PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Delivering a Touch Spell



Scipio
2010-06-25, 07:03 PM
I know there have been a number of threads on this, but I have a quick question. Complete Arcane says you can deliver a touch range spell using Improved Unarmed Strike. I thought I had read somewhere that you could deliver a touch range spell using a natural attack as well. Looking through the PHB, it appears that you can hold the charge after casting and deliver the touch range spell on a subsequent round using a natural attack.

Can you deliver a touch range spell using a natural attack on the same round you cast the spell? Example: A vampire casts Vampiric Touch and delivers it using the slam attack. Can this be done in the same round as casting, or do you have to wait a round?

Thanks.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-25, 07:35 PM
Yes, you can. Casting a touch spell permits an attack in the casting round, but limited to an attack that can deliver the spell charge. Touch attacks, unarmed strikes, and natural attacks are all possible ways of doing so.

The Player's Handbook rules only refer to what happens when you continue to hold the charge into subsequent rounds, but as soon as you finish casting the spell your body is holding the charge of that spell. That's why Complete Arcane provided the clarification.

Scipio
2010-06-25, 07:37 PM
Thanks for the feedback. Can you tell me where it says you can deliver the spell with a natural attack? I read through the weapon-like spell part, and I could not find a mention of natural attacks. Thanks.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-25, 08:06 PM
It's always been there, in the Player's Handbook.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. Complete Arcane added this clarification in the context of using Improved Unarmed Strike (on page 73):
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. A natural weapon attack is also a regular melee attack capable of delivering a spell charge.

The Complete Arcane statement doesn't change any rules; it just clarifies things for some people who misinterpreted what "holding the charge" means.

Scipio
2010-06-25, 08:14 PM
I am not sure my group will buy that explanation. There seems to be a distinction between holding a charge and delivering a touch attack as part of the casting. The CArc quote seems to be specific to Improved Unarmed Strike.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-25, 08:20 PM
I am not sure my group will buy that explanation. There seems to be a distinction between holding a charge and delivering a touch attack as part of the casting.
There is no "as part of the casting" for touch attack spells in the rules. It's simply not there. Your group needs some re-educating.

Hague
2010-06-26, 02:32 AM
Casting the spell gives you a weapon, meaning your touch doesn't provoke an attack. However, you can substitute the weapon with an unarmed strike. Casting the spell gives you a touch attack that can be used immediately. The actual attack is part of the somatic component for the spell and thus a part of the standard action to cast the spell. You can choose not to touch, which prevents the spell from being 'completed' whereby completion implies discharging the effect. You can replace the touch with an unarmed strike, essentially replacing the touch somatic component with a punch/kick/headbutt somatic component. As long as the part touching is part of you, you can use it as the somatic part to complete the spell. You still need a hand free as part of that somatic component before you discharge with a foot stomp or a knee to the groin, though. Unfortunately (or fortunately) this makes the touch attack spells of ghosts pretty dangerous since they can incorporeal touch and discharge spells at the same time.

lsfreak
2010-06-26, 02:37 AM
As per the SRD, under Actions in Combat:

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.

Emphasis added.

Akal Saris
2010-06-26, 02:41 AM
Yes, it works, as the others have said. Show your group this thread, the spawn of the collected wisdom of the internets!

Ravens_cry
2010-06-26, 02:47 AM
Yes, it works, as the others have said. Show your group this thread, the spawn of the collected wisdom of the internets!
That explains why it's so small. . .:smallamused:

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 04:14 AM
The actual attack is part of the somatic component for the spell and thus a part of the standard action to cast the spell.
That's not part of the rules at all. A touch attack spell prepared with Still Spell has no somatic components, exactly as specified in the rules, and yet you still get the attack in the casting round.

candycorn
2010-06-26, 07:53 AM
I disagree on a few points.


Touch

You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. 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.

Touch spells give you the ability to TOUCH creatures as part of casting, not bludgeon them with melee fists of fury.


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.
On the round that you cast the spell, you are NOT holding the charge. Holding the charge is explicitly when you don't discharge the spell in the same round you cast.

Anything that allows you to do something "while holding a charge" only applies while you're holding a charge. Until the round you cast the spell in ends, you don't meet the definition for holding a charge, so the underlined text can't apply.

Hague
2010-06-26, 10:31 AM
Yes, while it is true that that's not directly in the rules about the somatic component part, you will still need to touch something to discharge the spell, meaning that you need to have to be free to actually discharge the touch. You can't for instance, be paralyzed by a ghoul's touch and still hit something that you aren't touching if you cast still spell. You functionally give up the "Seriously, I'm not casting a spell" part when slap at someone with your glowing, electrified hand. Still Spell makes it so you don't need at least one hand (tentacle, manipulator, whatever) free, but it doesn't mitigate the requirement of a touch (which can be anything, a kiss, a kick to the shin, a hearty pat on the back, et al.) So my belief is that touch spells have an additional somatic requirement of touching the target to complete the spell.

And yes, you can punch multiple targets with a touch-based spell with multiple targets, you'd still be limited to what you could do within the scope of the "same round as you complete the spell" requirement (PHB 175) So if you cast a quickened multiple touch spell, then used your full-attack to attack multiple targets with an unarmed strike, you could pummel multiple people, but you wouldn't gain the benefit of as many targets as you possibly could have with a full touch attack. Likewise, spells that only discharge once will only affect one target with the touch spell.

Also, the wording "same round as you complete the spell" leaves room for interpretation. In a sense, multi-touch spells can't be held indefinitely if you believe that the touch isn't completing the spell but actually casting it is. If you do believe so like I do, then you can hold the charge for a multi-touch spell, but as soon as you touch the first target (completing the final somatic component in my eyes) you complete the spell, requiring you to touch as many as you want affected in that round.

Edit: Also, I personally don't see why you can't punch someone in the same time that it takes to slap them in the face or grab their arm. You take appropriate penalties, can provoke an AoO twice (once for casting and another for attacking) and you lose the touch AC target opting for regular AC) Also, under that ruling, you couldn't cast a quickened touch spell and then attack with your fist because you have to wait for some arbitrary rule requirement that says that you have to wait six seconds (next round) to be "holding the charge." I say if your hand is charged and you can reach the opponent, you can punch them instead of touching them, just be ready for the consequences.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-26, 10:34 AM
So my belief is that touch spells have an additional somatic requirement of touching the target to complete the spell.Belief has no place in a rules argument. Your 'belief' amounts to a house rule.


So if you cast a quickened multiple touch spell, then used your full-attack to attack multiple targets with an unarmed strike, you could pummel multiple people, but you wouldn't gain the benefit of as many targets as you possibly could have with a full touch attack....why not? Both instances would use your iterative BAB.

Hague
2010-06-26, 10:53 AM
Because some multi-touch spells have multiple targets above four, greater than the greatest regular iterative attack (aside from TWF)

Edit: Yeah, somatic should probably not be the word to use, but I still stick by my guns in saying that the spell isn't 'completed' until it's discharged. After all, if it weren't then why would casting another spell remove the charge you've held if you already completed the spell. It's like saying that your mage armor should disappear because you cast shield. The charge disappears because you cast another spell before completing the first, causing the first one to fizzle.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 11:30 AM
Touch spells give you the ability to TOUCH creatures as part of casting, not bludgeon them with melee fists of fury. There are two types of touch spells. Only the version for willing targets allows touching as part of casting. Touch attack spells have different rules, which specifically state that you can deliver the spell charge with a touch, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon attack.

On the round that you cast the spell, you are NOT holding the charge. Holding the charge is explicitly when you don't discharge the spell in the same round you cast. As soon as you finish casting a touch attack spell your body is holding the charge from that spell. Touching a valid target transfers that charge.
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. Is there anything in there that says you're not already holding the charge of the spell in the casting round? No, there's not. You're confusing a statement that you can do various things in subsequent rounds with a rule that you cannot do those things in the casting round -- and there's no such rule. That's why Complete Arcane added this helpful clarification (on page 73):
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. There's no requirement to wait until the next round.

sofawall
2010-06-26, 11:37 AM
Is there anything in there that says you're not already holding the charge of the spell in the casting round? No, there's not.

While I agree with your conclusions, I'd like to note that the rules do not say that you cannot do a chicken dance as a free action out-of-turn to regain all hit points.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 11:59 AM
Yeah, somatic should probably not be the word to use, but I still stick by my guns in saying that the spell isn't 'completed' until it's discharged.
Let's work through an example to expose why this isn't the case. Say the spell is Chill Touch, which allows multiple touch attacks. If the spell isn't completed then the caster is continually provoking attacks of opportunity for casting a spell. An AoO so provoked could do enough damage to disrupt the casting and keep the spell from being completed. So what happens to those Chill Touch spell charges that have already been delivered if the casting is later disrupted and thus the spell was never cast?

That's why there are different rules for willing target touch spells and touch attack spells. There need to be different rules to avoid such logical inconsistencies.

While I agree with your conclusions, I'd like to note that the rules do not say that you cannot do a chicken dance as a free action
I was merely trying to point out where candycorn's thinking had skipped a step. The Complete Arcane clarification is the actual rules argument.

BobTheDog
2010-06-26, 12:20 PM
Maybe I'm not paying attention, but it seems to me that:

a) Casting a spell is (usually) a standard action.
b) Attacking (unarmed/armed/natural) is (usually) a standard action.
c) You (usually) have one standard action per round.

Therefore, you (usually) cannot cast a touch spell and attack someone to deliver it.


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. 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.

The rules specify that you are allowed to use a touch attack in the same round you cast a spell, but the only mention of delivering it as unarmed/natural attacks is, as noted, in the "holding the charge" part.

Whyte_Widow
2010-06-26, 12:40 PM
what about discharging spell flower whilst initiating a grapple? do you still get the unarmed damage on top of the two spell damage? (or more depending on your arm situation)

with this combo'd with fist of stone, enlarge person, balor nimbus etc. could make for a pretty nasty combo.

transmutation ftw.

Scipio
2010-06-26, 01:55 PM
Is there anything in there that says you're not already holding the charge of the spell in the casting round? No, there's not.

These two references to holding a charge in the SRD seem to state that you are not discharging the spell in the same round.


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.


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. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

It appears to me that if you wish to discharge the spell in the same round you cast it, you can deliver the spell with a touch attack. If you wait a round, then you can deliver the spell with a touch attack, unarmed strike or natural weapon. Complete Arcane added the bit about delivering a spell through an unarmed strike.

