent. So you can't assume its either.
That's exactly what it says, in the introductory paragraph of Touch Spells in Combat. Then it elaborates: "You can automatically touch one friend", and then there's a separate paragraph detailing "Touch Attacks". At no point in the rules (either Player's Handbook or Rules Compendium) do they mention that touching is "part of the casting" for a touch attack spell.
It says after that you can move before or after casting the spell in the same round. Once again it does not say ally or opponent just subject. Now you're just not paying attention. There are some general rules that apply to combat use of both willing target touch spells and touch attack spells. (There are also other rules for willing target touch spells in the Magic chapter.) Specific rules for touch attack spells are in the "Touch Attacks" paragraph, where they refer to "enemy" and "opponent"; the term "subject" does not appear there.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 05:17 PM
The same line from the PHB is in the Rules Compendium under opponents and touch spells

Opponents and Touch Spells: To use a touch spell against an opponent during combat, you cast the spell and then touch that opponent. You can touch the opponent on the same turn you cast the spell.
Touching if not "part" of the casting still sounds like its a free attack if done in the same round.

And back in the PHB here's more of the paragraph I quoted as you obviously missed few parts. And not I'm looking directly at the PHB. You might want to read the intro paragraph again I didn't want to quote the entire thing but it appears I have to.


"In the same round that you cast the spell you may also touch(or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move action before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself but to touch an opponent you must succeed on an attack roll"
Touching willing target is free, there is no argument there as they wouldn't try to avoid it. An attack roll is only necessary if the subject isn't willing. Hence the attempt to touch.
According to this paragraph the only difference between delivering a touch spell in the same round as cast between ally and enemy is the attack roll.

When it says In the same round that you cast the spell you may attempt to touch the target. What do you think that means?

The touch attack paragraph is explaining the basics of touch attacks, but the part about movement is in the earlier paragraph as well.

Greenish
2010-06-21, 05:20 PM
Touching if not "part" of the casting still sounds like its a free attack if done in the same round.Isn't that what Curmudgeon has been saying?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 05:21 PM
Isn't that what Curmudgeon has been saying?

Then I don't know what he's been saying, I replied the topic in general and he replied to mine.

If someone says delivering a touch spell a free action if done with the casting of the spell. Thats essentially as part of the casting and much easier to get across. Like with a +1 BA you can draw your weapon as part of your move action to walk across the room.

Greenish
2010-06-21, 05:22 PM
I don't know what he's been sayingHe's been saying that casting a touch spell gives you an attack you must use to deliver said spell.

[Edit]: "Must" as in "if you use the attack, you must deliver the spell with it".

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 05:24 PM
Touching if not "part" of the casting still sounds like its a free attack if done in the same round.
That's exactly what it is: free, extra, a bonus. Call it what you like, as long as you don't use any defined game terms that it isn't, like a standard action. (A standard action would allow all sorts of extra possibilities.) This is only a bonus attack, and it's further limited to attacks that could deliver the spell charge.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 05:29 PM
That's exactly what it is: free, extra, a bonus. Call it what you like, as long as you don't use any defined game terms that it isn't, like a standard action. (A standard action would allow all sorts of extra possibilities.) This is only a bonus attack, and it's further limited to attacks that could deliver the spell charge.

I call it as part of casting the spell[unless you hold the charge] WTF was the problem with that.

If someone says delivering a touch spell a free action if done with the casting of the spell. That's essentially as part of the casting and much easier to get across.
Like with a +1 BA you can draw your weapon as part of your move action to walk across the room. Its technically called a free action. But its only free if done with the move.
Which to me says its the same action in terms of usage.

Greenish
2010-06-21, 05:32 PM
I call it as part of casting the spell[unless you hold the charge] WTF was the problem with that.You can cast the spell first, then Move and then use the attack, which is not immediately obvious when you say that the attack is part of the casting.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-21, 05:47 PM
I call it as part of casting the spell WTF was the problem with that.
There are two problems with that.

It's not the RAW.
A touch attack spell, if it's still actively being cast while you move to the target, would provoke attacks of opportunity from that casting (including from your touch attack target). That means an AoO could disrupt that casting, retroactively. So you'd cast the spell, move to your enemy to touch them with the spell, get hit by their AoO because you're still casting, and then never actually cast the spell because the AoO interrupts it. But you were only allowed to move between casting the spell and making the attack [U]because you cast the spell, which you didn't do. It's a mess!

olentu
2010-06-22, 03:18 AM
Interesting it seems that one can if they wish cast a spell such that the touching is part of casting the spell and thus not an action.

