Touch Attacks, Spells, and Unarmed Attacks.

[Elric VIII]

Just as an exercise in character design I am thinking about putting together a Cleric 5/Ordained Champion 5/Sacred Fist 10.

I am going to use the spontaneous caster variant, along with reserve feats like sickening touch.

I would like to know if some on the things that I would like to do are possible.

1.) Can you deliver a touch spell through an unarmed attack?

2.) If you can, do you have to cast the spell on one turn and attack the next or can you make the unarmed strike instead of making the melee touch attack?

3.) Is it worth it to take a level dip into Monk, or should I just use a Monk's Belt? If I take that dip and have superior unarmed strike do I use the higher damage, as based on my character's EL, or the monk level + 4?

4.)Unarmed strike is under the simple weapons category, does this mean the Insigtful Strike feat works on it?

5.)Any additional on-touch activation reserve feats or general suggestions to be applied to this character would be welcomed. I will probobly be LN, worshipping Hextor, taking the domains War, Wrath, and Pride.

[Curmudgeon]

1) Yes. You can deliver a touch spell with any mechanism that involves you touching your target. With a natural attack or unarmed strike you'll just have to hit the higher non-touch AC.

2) As soon as your body is charged with a touch spell you will discharge the spell when you touch a suitable target, even accidentally. The rules grant you an extra attack in the same round you cast a touch attack spell, and you can attempt to touch your target with any form of attack that would allow you to discharge the spell. Again, it's a tradeoff between an easier attack (touch AC) vs. more damage.

3) No, it's generally not worth dipping into another class unless it either provides a huge boost at 1st level or you've got a multiclassing feat that adds your levels together. There are plenty of magical ways of increasing unarmed damage, so those are better options. As far as Superior Unarmed Strike, it has different damage progressions depending on whether you've got Monk levels or not. You'll get the worst outcome from Superior Unarmed Strike and a single level of Monk, because you'll be stuck on the Monk progression and never advance. The best outcome from the feat is if you're a Small character without Monk levels, because that gives you the same unarmed damage schedule as a Monk of your size through level 19.

4) To my knowledge Insightful Strike isn't a feat; instead it's a Swashbuckler class ability. Unarmed strikes do qualify as light weapons.

5) Hextor is a poor choice if you're going to emphasize unarmed strikes, because Hextor's favored weapon is the light or heavy flail. Beltar (CE) and Zuoken (N) are deities that have both War domain and unarmed strike as favored weapon.

Edit: Also, while Hextor has War, he doesn't offer either Pride or Wrath. Competition, Destruction, Domination, Evil, Law, and Tyranny round out Hextor's portfolio.

[WarrenZig]

Thorough as always Mr. Curmudgeon, all i can add is that Insightful Strike is as you said not a feat, it's a class ability that swashbucklers have (Swordsages have Insightful Strikes, which is similar, but adds wisdom instead of int and only to a chosen discipline) and the feat he may be talking about is the homebrew Insightful Strike feat from Frank and K.

[Tvtyrant]

If your going touch attacks you should consider using a Duskblade. They have better mechanics for it.

[Elric VIII]

Thank you for the detailed responses Curmudgeon, just a few things:


1&2:great, just what I was hoping for.

3: I didn't clarify that well, but what I meant was that monk grants you 2 prerequisite feats, flurry of blows, and Wis to AC with a dip. I mostly wondered if the caster level loss was worth that.

4: Sorry about this, I mis-stated the feat. It's Intuitive Attack from BoED and it allows one to add Wis to attack instead of Str with simple weapons.

5: While my DM is often flexible about domains attatched to various dieties as long as they somewhat fit the diety's persona, the OC class itself requires me to worship Heironeous or Hextor. Realistically, I doubt he would have a problem with that, considering there are rules for adapting it for any church/diety. Where can I find the other two that you mentioned, btw?



If your going touch attacks you should consider using a Duskblade. They have better mechanics for it.
Well, I played a knowledge devotion duskblade in a one-shot, and although it was a nice class, it had way too little utility for my tastes. Thank you for the suggestion though.