Question - What type of attack is an Improved Unarmed Strike for a non-monk? Is it manufactured weapon, natural weapon or both?

dgnslyr
2010-06-26, 01:58 PM
Is there a way to deliver ranged touch attack spells as just touch range spells? I wanted to know, because I wondered if you can hit the magic-reflecting Tarrasque with Ray of Stupidity as just a normal touch attack, putting it in a drooling coma.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-26, 02:01 PM
Is there a way to deliver ranged touch attack spells as just touch range spells? I wanted to know, because I wondered if you can hit the magic-reflecting Tarrasque with Ray of Stupidity as just a normal touch attack, putting it in a drooling coma.

Nope. Duskblades can do something similar, and I could see a metamagic feat doing it. But you can't do it normally.

Sliver
2010-06-26, 02:06 PM
<snip>

You do realize that what you quoted tells you that if you didn't touch anything, you can still hold the charge until you touch something, and not that if you didn't touch anything, you suddenly are holding a charge?

"if you don't eat the cake just after baking it, you can hold it indefinitely" <rules for stuff related to holding the cake followed> doesn't mean that you aren't holding the cake right after baking it, it means that you can still hold it. Sure, cakes are slightly different, but the principal stands.

candycorn
2010-06-26, 02:24 PM
There are two types of touch spells. Only the version for willing targets allows touching as part of casting. Touch attack spells have different rules, which specifically state that you can deliver the spell charge with a touch, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon attack.Where? Cite the source, please. I don't see that distinction in the rules.

As soon as you finish casting a touch attack spell your body is holding the charge from that spell. Touching a valid target transfers that charge. Is there anything in there that says you're not already holding the charge of the spell in the casting round?
Cite the source stating that you are holding the charge the moment you finish casting. The SRD contradicts that.

No, it doesn't say you weren't holding a charge already. But it doesn't say you were. It DOES say you're holding a charge if you cast a touch spell, and don't deliver it in the round you cast it.

That's what it does say. This "the moment you cast it, you're holding a charge" has no support in the rules. The rules state that you're holding the charge if you do not discharge it in the round you cast it.

Let's look at it another way. It says in the grapple rules that:
1) I make a touch attack (that provokes an AoO). If that misses,
2) we make opposed grapple checks.
3) If I win, we are grappling, and I deal unarmed strike damage.

Now, it doesn't say we're NOT grappling at step 2. Just like it doesn't say you're not holding a charge. The rules say when you ARE holding a charge, Curmudgeon. When the conditions laid out in the rules for that aren't satisfied, you're not.


No, there's not. You're confusing a statement that you can do various things in subsequent rounds with a rule that you cannot do those things in the casting round -- and there's no such rule.There's no such rule establishing that you can do anything more than a touch attack unless you are holding a charge.

By the logic you present, there's no rule stating that characters can't grant themselves the ability to destroy anything with a glance. The rules tell characters what they can do. If they don't say you can? Chances are pretty good that you can't.


That's why Complete Arcane added this helpful clarification (on page 73): There's no requirement to wait until the next round.Ah, yes. Let's look at that in context, shall we:


ELIGIBLE FEATS
The following feats can be chosen to enhance the performance
of weaponlike spells in combat.
...
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.
...
If the unarmed strike scores a critical hit, damage from
the spell is not multiplied.
What does this tell us? That Complete Arcane gives you the ability (if you have Improved Unarmed Strike) to deliver touch spells as melee attacks. So you can... IF you have that feat.

That's not a clarification... That's a totally new rule. It even shows an alteration from standard rules for spells that require a touch and dealing critical damage. This isn't clarification of a rule, it's making a new one.

So what's this say? Without Improved Unarmed Strike, you CANNOT do the above. So without Improved Unarmed Strike, you can't deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike (unless you did not discharge it on the round you cast it, in which case you can do any of the things listed in the section on holding the charge).

Further, it makes no allowances for delivering a touch spell with a natural attack (unless, of course, you are holding a charge, again).

Chicken Dances, indeed.

Let's take the other part in context:


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. 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.
Emphasis Mine.

(For Underline): This tells you what you do with a touch spell. Cast a spell, then TOUCH the target. The rules say you can do it. Ok, you can do it. Complete Arcane (page 73, thanks for pointing that out) allows casters with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to deliver that spell with a melee strike (though the spell can't crit if you do).

(For Bold): If you deliver the spell in the same round as casting it, you are not holding the charge. If you are not holding the charge, you cannot do actions allowed to things that are holding a charge.

**** (Surrounding Text) : Rules for the touch that you are allowed when you cast the spell, and then the alternate option you also have when you are holding a charge.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 03:38 PM
Where? Cite the source, please. I don't see that distinction in the rules. The rules for willing target touch spells are in the Magic chapter (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. The rules for touch attack spells from the Combat chapter have already been cited. The attack spell rules do not include "as part of the casting"; instead, they have the rule about permitting the attack "in the same round that you cast the spell".

Cite the source stating that you are holding the charge the moment you finish casting. The SRD contradicts that. No, it doesn't say you weren't holding a charge already. But it doesn't say you were. "Not saying something" is in no way a contradiction; that's a flaw in your logic. I've already cited one source. But let's just take this as a simple exercise in logic.

You cast a spell, which gives you the capability of delivering a spell charge into a target when you touch them.
You are allowed to deliver that charge by touching a target in the casting round, or in later rounds.
If your body is holding the spell charge in later rounds, how is it not holding the spell charge between when you finish casting the spell and the end of that round?

Hague
2010-06-26, 04:10 PM
BobTheDog: You aren't paying attention, or maybe you posted while Curmudgeon posted, but the rules clarification that he pointed out in Complete Arcane says that you can indeed use an unarmed strike as the touch part of a touch spell.

Curmudgeon: Ah, right. Okay, makes sense to me. Though, the wording for the touch attack description kinda mucks with it. That is, the part where they describe touches for spells like water breathing.

Edit: candycorn, if you weren't already holding the charge, then you couldn't affect the target with the touch spell in the first place. Supposing that you can't use a punch even in the same action, you would tell a player whom cast Quickened Shocking Grasp that they can attempt one touch attack free for the spell and miss, but they couldn't attempt another one on that turn with their full-attack action in the same round because they aren't "holding the charge" as explicitly described where you cite? That seems a little ignorant of the reality in the situation. As a player I'd be downright flabbergasted at that sort of ruling.

Also, all those feats described in Complete Arcane are rules clarifications. Anyone with just the core books could draw and use those same conclusions clarified in CA right from the get-go. Specifically, PHB states that you can deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike, even if we go your route that is to say to wait another round (because our charge mysteriously disappears between rounds) that means that improving your unarmed strike will prevent you from provoking an AoO. Hell, you could deliver a touch spell with a grapple or a trip, or any kind of direct touch. You quoted so yourself earlier in the thread.

candycorn
2010-06-26, 04:24 PM
The rules for willing target touch spells are in the Magic chapter (Player's Handbook, page 175): The rules for touch attack spells from the Combat chapter have already been cited. The attack spell rules do not include "as part of the casting"; instead, they have the rule about permitting the attack "in the same round that you cast the spell".
Ok, so you say that there are two different types of spells, some of these spells are "touch attack" spells, and some are "touch not attack" spells.

Could you humor me? Of the two types...

Which is Cure Light Wounds?

I humbly suggest that there are precisely two types of touch spell. Ranged Touch, and Melee Touch.

The distinction you make has nothing to do with what type of spell it is, and everything to do with whether or not the target wishes to be touched.

In other words, it's not a different type of spell. It's just different rules for dealing with willing targets and unwilling targets.


"Not saying something" is in no way a contradiction; that's a flaw in your logic. I've already cited one source. But let's just take this as a simple exercise in logic.

You cast a spell, which gives you the capability of delivering a spell charge into a target when you touch them.
You are allowed to deliver that charge by touching a target in the casting round, or in later rounds.
If your body is holding the spell charge in later rounds, how is it not holding the spell charge between when you finish casting the spell and the end of that round?

The answer to that is simple. Because the rules don't SAY you are holding the charge. What I've seen in the rules shows that logic has little in common with rules.

Take this one: I am a character with a gauntlet. I make a kick (an unarmed strike). I deal lethal damage, because the gauntlet makes my unarmed attacks deal lethal damage... Buh? Makes no sense. But it's the rules.

If we're reading the rules and only assuming what they say is true, then the following is the case:

1) You cast a spell with a range of Touch.
2) You may move (or take a move action) and make a touch immediately (in any order). The casting of the spell grants you this. It is inherent to all touch spells.
3) If you do not successfully touch someone (either by choice or miss) before your turn ends, you are Holding a Charge.
4) In subsequent rounds, you can deliver the touch spell as a part of any Standard of Full action attack you make. However, on that first, FREE attack, you may only make a touch attack, because the rules say you make a touch, and then outline the procedure for doing so.

Here's a bit of logic for you.

(1) Complete Arcane, page 72, lists that the following feats ENHANCE a caster's weapon-like spells.
(2) Later, it lists Improved Unarmed Strike as one of the feats.
(3) To enhance something is to provide it with improved features.
(4) The features given on page 73 for Improved Unarmed Strike must therefore be better than the standard abilities for a caster with a touch spell.
(5) The only thing that section allows is for characters with improved unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell as a melee attack, rather than a melee touch attack.
(6) Per points (1) - (4), point (5) gives characters with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat an improved feature over the standard ability of a caster without it. As the only feature is delivering a touch spell as a melee attack...

What does that mean?

BobTheDog
2010-06-26, 04:30 PM
BobTheDog: You aren't paying attention, or maybe you posted while Curmudgeon posted, but the rules clarification that he pointed out in Complete Arcane says that you can indeed use an unarmed strike as the touch part of a touch spell.

Right, that quote from Complete Arcane says that by using/having Improved Unarmed Strike, you can use an unarmed attack to deliver a touch spell on the round you cast it.

All the rest going on in here is a very messy slaughtering of RAW and RAI for very little benefit.

Also, what candycorn just said (that post wasn't there when I started this).

Hague
2010-06-26, 04:36 PM
Riddle me this then: Why does the Enlightened Fist Arcane Fist class feature let them use a stunning fist attempt to cast and deliver a touch spell a spell as part of a full-attack action. And yet, they don't have the ability to do so with a standard action even though they are functionally identical? Hrm... Perhaps because you can already deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike as a standard action?

These are rules clarifications, not additions. You could ALWAYS do that. You could always use Precise Shot with rays, you could always deliver a touch attack as an unarmed strike. These are not new things, they are points to clarify questions that people have brought up before, just like the discussion we are currently having. :P

candycorn
2010-06-26, 04:44 PM
Riddle me this then: Why does the Enlightened Fist Arcane Fist class feature let them use a stunning fist attempt to cast and deliver a touch spell a spell as part of a full-attack action. And yet, they don't have the ability to do so with a standard action even though they are functionally identical? Hrm... Perhaps because you can already deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike as a standard action?