Well in that case it seems that I will have to revise my position to say that one can cast and touch in the same round but not spring attack. The spring attack thing does not work since in the one case the touching is part of the same action but in this case one can touch in the same round. Even if it is possible to be done in an alternate way so that it is not part of casting the spell then it would be a standard action and so spring attack would not work in this situation nor would touching generally due to lack of actions.

Also an argument that the rules would be messy is of no matter.


Also of course the moving is not apparent when the touching is part of the same action as casting the spell and that is why the ability to do so needs to be listed.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-22, 05:09 AM
The spring attack thing does not work since in the one case the touching is part of the same action but in this case one can touch in the same round. Even if it is possible to be done in an alternate way so that it is not part of casting the spell then it would be a standard action and so spring attack would not work in this situation nor would touching generally due to lack of actions. I don't follow your reasoning here. Casting the spell is (usually) a standard action. Delivering the charge in that same round is a specifically permitted melee attack, so that's not a second standard action. And Spring Attack does not stipulate a standard action, merely an attack with a melee weapon.

Also an argument that the rules would be messy is of no matter. That's not an argument, merely a comment. I used a different color to distinguish the comment from the argument.

olentu
2010-06-22, 02:32 PM
I don't follow your reasoning here. Casting the spell is (usually) a standard action. Delivering the charge in that same round is a specifically permitted melee attack, so that's not a second standard action. And Spring Attack does not stipulate a standard action, merely an attack with a melee weapon.
That's not an argument, merely a comment. I used a different color to distinguish the comment from the argument.

Well then I will try to explain. Due to the evidence presented as to the rules compendium there is an allowed action such that casting a spell and making the touch attack are part of the same standard action. This means that one can actually cast the spell and touch the target in the same round since the touching is part of the "cast a touch spell and touch a target" standard action.

On the other hand if one does not wish to take advantage of this action the touch attack is not part of the same standard action. Thus the touch attack defaults back to a standard action. The argument that since the rules say that one can try to touch the target in the same round no longer is a viable argument against this since one actually can try to touch the target in the same round just that doing so either requires that the caster have a standard action left over or that they make the attack as part of another action.

So in the end the options are to either make the touch as part of another action or as a separate standard action.

Greenish
2010-06-22, 02:35 PM
So in the end the options are to either make the touch as part of another action or as a separate standard action.Yeah, so make the attack as a part of Spring Attack.

[Edit]: Or cast the spell, move, and touch the enemy.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-22, 06:28 PM
On the other hand if one does not wish to take advantage of this action the touch attack is not part of the same standard action. The attack is not part of the casting action. Agreed.

Thus the touch attack defaults back to a standard action. No. This is wrong for two reasons.

There is no "default" to a standard action. An attack is only an attack. Using a standard action is one possible way to deliver an attack, but there are other possibilities, and no default.
The rules specify that you can make the attack in the casting round. The rules do not say that this attack is part of the casting, nor do they say this attack takes a standard action. Thus the only possibility left is that the attack is free: a bonus, or an extra action (use whatever terms you like), but with limitations: you must (try to) deliver the spell charge.

Susano-wo
2010-06-22, 08:30 PM
Yeah, the touch spell stuff seems pretty cut and dry as far (with Rules COmp. clarification)as move-->then deliver spell by chosen method


however Spring attack says this:
Spring Attack [General]
Prerequisites

Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit

When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack.


The attack action. Not an attack. Though there are attacks that are not standard actions, The Attack Action (notice the capitalization :P) is a standard action.

Standard Actions
Table: Standard Actions

Attack:
Making an attack is a standard action.

and cut to Full Attack:


Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.


Full Attack and Spring attack are both referencing a specific Attack Action. Now it probably would have been helpful to use some special qualifying term for this, but they didn't. I think the intent is pretty clear, that Spring Attack allows you to make the [Standard Action] Attack action.