[Adamantrue]

If I understand this correctly, you could deliver a Touch spell with a Grapple attempt (which inherently requires a Touch Attack)?

[JBento]

I *think* Curmudgeon is wrong, unless stuff was changed in the Rules Compendium. The attack granted by casting a Touch spell seems specifically meant for you to deliver said spell (see pg.140-141 of the PHB). If you want to mix it with another type of attack, you need to use the action for that attack.

EDIT: I am now sure Curmudgeon is wrong, barring Rules Compendium changes. Pages 141-142 of the PHB mention using a natural attack/other attacks to deliver the spell charge in the Holding the Charge section, which specifically states it must happen in a different round in which you cast the spell

[Elric VIII]

I *think* Curmudgeon is wrong, unless stuff was changed in the Rules Compendium. The attack granted by casting a Touch spell seems specifically meant for you to deliver said spell (see pg.140-141 of the PHB). If you want to mix it with another type of attack, you need to use the action for that attack.

EDIT: I am now sure Curmudgeon is wrong, barring Rules Compendium changes. Pages 141-142 of the PHB mention using a natural attack/other attacks to deliver the spell charge in the Holding the Charge section, which specifically states it must happen in a different round in which you cast the spell

That's a shame. I wonder, is there is a feat that allows unarmed attacks following spellcasting?

[CodeRed]

Well it's not unarmed but there is a feat in RoTD that gives you two Draconic Claws as a sorceror for 1d6 each at Medium size. Anytime you cast a spell it grants you an automatic claw attack that turn as a swift action.

Edit: Feat is Draconic Claw.

[dextercorvia]

I *think* Curmudgeon is wrong, unless stuff was changed in the Rules Compendium. The attack granted by casting a Touch spell seems specifically meant for you to deliver said spell (see pg.140-141 of the PHB). If you want to mix it with another type of attack, you need to use the action for that attack.

EDIT: I am now sure Curmudgeon is wrong, barring Rules Compendium changes. Pages 141-142 of the PHB mention using a natural attack/other attacks to deliver the spell charge in the Holding the Charge section, which specifically states it must happen in a different round in which you cast the spell

There was quite a debate about that several months back. It was passionately argued from both sides and the RAW is confusing enough that I was unpersuaded either way.

[true_shinken]

There was quite a debate about that several months back. It was passionately argued from both sides and the RAW is confusing enough that I was unpersuaded either way.
Weid, I remember Complete Arcane saying it can be done, clear and cut.

[JBento]

Just did a quick browse and couldn't find anything in what seemed like the most appropriate section - then again, WotC and formatting...

Do you a page quote/number?

[Dreadn4ught]

Maybe this is getting too complicated. Go ahead and ask your DM what he will allow (if he's not too strict on the rules). The DM's word is law.

[Elric VIII]

Based on true_shinken's statement I took a look at Comp Arcane and found this on page 73, regarding weaponlike spells and feats that apply:


"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."

Thank you very much for leading me in the right direction.

Just one last thing, are there any reserve feats beside those found in Comp Champion and Comp Mage?

[Greenish]

4: Sorry about this, I mis-stated the feat. It's Intuitive Attack from BoED and it allows one to add Wis to attack instead of Str with simple weapons.Intuitive Attack is usable with simple and natural weapons. Without going into debate about the nature of unarmed strike, I'd be really surprised if your DM didn't recognize it as either.

[Curmudgeon]

EDIT: I am now sure Curmudgeon is wrong, barring Rules Compendium changes. Pages 141-142 of the PHB mention using a natural attack/other attacks to deliver the spell charge in the Holding the Charge section, which specifically states it must happen in a different round in which you cast the spell

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. ... If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. ... Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. I'm afraid you're confused by the order in which they presented the rules. Yes, if you don't discharge the spell in the casting round, you continue to hold the charge. And when you're holding the charge you may make unarmed or natural attacks as well as touch attacks to try to deliver that spell. That's all clear.

However, you're holding the charge in your body from the moment you finish casting the spell; nothing there in the rules says otherwise. If you don't discharge the spell in the casting round you keep holding that charge.