These are rules clarifications, not additions. You could ALWAYS do that. You could always use Precise Shot with rays, you could always deliver a touch attack as an unarmed strike. These are not new things, they are points to clarify questions that people have brought up before, just like the discussion we are currently having. :P

Complete Arcane actually allows stunning fist uses to be delivered via the unarmed strike ability granted before.

You're right. They are clarifications. You could always do that.

What is that?

Complete Arcane states: Characters with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat may cast a spell and deliver it via an Unarmed Strike.

I agree. You could always do that. It is an enhancement to the normal abilities.

Which means that characters WITHOUT the Improved Unarmed Strike feat CANNOT.

The Complete Arcane text that's going back and forth is a specific ability granted to casters with a specific feat.

It's like saying that everyone can take a penalty up to their base attack to hit, and get a corresponding bonus to damage.

NO. Only people with Power Attack.

BobTheDog
2010-06-26, 04:49 PM
Riddle me this then: Why does the Enlightened Fist Arcane Fist class feature let them use a stunning fist attempt to cast and deliver a touch spell a spell as part of a full-attack action. And yet, they don't have the ability to do so with a standard action even though they are functionally identical? Hrm... Perhaps because you can already deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike as a standard action?

I don't really know the specific working of that, but I see plenty of stuff in your post to support the fact that you can't normally cast a touch spell and deliver it as an unarmed or natural attack in the same round.

a) Enlightened Fist Arcane Fist class feature = So, a prestige class (I take it?) has a special class feature that changes the basic rule.
b) lets them use a stunning fist attempt = The breaking of the basic rule mentioned in a) above is so good that it costs a SF use.
c) to cast and deliver a touch spell as part of a full-attack action = see, here is the thing. Without reading the full class feature, I understand this bit as "you make a full attack and trade one of your attacks for a spell". Maybe the actual wording makes it clear that "you add a spell to one of your attacks during a full attack". But the way you put it, it's the first.

And yet, they don't have the ability to do so (burn a SF to get a spell, add a spell to a regular attack, trade an attack for a spell?) regularly, no. That's why it's a class feature. Most characters don't deal nd6 dice of extra damage when they flank, but rogues do.



Hrm... Perhaps because you can already deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike as a standard action?

Now this part is correct. You can deliver a touch spell as an unarmed attack AS A STANDARD ACTION. If you already used up your standard action casting a spell, you have to wait until next round. Or you need IUS, which lets you do both in the same round. Or, apparently, multiclass into monk for a weird prestige class ability (though, if you can burn several SF in the same full attack and deliver 5 or 6 spells in the same round, that's high nova potential!)

Grommen
2010-06-26, 05:00 PM
I know there have been a number of threads on this, but I have a quick question. Complete Arcane says you can deliver a touch range spell using Improved Unarmed Strike. I thought I had read somewhere that you could deliver a touch range spell using a natural attack as well. Looking through the PHB, it appears that you can hold the charge after casting and deliver the touch range spell on a subsequent round using a natural attack.

Can you deliver a touch range spell using a natural attack on the same round you cast the spell? Example: A vampire casts Vampiric Touch and delivers it using the slam attack. Can this be done in the same round as casting, or do you have to wait a round?

Thanks.

Why not? That is all I have to say on it. I'm sure by the RAW it gets all mixed up but this hole natural attack and unarmed attack thing people are arguing over. Let me punch someone in the face and then ask them, "How Natural was that unarmed attack?" :smallbiggrin: I'm sure they will agree that natural attacks are very similar to unarmed stuff.

My other reasoning here is. What in the world will it harm? Will this some how completely unbalance the game? If not, why get caught up in semantics?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 05:13 PM
Ok, so you say that there are two different types of spells, some of these spells are "touch attack" spells, and some are "touch not attack" spells.

Could you humor me? Of the two types...

Which is Cure Light Wounds?
It's a touch attack spell if an attack roll is required. If the target is willing, no attack roll is required. Why would you assume that the type is necessarily inherent in the spell itself? It's the use that dictates which rules apply.

Here's a bit of logic for you.

(1) Complete Arcane, page 72, lists that the following feats ENHANCE a caster's weapon-like spells.
(2) Later, it lists Improved Unarmed Strike as one of the feats.
(3) To enhance something is to provide it with improved features.
(4) The features given on page 73 for Improved Unarmed Strike must therefore be better than the standard abilities for a caster with a touch spell.
(5) The only thing that section allows is for characters with improved unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell as a melee attack, rather than a melee touch attack.
The bolded part is your assumption, and incorrect. The enhancement in performance from all these feats is from the feats themselves. This "ELIGIBLE FEATS" section in Complete Arcane is a retread from existing rules in Tome and Blood (pages 38-39), which adds this note to the paragraph on Improved Unarmed Strike:
A character without this feat also could deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but doing so would provoke an attack of opportunity from the target, and the unarmed strike would deal subdual damage. So the enhancement in performance from Improved Unarmed Strike is to allow the unarmed attack to deliver the touch spell without provoking an attack of opportunity, and not from any change in the rules for touch attack spells. Thus the "ELIGIBLE FEATS" section of Complete Arcane doesn't allow any new capabilities; rather it says

(for full details on each feat, see Chapter 5 of the Player’s Handbook). For instance, Complete Arcane repeats that you can take Weapon Focus for ranged touch spells, which capability is already specified in the Player's Handbook.

It's all clarification and helpful tips about using existing feats, and no new rules.

Hague
2010-06-26, 05:14 PM
Full wording:


Arcane Fist (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, an enlightened
fist can spend one of her daily stunning attempts to cast
and deliver a touch spell as part of an unarmed full attack
action. She can choose to deliver the touch spell with
any single unarmed strike attack she makes during the
action.

This leaves a logical hole that implies that you could always cast and deliver a spell as an unarmed strike as standard action normally, but you could not do so as a full attack action. Having Improved Unarmed Strike just means that you don't provoke an attack of opportunity because feats don't grant you any extra abilities outside of what they already state that they do. If Improved Unarmed Strike lets you cast and deliver a touch attack spell as a standard action then without the feat you can cast and deliver a touch attack spell but you provoke an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you and you only deal non-lethal damage with your strike. In any given instance, not having Improved Unarmed Strike would make such a tactic a risky proposition at best, suicide at worst. This ruling does not add anything to the wording of Improved Unarmed Strike, it only clarifies its original intent with regards to unarmed strikes and touch attacks.

Keep in mind that actually delivering a touch outside of casting a spell would either be part of a full-round action or a standard action. If you have enough time to deliver a touch then you have enough time to deliver an unarmed strike. Would you believe that since I am granted a touch attack that I can start a grapple as starting a grapple uses a touch attack?

Edit: The "touch not attacks" are these:


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.
Does this mean you can't teleport more creatures than you have iterative attacks? Of course not, we can assume that you are allowed to touch more than your iterative attacks when all the targets are willing. That's what I was getting at there.

candycorn
2010-06-26, 05:31 PM
It's a touch attack spell if an attack roll is required. If the target is willing, no attack roll is required. Why would you assume that the type is necessarily inherent in the spell itself? It's the use that dictates which rules apply.Then that indicates differing rules, not differing spell types.


The bolded part is your assumption, and incorrect. The enhancement in performance from all these feats is from the feats themselves.
Exactly. If you have the feat, you may make an unarmed strike when delivering the spell. That is an Enhancement from the Feat. Without it, you may not.

Further, why is it my "assumptions" are incorrect, and yours are "well, it didn't say you can't, so it must mean you can"?

This "ELIGIBLE FEATS" section in Complete Arcane is a retread from existing rules in Tome and Blood (pages 38-39), which adds this note to the paragraph on Improved Unarmed Strike:"Retread"? I thought we called that a "3.5 Update". Which means that the old stuff isn't valid. Interesting that when they updated it, they took out the part you're arguing.


So the enhancement in performance from Improved Unarmed Strike is to allow the unarmed attack to deliver the touch spell without provoking an attack of opportunity, and not from any change in the rules for touch attack spells. Thus the "ELIGIBLE FEATS" section of Complete Arcane doesn't allow any new capabilities; rather it saysThe bolded section is your assumption, and thus, wrong. It makes no mention of "not provoking" in the clarification. If that's what they were clarifying, you'd think that they'd, y'know, clarify it. Or at least mention it, I suppose, right?

But no. It makes NO mention of not provoking. It's rather a stretch to think that it's clarifying a point that it doesn't even mention in passing.

It doesn't say that the feat allows you to do it without provoking.

It says that the feat allows you to do it.

For instance, Complete Arcane repeats that you can take Weapon Focus for ranged touch spells, which capability is already specified in the Player's Handbook.And The Improved unarmed strike says that you may deliver a touch spell that you cast, with the touch granted you by the casting, as an unarmed strike... Which is not.

The only thing that the rules on touch spells allows is a touch. It then defines that touch. Anything else needs to be explicitly allowed. And you haven't found a single thing that allows what you say, other than your own statements saying it works that way.


It's all clarification and helpful tips about using existing feats, and no new rules.
Could you point out where it says it's all clarification, and isn't intended to be any rules?

Even so, it clarifies that those with the IUS feat may. That's a nice clarification, since that means that those without it may not.

Incidentally, I've read the section. Nowhere in it do I see anything saying that they're not really rules, and are just meant to make a bit more clear something that already was true.

Hague
2010-06-26, 05:53 PM
Touch spells are instantaneous. After casting the spell I am charged with the spell. I don't need to wait a round to be considered "holding the charge." If I weren't holding the charge then my spell wouldn't work in the first place, now would it? I am granted a touch attack after casting the spell. I can choose to use a touch attack, granting me criticals that double the base damage of the spell or I can opt to use an unarmed strike instead of a touch attack. I opt to use an unarmed strike instead of my granted touch attack. That's it, there is nothing more to it. I provoke an attack of opportunity, I deal non-lethal damage with the hit, if I crit, my unarmed strike damage is multiplied, not my spell damage. I am holding the charge right after the spell is cast therefore my granted touch attack can be altered into an unarmed strike.