Now, technically, that means you can't deliver the touch spell, since you need to make a standard action attack action to activate spring attack, though I would absolutely allow it. Its not overpowered and definitely within the realm of intent of spring attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-22, 08:39 PM
The attack action. Not an attack. Though there are attacks that are not standard actions, The Attack Action (notice the capitalization :P) is a standard action.
Wrong, because that's just one example of an attack action. What type of attack action did you think would be explained under the "Standard Actions" section? The full attack action is also an attack action, defined in the "Full-Round Actions" section.

An example should never be confused with a limiting specification.

Susano-wo
2010-06-22, 08:45 PM
Ooookaay. The attack action in Spring Attack? what does that refer to? And don't tell me its just any attack action. 'The' indicates specificity.

Full Attack has a section on deciding between Attack and Full Attack. In rules text blocks, the terms "Attack Action" and "Full Attack Action" are used distinctly. That's why when you look at the SRD under Attack action it directs you to Standard Actions

And lest it seem I am being overly hostile, I am not intending to be, nor am I angry--I just find that your RAW position on spring attack untenable :smallsmile:

(also, I am sorry that I am leaving my internet and will have to respond next tomorrow>.>)

Curmudgeon
2010-06-22, 08:50 PM
Ooookaay. The attack action in Spring Attack? what does that refer to?
Since the term "attack action" isn't defined in the game, it can refer to any of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action
attack of opportunity
bonus attack
Since casting a touch attack spell grants a bonus attack, that's what can be used as the attack action in Spring Attack.

Thespianus
2010-06-22, 08:55 PM
Since the term "attack action" isn't defined in the game, it can refer to any of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action
attack of opportunity
bonus attack
Since casting a touch attack spell grants a bonus attack, that's what can be used as the attack action in Spring Attack.

Would you say that you can use Spring Attack during an AoO as well? Move-Attack-Move as an AoO?

Greenish
2010-06-22, 08:58 PM
Would you say that you can use Spring Attack during an AoO as well? Move-Attack-Move as an AoO?No, because getting AoO doesn't grant you a move action, and you need to move for spring attack.

"You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack."

Thespianus
2010-06-22, 09:01 PM
No, because getting AoO doesn't grant you a move action, and you need to move for spring attack.
Good. It seemed horribly exploitable for a lock-down tripper, so I'm glad that's not on the table. ;)

Curmudgeon
2010-06-22, 09:18 PM
Would you say that you can use Spring Attack during an AoO as well? Move-Attack-Move as an AoO?
While the Spring Attack feat itself is ambiguous (and could be read that it grants a move action), Rules Compendium clarifies that it merely lets you split a move action around an attack action. If you had a Belt of Battle you could use it to grant you an extra move action, and split that around a full attack action with Spring Attack. You'd only get a few uses daily, though.

Susano-wo
2010-06-23, 03:19 PM
After going back and looking at the Rules compendium excerpt (should looked up Rules Compendium when I went home...d'oh!><), assuming there is no context missed, I can see the RAW interpretation that it allows you to make any attack in the middle of a move action.

And like I said before, I would have no problem allowing this in a game, even if it is not RAW, since its hardly abusive and is within the spirit of spring attack. So I guess its pointless to argue any further...though I do plan on checking my Compendium when I get home :D

Greenish
2010-06-23, 03:33 PM
While the Spring Attack feat itself is ambiguous (and could be read that it grants a move action), Rules Compendium clarifies that it merely lets you split a move action around an attack action. If you had a Belt of Battle you could use it to grant you an extra move action, and split that around a full attack action with Spring Attack. You'd only get a few uses daily, though.Does the movement have to come from Move Action?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-23, 07:26 PM
Does the movement have to come from Move Action? Yes. From Rules Compendium, page 13:
Spring Attack provides an exception to a more fundamental rule, letting you interrupt your own move action to make an attack, then resume the move.

BSW
2010-06-23, 10:45 PM
Wrong, because that's just one example of an attack action. What type of attack action did you think would be explained under the "Standard Actions" section? The full attack action is also an attack action, defined in the "Full-Round Actions" section.

An example should never be confused with a limiting specification.

That's not how grammar works. English grammatical rules just plain don't support your interpretation here. You're confusing the meaning of the word "the" with the word "an."

By its very definition, the word "the" when used before a noun must refer to a specific object. The relevant clause of the Spring Attack feat reads:

"When using the attack action with a melee weapon," PHB, pg 100 (emphasis mine).