Your confusion has led you to derive an extra rule which isn't actually stated. But you can't mysteriously go through the period between casting a touch attack spell and the end of that round without having your body charged by that spell, else you wouldn't be able to deliver the charge in the casting round.

Using normal unarmed or natural attacks (instead of touch attacks) is an option whenever your body is holding a spell charge, and that charge is there the moment you finish casting the spell. It follows all the normal rules in the casting round as well as later, and could be negated by someone with a Ready action to use Dispel Magic. (If the spell weren't being held in their body until the next round, it also couldn't be dispelled.)

Edit: While the clarification provided in Complete Arcane (and a longer version of the same in its 3.0 Tome and Blood predecessor) is welcome, it isn't actually necessary to interpret this rule correctly. I hope I've demonstrated that here.

[Elric VIII]

Edit: While the clarification provided in Complete Arcane (and a longer version of the same in its 3.0 Tome and Blood predecessor) is welcome, it isn't actually necessary to interpret this rule correctly. I hope I've demonstrated that here.

Thank you, it does seem to make sense that way and only requires rules found in core books. Just to think of it in a realistic sense (which rarely applies to D&D mechanics) it is not significantly harder to punch someone than it is to poke them, while holding your spell.

[dextercorvia]

Nope, I'm good now, too. I was actually trying to remember this discussion the other day for my unfinished IC Assassin build. My intention was to deliver death attack through touch range spells, but I didn't remember that bit about continuing to hold the charge.

[olentu]

I'm afraid you're confused by the order in which they presented the rules. Yes, if you don't discharge the spell in the casting round, you continue to hold the charge. And when you're holding the charge you may make unarmed or natural attacks as well as touch attacks to try to deliver that spell. That's all clear.

However, you're holding the charge in your body from the moment you finish casting the spell; nothing there in the rules says otherwise. If you don't discharge the spell in the casting round you keep holding that charge.

Your confusion has led you to derive an extra rule which isn't actually stated. But you can't mysteriously go through the period between casting a touch attack spell and the end of that round without having your body charged by that spell, else you wouldn't be able to deliver the charge in the casting round.

Using normal unarmed or natural attacks (instead of touch attacks) is an option whenever your body is holding a spell charge, and that charge is there the moment you finish casting the spell. It follows all the normal rules in the casting round as well as later, and could be negated by someone with a Ready action to use Dispel Magic. (If the spell weren't being held in their body until the next round, it also couldn't be dispelled.)

Edit: While the clarification provided in Complete Arcane (and a longer version of the same in its 3.0 Tome and Blood predecessor) is welcome, it isn't actually necessary to interpret this rule correctly. I hope I've demonstrated that here.

The words "continue to" are nowhere in that passage you have presented. You are making an argument based on something that does not seem exist.

Now that is not to say that you are making this up but you may wish to present text that actually says "continue to" since you are basing your argument on that phrase.


Edit: Also to head off a bit if you are going to insist that one must absolutely and without fail be holding the charge of a touch spell for one to be able to discharge it in the round it is cast I am going to need to see some actual rules. If not then that is just making stuff up.

[WarrenZig]

Intuitive Attack is usable with simple and natural weapons. Without going into debate about the nature of unarmed strike, I'd be really surprised if your DM didn't recognize it as either.

An unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells and effects that work on natural weapons.


The words "continue to" are nowhere in that passage you have presented. You are making an argument based on something that does not seem exist.

Now that is not to say that you are making this up but you may wish to present text that actually says "continue to" since you are basing your argument on that phrase.


Edit: Also to head off a bit if you are going to insist that one must absolutely and without fail be holding the charge of a touch spell for one to be able to discharge it in the round it is cast I am going to need to see some actual rules. If not then that is just making stuff up.

Casting the spell is what grants you the ability to make the touch attack and it's quite obvious that you posses the charge after casting the spell, because holding implies that you are retaining something.

It also says that you are given the ability to touch the target (or attempt to) in the same round you cast the spell and are able to move before the spell, after touching a target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.

Now, the spell says you get to touch a target in the round the spell is cast and i'm not entirely sure this applies to unarmed attacks, but it does say in the holding the charge section that an unarmed attack or a natural attack can deliver a charge.