Also, you purposefully dodged my first question which was "If I cast a quickened touch spell, but miss my granted touch attack, do I not get the opportunity to try again with successive attacks on this round?" By your ruling, no, I don't because my charge disappears into some temporal penalty box created by convoluted writing.

candycorn
2010-06-26, 06:01 PM
Touch spells are instantaneous. After casting the spell I am charged with the spell. I don't need to wait a round to be considered "holding the charge." If I weren't holding the charge then my spell wouldn't work in the first place, now would it? I am granted a touch attack after casting the spell. I can choose to use a touch attack, granting me criticals that double the base damage of the spell or I can opt to use an unarmed strike instead of a touch attack. I opt to use an unarmed strike instead of my granted touch attack. That's it, there is nothing more to it. I provoke an attack of opportunity, I deal non-lethal damage with the hit, if I crit, my unarmed strike damage is multiplied, not my spell damage. I am holding the charge right after the spell is cast therefore my granted touch attack can be altered into an unarmed strike.

Also, you purposefully dodged my first question which was "If I cast a quickened touch spell, but miss my granted touch attack, do I not get the opportunity to try again with successive attacks on this round?" By your ruling, no, I don't because my charge disappears into some temporal penalty box created by convoluted writing.

No, touch spells have rules, despite what you are arguing.

Those rules are: Cast the spell.
When you do, you may make a touch before the end of your turn.
IF you do not, you are holding the charge.

You can argue otherwise, but that's what it SAYS.

What you say makes SENSE, yes. It sounds good, yes.

But it's not what is in black and white in the book.

BobTheDog
2010-06-26, 06:07 PM
Touch spells are instantaneous. After casting the spell I am charged with the spell. I don't need to wait a round to be considered "holding the charge." If I weren't holding the charge then my spell wouldn't work in the first place, now would it? I am granted a touch attack after casting the spell. I can choose to use a touch attack, granting me criticals that double the base damage of the spell or I can opt to use an unarmed strike instead of a touch attack. I opt to use an unarmed strike instead of my granted touch attack. That's it, there is nothing more to it. I provoke an attack of opportunity, I deal non-lethal damage with the hit, if I crit, my unarmed strike damage is multiplied, not my spell damage. I am holding the charge right after the spell is cast therefore my granted touch attack can be altered into an unarmed strike.

Also, you purposefully dodged my first question which was "If I cast a quickened touch spell, but miss my granted touch attack, do I not get the opportunity to try again with successive attacks on this round?" By your ruling, no, I don't because my charge disappears into some temporal penalty box created by convoluted writing.

I bolded the part where you leave RAW. You cannot choose a regular attack on the same action as you cast the spell. I quoted the SRD where it states that you can touch as part of casting (my first post in this thread). If you have IUS, you can use an unarmed attack (not a natural attack) as part of casting the touch spell. If you quicken a touch spell, you can try again (using a standard action) in the same round, and this second attempt can be anything you want (i.e. touch, unarmed, natural).

It is important to notice that all of us are working on the assumption that attempting a touch attack does not discharge a spell. The rules make it a point to highlight that missing with unarmed/natural attacks does not discharge touch spells. I could not find anything that said "if you miss with a touch attack, you keep your spell".

Hague
2010-06-26, 07:03 PM
See, candycorn dodged my question again. It's an important one that shoots holes in her argument:

If I cast a quickened touch spell and miss, can I make an unarmed strike attack as part of a different action in that same round?

If the answer is yes, then that means you believe that actual letter of the rule is wrong, and that I don't have to wait another round to be considered "holding the charge" in order to make a second touch attack to discharge the spell. That by itself implies that as soon as the spell is cast I am "holding the charge" and can opt to use the touch attack as an unarmed attack. If you believe that then your whole previous argument is bogus

If the answer is no, then we've entered temporal la-la land where my touch spell disappears because I missed my first touch and cannot make any more (for some reason) until next round, when my charged spell mysteriously becomes me "holding the charge" and not me simply being charged allowing me to make further touch attempts. All this simply because the writers didn't feel it was necessary to state how quickening spells work with spellcasting description they give. If you live in this world, more power to ya, because frankly, it's stupid, and only stupid people would believe that this is how it is intended.

So what's your answer, candycorn? If I cast a quickened spell, can I make attempt as an unarmed strike in the same round if I miss?

Edit: Here' let's try another tack:


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. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching thetarget, 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: Since you need only touch your enemy, you make a touch attack instead of a regular attack. Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity, so you may want to cast the spell and then move to the target instead of vice versa. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks (for touches made with, say, your hand) and ranged touch attacks (for touches made with magic rays, for example). 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.

Bolded my argument points. I only need to make an attack roll to touch. I only have to touch the target, but I only need to make an attack roll. This means that I can choose to make a touch attack, but I can make any attack roll that I want, because that's all I need. It never says explicitly that I can't make a regular attack roll.

Otodetu
2010-06-26, 07:57 PM
I have been going through this thread and spoken about the matter with my friends, and they cannot fathom how someone can say that you cannot deliver the touch spell as a unarmed\natural attack; it is just so obvious that you can.

I have a feeling the persons arguing against it are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

That is not a nice thing to do.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 08:55 PM
I quoted the SRD where it states that you can touch as part of casting (my first post in this thread).
No, you quoted nothing of the sort. "In the same round" and "as part of the casting" are two entirely different concepts, with significant differences in game mechanics. An attack that's "part of the casting" means the spellcasting is incomplete, and can still be disrupted before it's finished. With a spell like Chill Touch that allows multiple attacks per casting, that "part of the casting" idea could lead to a situation where the spell never got cast -- after several attacks have been made successfully. The rules don't deal with such situations.

"In the same round" (the actual text of the rules) just means casting a touch attack spell permits some extra activity, limited to attacks that could deliver the spell charge.

Hague
2010-06-26, 09:10 PM
If someone grabs you while you are charged with a spell, do they get the effect of the touch? It had occurred to me that it might be useful just to use low-level scrolls to have charged touch attacks ready in case you get grappled or improved grabbed.

BobTheDog
2010-06-26, 09:49 PM
No, you quoted nothing of the sort. "In the same round" and "as part of the casting" are two entirely different concepts, with significant differences in game mechanics. An attack that's "part of the casting" means the spellcasting is incomplete, and can still be disrupted before it's finished. With a spell like Chill Touch that allows multiple attacks per casting, that "part of the casting" idea could lead to a situation where the spell never got cast -- after several attacks have been made successfully. The rules don't deal with such situations.

"In the same round" (the actual text of the rules) just means casting a touch attack spell permits some extra activity, limited to attacks that could deliver the spell charge.

Yea, the actual text of the rules says "in the same round". What I was referring to was "by using the 'free touch' action", not part of the casting in the sense of concentration checks and spell fizzle. Let's use an example:

A caster has shifted into dragon form (or IS a dragon! :smallbiggrin:). It's not important how exactly, what is important is that he has a bite attack that deals a wallop of damage. He also has access to Harm and means to cast it quickened (either by being high enough level or feats whatever).

If he could use any attack that can deliver a touch attack using the "free touch" granted by the casting of a touch spell, he could:

cast harm (standard)
bite + harm (free touch)
quicken harm (free)
bite + harm (free touch)

If he chose different spells, he would have this option:

cast disintegrate (standard)
quicken disintegrate (free)

In other words, by your ruling, each and every touch spell comes with a bonus free attack. Of course, not all casters have massive natural attacks, so they would rather use a regular touch (generally lower AC to hit, possibility to crit with the spell). But as soon as you step away from damage-dice-dealing spells, this is just plain, plain wrong. When you get to the OP's question, where a vampire could give you 2 negative levels on top of a juicy harm, things have gone completely off the rails.

Edit: oh, Hague: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." -SRD

Curmudgeon
2010-06-26, 10:02 PM
In other words, by your ruling, each and every touch spell comes with a bonus free attack.
In the casting round, yes. This isn't any different from adding bonus attacks through other means, such as Improved Trip and Snap Kick to get trip attack + melee attack + unarmed attack as a standard action. Or the splitting bow enhancement to turn every ranged attack (standard action or each shot of full attack) into two. D&D has lots of ways of getting extra attacks.

Hague
2010-06-26, 11:20 PM
Okay, say through some fluke you give a rust monster a spell-like ability like Rusting Grasp. What does it do when it uses this ability? Does the object get affected twice. It clearly has no other better method of deploying it's touch, which is a rusting attack from its antennae. What about another spell, like a shocking grasp?

candycorn
2010-06-27, 07:57 AM
I have been going through this thread and spoken about the matter with my friends, and they cannot fathom how someone can say that you cannot deliver the touch spell as a unarmed\natural attack; it is just so obvious that you can.

I have a feeling the persons arguing against it are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

That is not a nice thing to do.

Yes, you can deliver a touch spell as an unarmed or natural attack, provided you have the action to do so.

The spell provides you with a Free touch attack. When you complete the casting of a touch spell, you can make a touch attack for free before the end of your turn.

That free touch attack isn't a free natural attack. It's not a free grapple attack. It's not a free unarmed strike (though, if you have improved unarmed strike, you're allowed to, per Complete Arcane, page 73). It's a free TOUCH attack.

Should you want to deliver the spell in that round with a natural attack, you can find a way to get another attack without those restrictions. Alternately, you can wait until the next round, and use your standard action to make an attack.

But the free attack is a touch attack. Not a Bite, Claw, Rake, Slam, or Unarmed Strike.


In the casting round, yes. This isn't any different from adding bonus attacks through other means, such as Improved Trip and Snap Kick to get trip attack + melee attack + unarmed attack as a standard action. Or the splitting bow enhancement to turn every ranged attack (standard action or each shot of full attack) into two. D&D has lots of ways of getting extra attacks.
Bolded the part that's unsupported by RAW. You've yet to show me a single statement from a 3.5 source that says that when you cast a spell with a touch range, you can use the free touch that it gives for natural attacks or unarmed strikes (without feats that allow the latter). You claim that it's been clarified in Complete Arcane, and yet, even though you say that your point has been made, and is clarified, you have not found any text that allows you to do this.

If I have the Knockdown feat, and I deal 10 damage, I get a free trip attempt. Can I use that for a grapple instead?

If I have Scorpion's Grasp, and I hit someone with an unarmed strike or light weapon, I can initiate a grapple. Can I use that for a trip instead?

After all, it doesn't say I can't just swap that out.

Curmudgeon, the rules in the SRD (which have not been contradicted by anything you've posted) say:
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.

It doesn't say you may substitute it for anything else. It doesn't allow you to use that free touch as a bite or claw. And you've not provided one scrap of text from any 3.5 source that says otherwise. It lays out the touch just afterwards.

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.
It gives you a touch attack, and then defines what that touch attack is.

It doesn't give you "generic bonus attack" that can be used for anything. It gives you a touch attack.

Natural Attacks are not touch attacks.
Unarmed strikes are not touch attacks.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Hague
2010-06-27, 11:29 AM
There's absolutely no reason why a monster would choose to touch you instead of taking a claw swipe. In fact, it would take more effort to touch someone rather than punch them or swing a claw at them. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. The rule never says that you MUST make a touch attack. It merely states that a touch is required to discharge the spell. There absolutely no reason why you can't choose to make a regular melee attack to discharge the touch spell.