In this clause, the word "the" immediately precedes the noun "attack action." Rules of English grammar require that this refer to a particular noun with specificity. It's part of the very definition of the word "the." Therefore, this clause can only refer to a single specific action.

As you've noted, there are a number of actions that could be rationally described as attack actions. Since grammatical rules require that the clause only refer to one of them, we have to figure out to which it refers. The list includes (referred to by name in actual entries in the PHB):

Attacks of Opportunity (pg. 137)
Full Attack (pg. 143)
Attack (pg. 139)


Of these examples that can rationally be considered to be an attack action, precisely one is actually named Attack. Additionally, if you look in the PHB's index (pg. 315) there is precisely one entry for "attack" and that directs us to page 139--the standard action named Attack.

So, we have a clause that refers to "the attack action" and three options to choose from, of which we can only choose one. From a logical standpoint, it seems readily apparent to me that the clause is, in fact, referring to the name of the action.

I'd also like to point out that, in addition to requiring a reading that would violate English grammatical rules, your interpretation introduces ambiguity to the clause that does not even exist under my interpretation. As a general matter, when faced with multiple possible interpretations of a writing, an interpretation that results in an unambiguous statement is better than one that results in ambiguity.


Additionally, note that I did not include "bonus attacks" in the list above. This is because it's a term that isn't defined or even used in the PHB. I agree that touch spells do grant what can appropriately be called a bonus touch attack during the round in which they are cast, but for the grammatical reasons I noted above, I've concluded that the clause in the Spring Attack feat cannot possibly be referring to these.

However, also note that I don't think that allowing a touch spell to delivered via a spring attack on the round in which it is cast could be considered overpowered by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly allow it in my games.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-23, 11:34 PM
That's not how grammar works. English grammatical rules just plain don't support your interpretation here. You're confusing the meaning of the word "the" with the word "an."
While your thesis is well-founded, it lacks one basic requirement: that the D&D authors followed grammatical rules faithfully. This is disproved on the first page of text (page 4) of the Player's Handbook:
We used all this data to retool the game from the ground up and incorporate everyone’s suggestions. Since data is the plural form of datum, "this" should be "these".

It's quite possible that some of the D&D authors had something specific in mind when they wrote the term "attack action". However, they completely neglected to define that term. Based on the RAW (absent grammatical assumptions) if it's an action that consists solely of attacking, it's an attack action.

olentu
2010-06-24, 11:31 PM
Really making an attack is a standard action is what the rules say. But well let me make sure that I am understanding your position completely. Would it be correct to say that the reason you say that the part of the rules that says that making an attack is a standard action does not apply is because as the following. You contend that since the text in question appears under the attack section in the standard actions section the text under the attack heading only applies when one is in the process of taking the action of attack as a standard action.

Also the point of the vs. an is legitimate since for the rules to even be able to be read it must be assumed that the authors were using standard English rules unless something in the rules contradicts this assumption. As if not then any reading could be true and the discussion really is meaningless since word substitution is allowed.

Susano-wo
2010-06-25, 12:32 AM
BSW, according to the PHB I would agree with you, bur the rules compendium wording is different in such a way as to allow for Curmudgeon's interpretations

Curmusgeon: really. such a straw man. Take a word that veeeery few people pluralize correctly (they treat it as the same in singular and plural) and try to say that that means we cant use grammar to interpret the rules?

Stick the the Rules Compendium argument--that's why you're right; not the PHB mangling :P

Olentu, your record's stuck >.>

BSW
2010-06-26, 09:16 PM
While your thesis is well-founded, it lacks one basic requirement: that the D&D authors followed grammatical rules faithfully. This is disproved on the first page of text (page 4) of the Player's Handbook:

We used all this data to retool the game from the ground up and incorporate everyone’s suggestions.
Since data is the plural form of datum, "this" should be "these".


Haha, I like your rebuttal... incorrect though it may be. Usage of the word data is standard as both a mass noun and a count noun. This means that it's perfectly acceptable from a grammatical standpoint to use either a singular or a plural verb (mass nouns take singular verbs, count nouns take plural verbs).

Note, however, that under its original usage it as the plural of datum (which is only a count noun), data was only a count noun and you would be correct. However, give or take 200 years ago, data took on the additional meaning as a synonym for the mass noun "information." Ever since then, usage with a singular verb has been correct.