Plus, you still never responded to my first question. What about quickened spells? Do I get to use an unarmed strike after I miss my first chance to confirm touch on a quickened spell? According to your rules, I'm not "holding the charge" so I can't. Of course, I could simply make an overrun or bullrush, and that would accidentally discharge the spell, but I EXPLICITLY can't make a natural attack or unarmed strike because I'm not "holding the charge."

If you can't see why this makes no sense, I don't know what to tell you.

Scipio
2010-06-27, 01:05 PM
There's absolutely no reason why a monster would choose to touch you instead of taking a claw swipe. In fact, it would take more effort to touch someone rather than punch them or swing a claw at them. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. The rule never says that you MUST make a touch attack. It merely states that a touch is required to discharge the spell. There absolutely no reason why you can't choose to make a regular melee attack to discharge the touch spell.

Before we get to the quickened question, let's look at this. Using the same action that you cast the spell with, you are allowed a touch attack (or regular attack with IUS) to discharge the spell. There is never a suggestion that another form of attack is allowed as long as you are using the same action that you used to cast the spell. Holding the charge allows more options as to discharging the spell, but it is using a different action than what you used to cast the spell.


Plus, you still never responded to my first question. What about quickened spells? Do I get to use an unarmed strike after I miss my first chance to confirm touch on a quickened spell? According to your rules, I'm not "holding the charge" so I can't. Of course, I could simply make an overrun or bullrush, and that would accidentally discharge the spell, but I EXPLICITLY can't make a natural attack or unarmed strike because I'm not "holding the charge."

If you can't see why this makes no sense, I don't know what to tell you.

Quickened actions make it more difficult to understand, since the rules break down the holding the charge by rounds instead of legal actions. By RAW you cannot discharge the spell using a different form of attack (non-touch, non-IUS) in the same round. However it also states that if you "touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges". Since you cast the spell using your swift action, and you make a natural attack using your standard action, you would discharge the spell during your standard action.

Hague
2010-06-27, 04:14 PM
But by that definition then you couldn't actually make an unarmed or natural attack. You would be disallowed by the text. You could make ANY other melee attack that could confirm touch, but an unarmed strike or natural attack would not be allowed because you aren't "holding the charge." By the wording, your unarmed strike and natural attack are unallowed because having a touch spell chaged but not "held" prohibits you from using those attack modes until you reach the next round.


In reality, you should just house rule that you can you can punch someone. There is no less effort involved. The touch attack is still just an attack with your touch weapon. It's not functionally any different than you punch, you are still jabbing and feinting (as per the description of an attack) with your glowing magical hand, tentacle, manipulator, probiscis, or genitals (what have you) There really isn't any reason why a colossal creature would choose to use the same effort in gently touching someone as opposed to just stamping on them with their claws. At some point you have to abandon the direct wording of the rules to conform to the context of a situation.

Why should a kraken with SLA touch spells gently stroke your cheek with one of it's tentacles when it would be more expedient to simply smash you over the head?

Also, there are a large selection of class abilities that support this. The previously mentioned Enlightened Fist and the Arcane Channeling power of the Duskblade. The Duskblade is allowed to make a melee attack with their weapon as a standard action and cast a touch spell at the same time without provoking an AoO. Why can you not simply accept that a punch or a natural weapon attack takes exactly the same amount of effort as a touch attack and let that be an option that players and NPCs can choose to use?

Also, in the Harm-casting dragon instance, a dragon can just Improved Overrun, Wing-Over or Crush to confirm the touch, so being able to natural attack as part of the spell is not really that much of a difference. The problem comes from the fact that harm is too damn powerful. It can also just improved grab and then channel quickened and regular harms into you without a touch attack at all.

Also, what about the instance of a rust monster? Does a touch SLA cast by a rust monster deal a rusting strike because its best method of delivering a touch is with it's antennae, which just happens to be a natural weapon that is a touch attack? Can the rust monster not deal a touch attack now because it's only touch attack option is a natural weapon?

BobTheDog
2010-06-27, 07:52 PM
But by that definition then you couldn't actually make an unarmed or natural attack. You would be disallowed by the text. You could make ANY other melee attack that could confirm touch, but an unarmed strike or natural attack would not be allowed because you aren't "holding the charge." By the wording, your unarmed strike and natural attack are unallowed because having a touch spell chaged but not "held" prohibits you from using those attack modes until you reach the next round.

Yup. A strict reading of Holding the Charge means you cannot quicken a touch and then natural attack. I would wager that most DMs wouldn't enforce that.


In reality, you should just house rule that you can you can punch someone. There is no less effort involved. The touch attack is still just an attack with your touch weapon. It's not functionally any different than you punch, you are still jabbing and feinting (as per the description of an attack) with your glowing magical hand, tentacle, manipulator, probiscis, or genitals (what have you) There really isn't any reason why a colossal creature would choose to use the same effort in gently touching someone as opposed to just stamping on them with their claws. At some point you have to abandon the direct wording of the rules to conform to the context of a situation.

Your logic only makes sense if you assume that every time you move in combat it takes an action (let's call this "NWN round", where you swing your sword then spend 6 seconds staring at your enemy) and not "a series of feints, dodges, parries and near-misses" or whatever the actual text of the book says is what a combat round actually looks like. The creature is not "trying to gently touch you", but after casting a spell (which should take some 2 or 3 seconds of their time), it couldn't manage to actually bite/slash/tailslap your head off with necromantic energy, but it did brush its teeth/claws/butt on your face and the spell hit you.


Also, there are a large selection of class abilities that support this. The previously mentioned Enlightened Fist and the Arcane Channeling power of the Duskblade. The Duskblade is allowed to make a melee attack with their weapon as a standard action and cast a touch spell at the same time without provoking an AoO. Why can you not simply accept that a punch or a natural weapon attack takes exactly the same amount of effort as a touch attack and let that be an option that players and NPCs can choose to use?

I really don't see how "several classes have specific abilities that to something similar or better than what I'm defending, therefore what I'm defending should work for everybody". A monk/wizard (or anyone with IUS/stunning fist) can cast a spell and punch someone in the same round (even stunning them, with the other monk feat). Most characters cannot.


Also, in the Harm-casting dragon instance, a dragon can just Improved Overrun, Wing-Over or Crush to confirm the touch, so being able to natural attack as part of the spell is not really that much of a difference. The problem comes from the fact that harm is too damn powerful. It can also just improved grab and then channel quickened and regular harms into you without a touch attack at all.

The dragon can do anything to confirm the touch, if it has actions to do so. The problem is not the fact that the dragon can cast harm, then sit on you next round. It's casting harm and sitting on you EVERY turn. There ceases to be a choice (does the dragon move and attack, or cast a touch spell? oh, wait! let's do both!). All your ideas are valid (and evil DM techniques, too), but they require setting up. First, the dragon sits on you, then it harms your face off OR it first covers itself in dark flames of harmfulness, then sits on you.


Also, what about the instance of a rust monster? Does a touch SLA cast by a rust monster deal a rusting strike because its best method of delivering a touch is with it's antennae, which just happens to be a natural weapon that is a touch attack? Can the rust monster not deal a touch attack now because it's only touch attack option is a natural weapon?

A rust monster can cast its touch-attack SLA and use a "regular" touch on the same round. The next round, it can use rusting touch to apply the SLA touch, if it's still on. Same with a lich, or ghosts, or any other creature with "basic" touch attacks. At least, that's my ruling of it (and the ruling I've seen used by other DMs). I'll admit that the rules are unclear as to whether a "natural touch attack" can be used for a "free touch attack". I can see where touch attack = touch attack, even if one of them has "extra" power.

candycorn
2010-06-27, 08:29 PM
There's absolutely no reason why a monster would choose to touch you instead of taking a claw swipe. In fact, it would take more effort to touch someone rather than punch them or swing a claw at them. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. The rule never says that you MUST make a touch attack. It merely states that a touch is required to discharge the spell. There absolutely no reason why you can't choose to make a regular melee attack to discharge the touch spell.
I'm not arguing what is easier or harder. The monster does not get the choice you present. If the monster casts a touch spell, then it gets a touch attack. There is nothing.... NOTHING... that you have presented that shows an example of an actual RULE that says otherwise.

Your justifications are fine for a houserule. But the rules say different, and you haven't been able to show a single scrap of actual rules text to justify your position. Please. PLEASE. Show me any piece of 3.5 official information showing that what you suggest is allowed. That what you believe is more than just your personal opinion.

I've spent hours drawing together text, and citing sources. If you're not going to give any rules, and you're just going to say that all those rules that I've shown are wrong?

I find THAT ridiculous. Take that for what it's worth.


Plus, you still never responded to my first question. What about quickened spells? Do I get to use an unarmed strike after I miss my first chance to confirm touch on a quickened spell? According to your rules, I'm not "holding the charge" so I can't.Yes, you can.


To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later."
Although an unarmed strike does not qualify as a touch attack, it DOES qualify as touching the target. The spell allows for touching the target in the same round, although it doesn't call it "Holding a charge" until after that round ends.

And it's not "according to MY rules". Every rule I've cited is from a WOTC source that is 3.5 legal. It's according to THE rules.


Of course, I could simply make an overrun or bullrush, and that would accidentally discharge the spell, but I EXPLICITLY can't make a natural attack or unarmed strike because I'm not "holding the charge."No, you explicitly can't use the TOUCH attack that you get whenever you cast a touch range spell to deliver a natural attack or an unarmed strike. If you get another action from another source, and you take one that would touch the target, you can deliver the spell that way. It's just not "Holding a Charge".


If you can't see why this makes no sense, I don't know what to tell you.
Here's a big, BIG flaw in your argument.

You're very caught up in "makes sense", and much less so on what the rules actually read.

Rules:
When you cast a touch spell, you may attempt to touch the target for free.
When you cast a touch spell and touch a target, you deliver the spell.
When you cast a touch spell, the touch that you get for free follows the rules for touch attacks laid out in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell), under touch spells.
If you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you are allowed to make an Unarmed Strike when delivering a Touch spell (per Complete Arcane, p. 73).
If you don't discharge the spell in the round you cast it, you can hold the charge.

Now, your task:
Show me a 3.5 rule that shows that you can use the free touch that you get when you successfully cast a touch spell, to deliver an unarmed strike or natural attack, without the benefit of a special feat that allows it.

In other words, I'd like you to find a single rule that supports your position, or concede that your point does not have any support, by the rules of the game.

EDIT: And no, FYI, I am not "dodging questions", so I would appreciate if you not accuse me of it. I am answering questions after researching them. If it takes longer for me to look up and ponder rules and reply than you would like, I'm truly sorry. All I can ask is that you show me a little patience, and know that when I DO answer a question you pose, it will be after I have read, thought about, and applied the rules as best as I possibly can.

Hague
2010-06-28, 12:09 AM
I shouldn't have to explain it any further. You've already basically clarified it. If Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to deliver the touch from a touch spell as you've stated it does, then you absolutely can use a non-improved Unarmed Strike to cast and deliver a touch spell. Again, the text in Complete Arcane doesn't add anything to the text of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. It clarifies what it can do. If you can agree that an Improved Unarmed Strike applies, then a basic unarmed strike applies as well but with all the penalties associated with doing so. Complete Arcane does not change the effect of the feat and by clarifying that, retroactively allows unarmed strikes as a touch attack to while casting a touch spell. You've already made my point and conceded it. Earlier you agreed that it was a clarification. But since the heading is "Eligible Feats" and "Plain Ol' Unarmed Strike" is not a feat, it didn't get a heading in Complete Arcane to head off this stupid argument in the first place. If you believe the text of Complete Arcane allows people with Improved Unarmed Strike to cast and deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike then you should believe that not having Improved Unarmed Strike would allow you to cast and deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike with the penalties normally associated with it.

The text for Improved Unarmed Strike lays out what it does, which is that it makes your unarmed strike lethal and makes it not provoke an AoO. Since Improved Unarmed Strike is inextricably linked to the unarmed strike action, and the text of Improved Unarmed Strike mentions nothing about touch spells, then Complete Arcane's text allows ANY unarmed strike as part of a touch spell. The text in Complete Arcane clarifies how feats apply to touch spells. I'll repeat it: The text in Complete Arcane clarifies how feats apply to touch spells. It does not add any text to those feats. An unarmed strike can be applied to casting a touch spell because an improved unarmed strike is an "unarmed strike" not an "improved unarmed strike." It is not a separate weapon, it is not a new kind of attack, it is a feat that adds or changes conditions of the unarmed strike.

EDIT: Allow me to quote the text of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat


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. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal

Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Special

A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Note the lack of mention for touch spells.

And here's our Complete Arcane Quote:


The following feats can be chosen to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat (for full details on each feat, see Chapter 5 of the Player’s Handbook).
...
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.

Note that it mentions nothing of adding this text to the feat, but clarifies how the original feat text applies to touch spells. This text applies so ANY unarmed strike can be used this way. That is it, and I am DONE with this argument. You can see it however you want, you can keep looking at the tunnel painted on the wall and tell me how real it is, but you've already conceded my point. If you can't see how this applies to unarmed strikes then you are incapable of thinking retroactively.

candycorn
2010-06-28, 06:31 AM
I shouldn't have to explain it any further. You've already basically clarified it. If Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to deliver the touch from a touch spell as you've stated it does, then you absolutely can use a non-improved Unarmed Strike to cast and deliver a touch spell.This is totally unsupported by any actual rules text.

Again, the text in Complete Arcane doesn't add anything to the text of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. It clarifies what it can do.Both statements are true. It doesn't add anything to the text of the feat. Just as Magic of Incarnum doesn't add anything to the text of the Spellcraft feat. It still allows you to do more things with it.

If you can agree that an Improved Unarmed Strike applies, then a basic unarmed strike applies as well but with all the penalties associated with doing so.This, also, is not supported by rules text, and is pretty much explicitly contradicted in multiple places.

Complete Arcane does not change the effect of the feat and by clarifying that, retroactively allows unarmed strikes as a touch attack to while casting a touch spell.This here is where you deviate from RAW in a big way. It doesn't change the listed text of the feat. That doesn't mean it didn't add to how the feat works. That means the effect can change.

You've already made my point and conceded it.I have not conceded ANYTHING. Argue your point all you want, but I've asked you before to not tell me I am doing things that I am not.

Earlier you agreed that it was a clarification.
Earlier I didn't contest the point, since I thought it through, and the end result is the same either way.

But since the heading is "Eligible Feats" and "Plain Ol' Unarmed Strike" is not a feat, it didn't get a heading in Complete Arcane to head off this stupid argument in the first place. If you believe the text of Complete Arcane allows people with Improved Unarmed Strike to cast and deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike then you should believe that not having Improved Unarmed Strike would allow you to cast and deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike with the penalties normally associated with it.And yet, I don't believe that abilities that are granted to characters that HAVE a feat apply to characters that DO NOT have that feat.

Here's the gaping flaw in your argument. If Complete Arcane is a clarification only, then it cannot change any rules text. Note that the text in the area on delivering touches wasn't changed either.

That text is spoilered here:In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also [attempt to] touch the target...

...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.

Then it does this, later, under holding a charge:You can continue to make touch attacks round after round...
...Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge.
So you can make touch attacks... and ALTERATIVELY, you may make unarmed attacks or attacks with natural weapons.

What's that mean? That when it says you may do this OR INSTEAD you may do that?

That this is not that.

The text for Improved Unarmed Strike lays out what it does, which is that it makes your unarmed strike lethal and makes it not provoke an AoO. Since Improved Unarmed Strike is inextricably linked to the unarmed strike action, and the text of Improved Unarmed Strike mentions nothing about touch spells, then Complete Arcane's text allows ANY unarmed strike as part of a touch spell.Absolutely correct, with just one stipulation. That text applies only to possessors of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. If you do not have that feat, it does not apply to you.

The text in Complete Arcane clarifies how feats apply to touch spells. I'll repeat it: The text in Complete Arcane clarifies how feats apply to touch spells. It does not add any text to those feats.Show me in the SRD where spellcraft can be used to identify soulmelds. Just because the text isn't changed doesn't mean they can't give something a new function.

Further, the text in Complete Arcane does NOT say that it's a "clarification" only. Nowhere in that chapter. Could you show me why these aren't really rules, and they only "kinda rules"?


An unarmed strike can be applied to casting a touch spell because an improved unarmed strike is an "unarmed strike" not an "improved unarmed strike."No, it is an unarmed strike delivered by a character with the improved unarmed strike feat. Since Complete Arcane was kind enough to CLARIFY that characters with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deliver a touch spell with an Unarmed Strike, then we know we can.

What does Complete Arcane say about characters without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat? Nothing.

It is not a separate weapon, it is not a new kind of attack, it is a feat that adds or changes conditions of the unarmed strike.One of those conditions being "able to deliver touch spells".

Note the lack of mention for touch spells.Correct. That is addressed in Complete Arcane.

And here's our Complete Arcane Quote:

Note that it mentions nothing of adding this text to the feat, but clarifies how the original feat text applies to touch spells.No. It does not add the text to the original feat. It does let us know that people WITH THAT FEAT can make unarmed strikes to deliver touch attacks.

This text applies so ANY unarmed strike can be used this way.Correct. Any unarmed strike made by a character with improved unarmed strike.

That is it, and I am DONE with this argument.I am truly sorry to see you give up the search for truth before finding it.

You can see it however you want, you can keep looking at the tunnel painted on the wall and tell me how real it is, but you've already conceded my point.No, no I haven't. I've cited source after source, and rule after rule. Here's what you haven't done:
(1) Shown anything to support Complete Arcane is a "clarification" only.
(2) Shown any rule that shows that unarmed strikes are allowed with the free touch attempt granted when you cast a touch spell.

As for the tunnel on the wall?

Without any text to support your position directly, you're using what you consider to be clarification text on a specific feat, without the power to alter or affect rules, to justify a broad fundamental ruling on the basis of the game... Concerning something the text doesn't even clarify!

If you can't see how this applies to unarmed strikes then you are incapable of thinking retroactively.
And I am VERY offended by this. You can begin your next post with an apology, or you can expect to spend a lot of time on my ignore list.

The statement that if I don't agree with your view, I'm not capable of thinking correctly is completely uncalled for. You can disagree with my point all you want, but if you think that insulting the intelligence of others is proper etiquette, than you can do it to another audience, because I'm not going to read it.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-28, 07:06 AM
This is totally unsupported by any actual rules text. Well, that's not at all true. I quoted from the longer version of the "ELIGIBLE FEATS" section in Tome and Blood. Here it is again for you:
Improved Unarmed Strike: You can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell and are considered to be armed. You make a normal melee attack (the defender gets the full benefit of armor and shield). If the attack hits, the unarmed strike deals its normal damage and the spell is discharged against the defender. Only the unarmed strike can inflict a critical hit.
A character without this feat also could deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but doing so would provoke an attack of opportunity from the target, and the unarmed strike would deal subdual damage.
You want to disregard this as no longer being relevant, but the rules say otherwise:
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments. (In this case the minor adjustment required is to swap the 3.0 term "subdual" for the 3.5 term "nonlethal.")

Also note the Primary Sources Errata rule:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Since this older material does not in any way disagree with the 3.5 rules in either the primary source (Player's Handbook) or Complete Arcane, the basic rule from page 4 of the DMG holds: this older Tome and Blood material is compatible with D&D 3.5 rules.

Just as Magic of Incarnum doesn't add anything to the text of the Spellcraft feat. It still allows you to do more things with it.
There is no Spellcraft feat, and there never has been. Spellcraft is a skill, and new supplements frequently find new skill uses. There is no change to how any existing feat operates in MoI.

candycorn
2010-06-28, 07:24 AM
Well, that's not at all true. I quoted from the longer version of the "ELIGIBLE FEATS" section in Tome and Blood. Here it is again for you:
You want to disregard this as no longer being relevant, but the rules say otherwise: (In this case the minor adjustment required is to swap the 3.0 term "subdual" for the 3.5 term "nonlethal.")As well as remove the following text:
A character without this feat also could deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but doing so would provoke an attack of opportunity from the target, and the unarmed strike would deal subdual damage.Why? Because that rules text was updated in Complete Arcane.

We don't use the old version of Power Attack, do we? Then why use the 3.0 version of a rule that was updated to 3.5?

It is not legal. When text has been reprinted, and portions are omitted, that is an UPDATE. If anything, this argues my point more strongly.... Why? Because when they updated, they copied the text almost word for word, and REMOVED that in the 3.5 printing.

So perhaps I should clarify.

It was totally unsupported by valid existing rules text.

Also note the Primary Sources Errata rule: Since this older material does not in any way disagree with the 3.5 rules in either the primary source (Player's Handbook) or Complete Arcane, the basic rule from page 4 of the DMG holds: this older Tome and Blood material is compatible with D&D 3.5 rules.
Except that it has been updated. The updated text of that ability does not include the text to specify. It's removal was an update from 3.0 to 3.5.