Thus, since either usage of the word data is correct, the only way to be incorrect is to be inconsistent with your usage throughout the document.

TLDR version: I went off on a grammatical tangent talking about why usage of data with both singular and plural verbs is actually correct because I'm obsessive.

In actual rebuttal:

Olentu is quite correct. In the absence of some evidence to the contrary, we must assume that ordinary definitions of words and rules of grammar apply. Otherwise quite literally any interpretation is valid. And just to be perfectly clear... making grammatical errors elsewhere in the document is not evidence of such intent. Such errors merely prove that the authors were imperfect in their editing. In other words--human.


It's quite possible that some of the D&D authors had something specific in mind when they wrote the term "attack action". However, they completely neglected to define that term. Based on the RAW (absent grammatical assumptions) if it's an action that consists solely of attacking, it's an attack action.

Ah, but that's the rub. When interpreting the meaning of a sentence or clause in a sentence in the context of a debate on RAW, it doesn't matter what the authors intended the clause to mean. Instead, what matters is what the text actually says. The text of Spring Attack in the PHB simply cannot mean what you suggest--even if that's what the authors actually intended.

Another superfluous tangent:
Interestingly, the same thing occurs with some regularity when legislators draft the text of statutes. They intend to accomplish one thing, but when a court actually looks at what the statute says, it determines that the text doesn't actually say what the legislators meant.

As one of my old professors in law school used to say: "Commas are not like sprinkles... you can't just throw them wherever you want!"

Now, in real rebuttal... I've been noticing your persistence in the claim that "attack action" is an undefined term. Obviously, I disagree with this claim. I'll explain why.

"Attack action" is not actually a term that requires definition. Instead, it's manner of phrasing a reference to a specific action (namely, Attack). This manner of phrasing a reference to a specific action is actually used elsewhere in the PHB:


An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus.

This particular phrasing choice is apparently how the authors have decided to refer to specific actions in certain contexts. The fact that they used this phrasing with the Full Attack action also makes it clear that if they had intended the clause in the Spring Attack feat to refer to something other than the name of the action referenced, they would not have used the word "action" at all. For example, they never refer to the extra attacks taken during a Full Attack action as "attack actions," but rather refer to them merely as "attacks."

Thus, I conclude that the fact that the authors used the word "action" in the clause was because they deemed that its usage was necessary to specify that they were referring to the specific action named Attack and not simply to any melee attack.


BSW, according to the PHB I would agree with you, bur the rules compendium wording is different in such a way as to allow for Curmudgeon's interpretations

The only reference to the Spring Attack feat that I've seen anywhere in the Rules Compendium is on page 13:

Spring Attack provides an exception to a more fundamental rule, letting you interrupt your own move action to make an attack, then resume the move.

This clarifies the clause relating to the movement clause of the Spring Attack feat, which was arguably a little ambiguous. I've seen no actual rewording of the Spring Attack feat in the Rules Compendium. If I've missed something, please tell me where it is.

olentu
2010-06-27, 10:06 PM
BSW, according to the PHB I would agree with you, bur the rules compendium wording is different in such a way as to allow for Curmudgeon's interpretations
The only reference to the Spring Attack feat that I've seen anywhere in the Rules Compendium is on page 13:


Spring Attack provides an exception to a more fundamental rule, letting you interrupt your own move action to make an attack, then resume the move.
This clarifies the clause relating to the movement clause of the Spring Attack feat, which was arguably a little ambiguous. I've seen no actual rewording of the Spring Attack feat in the Rules Compendium. If I've missed something, please tell me where it is.

To add my take on the subject of that bit of the rules compendium it does not actually contradict the PHB so long as one assumes that "the attack action" includes "an attack". Now as I am trying to skirt the term but unfortunately I must use it in this case. However there will be no problem so long as everyone can agree on the specifics being discussed. So I will say that I find it likely that everyone here agrees that "the attack action" includes "an attack". If someone disagrees then there is a problem and that can be dealt with should it occur. So should anyone disagree that "the attack action" involves "an attack" please note it.

So in the case that there is no disagreement on "the attack action" including "an attack" there is no contradiction between the two rules since one does interrupt their movement for "an attack" just that attack happens to be included in "the attack action". Then since the PHB text automatically satisfies the rules compendium text and there is no contradiction both apply.