There is no Spellcraft feat, and there never has been. Spellcraft is a skill, and new supplements frequently find new skill uses. There is no change to how any existing feat operates in MoI.So what you're saying is that there is precedent for a non-core book to provide a new use for core abilities, without actually changing the text of those abilities in core?

That was my point. Complete Arcane is NOT a clarification. The entire justification for that was that it didn't change the text of the feat. But we've shown that the people who make the rules have seen fit to add new abilities to increase the functionality of things in core, and did not see fit to reprint the core material. This adds a new ability to Improved Unarmed Strike. It is not a clarification. It does not say it is, and the entire justification was based on a logical premise that you just stated that the writers violated when they wrote the spellcraft skill update for MoI.

And yes, I meant the spellcraft skill. I made a minor typo because I was somewhat irritated.

Hague
2010-06-28, 09:27 AM
That's where you're wrong. It doesn't add a new ability. It tells you "Hey. That ability has been there all along." That's what I mean about you not being able to think retroactively. You're so stuck on this whole "well the rule already said this." But when you are confronted with rules that state to the contrary like Complete Arcane or Tome and Blood, you immediately backpedal, saying "It was a clarification" and now "It's not a clarification." The fact is, that the text doesn't change how improved Unarmed Strike functions. It doesn't change unarmed strike either. If at any point I can make an improved unarmed strike, I can make a regular unarmed strike because there is no difference between the two with relative ease of use in the action. An unarmed strike is an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. You tell me where in the rules the words "improved unarmed strike" are used to actually define an action that is different than an "unarmed strike?" That is to say a wording like "A character can make an improved unarmed strike." or of a similar vein. I guarantee you won't find it.

A character with improved unarmed strike can make an unarmed strike with the advantages laid forth. A character with Power Attack doesn't make "power attacks" he makes attacks altered by Power Attack. A person using unarmed strike doesn't make "improved unarmed strikes" he makes "unarmed strikes" The action never changes. Would you argue that you couldn't use weapon finesse or power attack with touch spells before Complete Arcane? No, you wouldn't, because those are logically easy to define. If you can make an unarmed strike, you can make ANY unarmed strike. Fact.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 09:38 AM
Except that it has been updated. The updated text of that ability does not include the text to specify. It's removal was an update from 3.0 to 3.5.Or, you know, they didn't feel the need to repeat all the bits from previous texts that were still valid, only to print the clarifications of things that were either modified or originally intended and not made clear.

Scipio
2010-06-28, 09:46 AM
I agree with Candycorn on this. If the text is updated from T&B to CArc, then you should use the CArc text. The CArc text states that if you have IUS, then you can discharge a touch spell through the unarmed strike. There is no specific text in the 3.5 update that allows you to discharge a touch spell with an unarmed strike if you do not have the feat. An unarmed strike is modified by the feat IUS. An option specific to the feat does not carry over to applications of unarmed strike without the feat.

Hague
2010-06-28, 09:46 AM
^
|
|
This (Amphetryon)

It should be self-evident. The rules never say you CAN eat food, they imply you should, and that you'd starve if you didn't but they never lay out the rules for the "Eat Food" action. Ergo, you can't eat food.

Scipio
2010-06-28, 10:02 AM
Or, you know, they didn't feel the need to repeat all the bits from previous texts that were still valid, only to print the clarifications of things that were either modified or originally intended and not made clear.

If they are going to the trouble to update a specific application of an ability, and they leave out (change) portions of it, then in my opinion the updated version is the correct one. If they had not addressed IUS (as it applies to touch spells) in CArc, then I would agree that T&B has the correct description.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 10:12 AM
If they are going to the trouble to update a specific application of an ability, and they leave out (change) portions of it, then in my opinion the updated version is the correct one. If they had not addressed IUS (as it applies to touch spells) in CArc, then I would agree that T&B has the correct description.

'Leave out' does not necessarily mean 'change', unless you have a specific citation indicating that change was the intent behind leaving something out.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-28, 10:20 AM
Why? Because that rules text was updated in Complete Arcane.

We don't use the old version of Power Attack, do we? Then why use the 3.0 version of a rule that was updated to 3.5?

It is not legal. When text has been reprinted, and portions are omitted, that is an UPDATE. If anything, this argues my point more strongly.... Why? Because when they updated, they copied the text almost word for word, and REMOVED that in the 3.5 printing.
So your thesis then amounts to the following:

For the first 1½ years after the 3.5 update of D&D the rule was that you could deliver a spell charge in the casting round with an unarmed attack, without needing Improved Unarmed Strike. No feats were actually necessary to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat as described under "ELIGIBLE FEATS", because the rule in Tome and Blood was still valid as per DMG page 4.
When they reprinted a slightly shorter version of the Tome and Blood "ELIGIBLE FEATS" text in Complete Arcane, the removal of a couple of paragraphs completely changed the intent, and now having these feats is mandatory to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat -- even though the rules text doesn't make that claim anywhere.

candycorn
2010-06-28, 10:24 AM
That's where you're wrong. It doesn't add a new ability. It tells you "Hey. That ability has been there all along." That's what I mean about you not being able to think retroactively. You're so stuck on this whole "well the rule already said this." But when you are confronted with rules that state to the contrary like Complete Arcane or Tome and Blood, you immediately backpedal, saying "It was a clarification" and now "It's not a clarification." The fact is, that the text doesn't change how improved Unarmed Strike functions. It doesn't change unarmed strike either. If at any point I can make an improved unarmed strike, I can make a regular unarmed strike because there is no difference between the two with relative ease of use in the action. An unarmed strike is an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. You tell me where in the rules the words "improved unarmed strike" are used to actually define an action that is different than an "unarmed strike?" That is to say a wording like "A character can make an improved unarmed strike." or of a similar vein. I guarantee you won't find it.

A character with improved unarmed strike can make an unarmed strike with the advantages laid forth. A character with Power Attack doesn't make "power attacks" he makes attacks altered by Power Attack. A person using unarmed strike doesn't make "improved unarmed strikes" he makes "unarmed strikes" The action never changes. Would you argue that you couldn't use weapon finesse or power attack with touch spells before Complete Arcane? No, you wouldn't, because those are logically easy to define. If you can make an unarmed strike, you can make ANY unarmed strike. Fact.
This did not contain an apology... In fact, you repeated the insult. Welcome to my ignore list.


Or, you know, they didn't feel the need to repeat all the bits from previous texts that were still valid, only to print the clarifications of things that were either modified or originally intended and not made clear.
Except that the part they left out includes parts that would need to be updated (subdual to nonlethal), and the part they KEPT does not.

Oh, and also, both are pretty darn clear in their meaning.

This isn't "it was there all along". There is nothing in Complete Arcane to indicate or suggest that. Anyone saying that is calling an unsupported opinion a fact.

Here are the facts:

"Ease of Use" has ZERO relevance to D&D RAW. It doesn't matter what's easier or harder. By the rules, it's equally easy to make a melee attack with a greatsword as it is to do it with a club. Both take a standard action to do.

That doesn't mean that someone without the proficiency can wield a greatsword without the penalty.

Even on that line of reasoning, having Improved Unarmed Strike represents that you are BETTER at making attacks with unarmed strikes. There are fundamental differences.

For example:

With IUS: Lethal Damage or nonlethal.
Without: Nonlethal, or Lethal with a -4 penalty.

Do they look equally easy to use? Nope. Looks like you're 20% more likely to miss without, and you might take a punch in the face to boot.

No, with IUS, you just make it look easy.

The bottom line: All these arguments about "but they're equally easy to use" and "but it doesn't make sense" are valid arguments for how you think they should work. They are completely wrong for how the Rules say that they DO work.


So your thesis then amounts to the following:

For the first 1½ years after the 3.5 update of D&D the rule was that you could deliver a spell charge in the casting round with an unarmed attack, without needing Improved Unarmed Strike. No feats were actually necessary to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat as described under "ELIGIBLE FEATS", because the rule in Tome and Blood was still valid as per DMG page 4.
When they reprinted a slightly shorter version of the Tome and Blood "ELIGIBLE FEATS" text in Complete Arcane, the removal of a couple of paragraphs completely changed the intent, and now having these feats is mandatory to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat -- even though the rules text doesn't make that claim anywhere.

Yes, with a caveat. After all, isn't that just about exactly what they did with power attack? The rules CHANGED with the release of 3.5. Some changes were minor. Some abilities were added. Some were removed. This was one that was removed.

The rules text DOES make that claim.


Benefit

What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
Now, with this, it shows that Feats let you do things. Without that feat, you cannot do things.

The section in Complete Arcane says:
The following feats can be chosen to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat...
...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.
This says that when you choose this feat, you enhance the performance of your Touch spells by allowing you to deliver the spell as a regular melee attack.

So this feat ENHANCES your ability in that way.

The old ToB version explicitly says that you're considered armed, and that if you try it without, you provoke. Every instance of AoO's, and being considered armed was REMOVED from the updated version, along with the secondary text allowing someone without the feat to do it. And that was pretty much all that was removed.

In other words, every scrap of information that supports the view that you can do it without the feat was yanked out, and everything else was untouched. Are you telling me that is coincidence?

Now? The enhancement isn't that you don't provoke. The enhancement is that you can do it at all.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 10:44 AM
The Complete Arcane supplement chose not to reprint many of the spells from previous sources, including - but not limited to - Tome of Blood and the PHb. Is it rational to read their omission as indicative that those spells are no longer valid for use in 3.5? Your argument about the omission of text updating the rules for Weapon-like spells would seem to indicate as much.

candycorn
2010-06-28, 10:51 AM
The Complete Arcane supplement chose not to reprint many of the spells from previous sources, including - but not limited to - Tome of Blood and the PHb. Is it rational to read their omission as indicative that those spells are no longer valid for use in 3.5? Your argument about the omission of text updating the rules for Weapon-like spells would seem to indicate as much.

Incorrect.

If, however, they took a spell in Tome and Blood that was :

Level 2, and did 1d6 damage per caster level (Max 10d6) and stunned you for 1 round. Reflex halves the damage and negates the stun....

And they reprinted it, but removed any reference to a Stun effect?

Then the new spell doesn't stun. Because they reprinted the rule (the spell), and removed a portion from that rule.

In this case, they reprinted the rule (Improved unarmed strike and touch attacks) and removed a portion from that rule (being considered armed, being able to make an unarmed strike without the feat).

That means that, when they reprinted the rule, any additions, alterations, or deletions have the force of D&D law.

In other words, if they left that entire passage on IUS out of Complete Arcane, Curmudgeon would be absolutely correct. Simply by including it, Everything in it overwrites the previous version.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-28, 10:56 AM
The section in Complete Arcane says:
The section in Tome and Blood says the same thing:
Eligible Feats
The following feats can be chosen to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat. And yet it also notes that no feat is necessary to deliver a spell charge with an unarmed attack.

This says that when you choose this feat, you enhance the performance of your Touch spells by allowing you to deliver the spell as a regular melee attack. No, it doesn't say that; there is no "by" or "allowing you", or other words expressing that link. The "ELIGIBLE FEATS" text says that various feats can enhance the performance of weaponlike spells, and that if you have Improved Unarmed Strike you can deliver a spell charge with an unarmed strike as a regular melee attack. There is no causality in the text; i.e., nothing saying that the enhancements to weaponlike spell use are from the "ELIGIBLE FEATS" text and not from the feats themselves. Your conclusion is a post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) logical fallacy.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 10:59 AM
Incorrect.Saying it's so does not make it so. Can you explain why it is incorrect?

candycorn
2010-06-28, 12:38 PM
The section in Tome and Blood says the same thing: And yet it also notes that no feat is necessary to deliver a spell charge with an unarmed attack.And before Complete Arcane was reprinted, that was absolutely true.


No, it doesn't say that; there is no "by" or "allowing you", or other words expressing that link. The "ELIGIBLE FEATS" text says that various feats can enhance the performance of weaponlike spells, and that if you have Improved Unarmed Strike you can deliver a spell charge with an unarmed strike as a regular melee attack. There is no causality in the text; i.e., nothing saying that the enhancements to weaponlike spell use are from the "ELIGIBLE FEATS" text and not from the feats themselves. Your conclusion is a post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) logical fallacy.
The earlier version had this. The current version had it, and all references to it, expunged.

Therefore, the earlier version had it, and the current version does not.

Now, my claim is that one of the following is true.
(1) The text in Improved Unarmed Strike has an interpretation allowing possessors of Improved Unarmed strike to have the ability to deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike, in the round it was cast. This would also have to be an enhancement from the standard (to comply with all text from Complete Arcane), so the standard would need to NOT allow it under this interpretation.

OR:

(2) The text from Complete Arcane allows it, as an additional application of the feat.

Now, for (1) to be true, there must be an interpretation that allows one of the following to grant that ability:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed...
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
So, is there an interpretation of the rules that allows for Armed attacks to deliver a touch attack where unarmed cannot?

If not, then (2) must be true.
If so, then without IUS, you still can't.

Regardless, this must be an ENHANCEMENT of a character's capabilities. The text for Improved Unarmed Strike in Complete Arcane (p.73), for the text of Complete Arcane (p.72) to be true, must represent an improvement of a character's performance with the feat, as opposed to without it.

The only ability it mentions is the ability to deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike.

Therefore, that ability must be the enhancement.

This means, that regardless of whether (1) or (2) is true, if you do not have the feat, you CANNOT deliver one in such a manner without the feat.

But a Character with IUS must have that enhancement over one without.
*****
It occurred to me that you might be implying that "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," does not refer to the actual enhancement gained.

In that stretch of logic, then all characters get a +1 to hit with attack and damage rolls on ranged spells within 30 feet (not just characters with the Point Blank Shot feat). All characters can deliver ranged spells into melee without a -4 penalty (rather than only characters with precise shot). All characters that hit with an unarmed strike may stun targets that fail Fort saves (not just ones that have Stunning Fist).

There are imbalances. For example: If you have stunning fist, every time you deliver a touch spell via an unarmed strike, you add a stun effect to it, and that stun effect does not expend uses of your stunning fist feat, and it's automatic.
When you use your unarmed strike to deliver a
touch spell with a successful melee attack (as described in Improved Unarmed Strike, above), you also stun any target that fails a Fortitude save...

But this isn't one of them.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 03:01 PM
Let's try another tactic.

Cure Light Wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/curelightwounds.htm) is a Touch spell. In which round does it start to heal the intended recipient? The round it is cast, or the next round? If it's the same round that it's cast, then you can touch someone and deliver a Touch spell in the same round. If it's the next round, I've missed a citation for this somewhere and would appreciate clarification.

As noted in the link, Cure Light Wounds is also able to harm Undead or those who are powered by Negative Energy. In which round does it start to harm the intended recipient? The round it is cast, or the next round? If it's the next round, why? In particular, if the argument is that a single spell can be used to cure a person in the round it is cast or do equivalent damage to someone else but only the round after it is cast, where and why is this distinction made in the rules, please?

candycorn
2010-06-28, 03:12 PM
Let's try another tactic.

Cure Light Wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/curelightwounds.htm) is a Touch spell. In which round does it start to heal the intended recipient? The round it is cast, or the next round? If it's the same round that it's cast, then you can touch someone and deliver a Touch spell in the same round. If it's the next round, I've missed a citation for this somewhere and would appreciate clarification.

As noted in the link, Cure Light Wounds is also able to harm Undead or those who are powered by Negative Energy. In which round does it start to harm the intended recipient? The round it is cast, or the next round? If it's the next round, why? In particular, if the argument is that a single spell can be used to cure a person in the round it is cast or do equivalent damage to someone else but only the round after it is cast, where and why is this distinction made in the rules, please?

That's not what I'm saying.

The rules allow for you to cast a touch spell and TOUCH someone (or attempt to) in the same round. Thus, you can cast a Cure Light wounds and touch an ally, or touch an undead.

The rules do not allow for you to cast a touch spell and use that Touch to deliver an unarmed strike, or a natural attack. If you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you are allowed to deliver it with an unarmed strike. Thus, you cannot cast a Cure Light Wounds and deliver it to an undead via a bite attack with the free touch.

In later rounds, you can deliver via touch attack, unarmed strike, or natural attack, as you choose. You spend the action for doing this, and all is well.

But the free touch attack you get whenever you cast a touch spell may only be used for a touch, barring explicit legal rules text to the contrary (which has not been given).

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 03:15 PM
In particular, if the argument is that a single spell can be used to cure a person in the round it is cast or do equivalent damage to someone else but only the round after it is cast, where and why is this distinction made in the rules, please?Perhaps your eyes glazed over by the end of my last post....

candycorn
2010-06-28, 04:00 PM
Perhaps your eyes glazed over by the end of my last post....

No. You're making up a distinction that doesn't exist.

I can cast Inflict Light Wounds and make a touch attack in the same round.
I can cast Cure Light Wounds and make a touch attack in the same round.

I cannot cast either and use the free touch to deliver it with a bite attack.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 04:23 PM
But, suddenly, if I have IUS, I can't? Because I invested a Feat to be better with my bare hands?

EDIT: Because, if not,:

You're making up a distinction that doesn't exist.

And if so, please show me where it says that IUS removes the ability to deliver a touch attack in the same round in which I cast a spell with a range of Touch.

candycorn
2010-06-28, 04:25 PM
If you have IUS, you CAN deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike. You can also do it with a touch attack.

Are you intentionally implying that I am arguing the exact opposite of every point I've made? Because I never said ANYTHING like what you just said.

Amphetryon
2010-06-28, 04:27 PM
If I have a Bite attack, then my attack is treated as lethal.

If I have IUS, then my attack is treated as lethal.

Both are natural attacks.

Why is one allowed to deliver a touch spell, when the other is not?

candycorn
2010-06-28, 04:30 PM
If I have a Bite attack, then my attack is treated as lethal.

If I have IUS, then my attack is treated as lethal.

Both are natural attacks.

Why is one allowed to deliver a touch spell, when the other is not?

Because Complete Arcane states that if you have IUS, you may deliver a Touch Spell with an unarmed strike.

No such text exists, to my knowledge, for natural attacks.

That's it, no more, no less. Because the rules say you can for one, and they do not say you can with the other.

Hague
2010-06-28, 04:58 PM
In the real world, where Rule 0 exists, we don't have arbitrary rules distinctions like this because doing so would cause the game to devolve into this same argument. Some people can have cake and then complain that it's not worse than they thought it was. There's absolutely no logical or realistic reason that the rules should function the way candycorn says they should.

She probably also believes that since the word 'curse' isn't strictly defined that Break Enchantment can't reverse curses. Or that you do X action because there isn't a huge codified glossary of actions for the game. Is scratching my ass a simple action? Can I scratch my ass as part of a touch spell? Obviously not, because the combat text says I can't.

BobTheDog
2010-06-28, 05:14 PM
In the real world, where Rule 0 exists, we don't have arbitrary rules distinctions like this because doing so would cause the game to devolve into this same argument. Some people can have cake and then complain that it's not worse than they thought it was. There's absolutely no logical or realistic reason that the rules should function the way candycorn says they should.

She probably also believes that since the word 'curse' isn't strictly defined that Break Enchantment can't reverse curses. Or that you do X action because there isn't a huge codified glossary of actions for the game. Is scratching my ass a simple action? Can I scratch my ass as part of a touch spell? Obviously not, because the combat text says I can't.

Indeed, there is no way to give a realistic reason why a magic spell needs to be applied with a touch and not a punch, in a game.

All we can do is try (fruitlessly) to explain how the basic rules of the game work.

Hague
2010-06-28, 05:53 PM
Fruitlessly? Did you fail to explain anything? Seems like you did. I know very clearly where you stand on the issue, and you, me. There are plenty of valid arguments on both sides of this debate. I, however, am not choosing to ignore my biggest detractor. You won't be able to change my mind, however, because I have evidence and rules citations, and plenty of agreement from other parties. Omission doesn't equate exception, and the omitted line from Tome and Blood was omitted because it should be self-explanatory that a touch and an unarmed strike are the same thing. An unarmed strike is an unarmed strike, is an unarmed strike. An unarmed strike could be a stunning, flaming, rusting, touch spell, trip attempt. But there's no issue there, if you have IUS. But if you don't oh well throw a huge fit over it because suddenly now unarmed strikes don't apply without the feat (because thinking retroactively is a sin when you've already committed yourself to the ridiculous side of the argument, I suspect)

We can't make the argument as to whether or not stunning fist would work without IUS, because it is a requirement for having Stunning Fist. Now do we need a direct statement from any other source to say that we can apply any of the alternate Stunning Fist-like feats to a touch spell? No. We don't. We've learned enough from the text in Complete Arcane to draw our own conclusions about how these things work. It's easy to think forward. But it's anathema to apply the reasoning retroactively to allow an unarmed strike as part of a touch spell? To me, that is critically flawed thinking, and is apparently very rude and insulting to point that out. Welcome to the Internet, me.

Oh, and thanks for quoting that, at least it won't be ignored.