[olentu]

An unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells and effects that work on natural weapons.



Casting the spell is what grants you the ability to make the touch attack and it's quite obvious that you posses the charge after casting the spell, because holding implies that you are retaining something.

It also says that you are given the ability to touch the target (or attempt to) in the same round you cast the spell and are able to move before the spell, after touching a target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.

Now, the spell says you get to touch a target in the round the spell is cast and i'm not entirely sure this applies to unarmed attacks, but it does say in the holding the charge section that an unarmed attack or a natural attack can deliver a charge.

Er yeah that is just making things up or to put it more pleasantly extrapolating from the rules and presenting a houserule as actual rules. Well I suppose if you can show some actual rules that says that you as the caster of the spell are and must be holding the charge to use the spell in the round it is cast (before the holding the charge section even comes into play) then I shall agree. But without that it is just a houserule.

[absolmorph]

Er yeah that is just making things up or to put it more pleasantly extrapolating from the rules and presenting a houserule as actual rules. Well I suppose if you can show some actual rules that says that you as the caster of the spell are and must be holding the charge to use the spell in the round it is cast (before the holding the charge section even comes into play) then I shall agree. But without that it is just a houserule.
You're calling your argument, which involves using a non-existent charge to hit an opponent with a spell, more logical?

[Curmudgeon]

Er yeah that is just making things up or to put it more pleasantly extrapolating from the rules and presenting a houserule as actual rules. Well I suppose if you can show some actual rules that says that you as the caster of the spell are and must be holding the charge to use the spell in the round it is cast (before the holding the charge section even comes into play) then I shall agree. But without that it is just a houserule.
No, it's RAW.
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. The rules here (Player's Handbook, page 141) define "holding the charge" as just postponing the discharge of the spell. The same rules state that you can discharge the spell in the casting round, which means you are of necessity holding the charge up until that happens.

No house rules involved here.

[olentu]

You're calling your argument, which involves using a non-existent charge to hit an opponent with a spell, more logical?

I find that not presenting houserules as other then what they are is more logical.


No, it's RAW. The rules here (Player's Handbook, page 141) define "holding the charge" as just postponing the discharge of the spell. The same rules state that you can discharge the spell in the casting round, which means you are of necessity holding the charge up until that happens.

No house rules involved here.

Except that you as the wizard are not said to be postponing the discharge of the spell in the round it is cast. Perhaps the spell does that naturally, perhaps it is magical gremlins. Either way the caster is only and at no other time allowed to postpone the discharge of the spell until after they have not discharged it in the round it is cast. To say anything else is to give the caster an agency not defined in the rules and that makes it a houserule.


There is still no rule presented that actually says that the caster is actually holding the charge in the round the spell is cast. The ability to hold the charge only is even possible to be used after the round in which the spell is cast.

Oh and by the by if you are going to argue that not using the spell must be postponing it I will answer that if the spell in question would happen to discharge at the end of the round then using it before then is actually hastening rather then postponing the discharge of the spell. So such a word game can go either way and presents no definite answer.

[WarrenZig]

ok.... page 140-141 of the players handbook

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 basting 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.

Also the definition of the word "Hold"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hold

There you go, proof everything i said is in the book.

[olentu]

ok.... page 140-141 of the players handbook

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 basting 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.

Also the definition of the word "Hold"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hold

There you go, proof everything i said is in the book.

Er yes you can touch the target in the round it is cast but since the holding the charge section does not apply one can not use any abilities presented in that section.

Hold the charge is a game defined term and as such the in game definition is just as if not more valid then any other definition being "postpone the discharge of the spell".

Now I have found the following definition of postpone

"Cause or arrange for (something) to take place at a time later than that first scheduled"

So unless you can show rules that explicitly pin down when the spell is scheduled to discharge then one can not be said to be postponing it since it may or may not be after the originally scheduled time. The only time one can be sure that the spell is being postponed is in the round after the spell is cast.

Like I said the word game can go either way and so presents no resolution.

[WarrenZig]

hrmmmm, i think you may be misunderstanding my point.

1. I'm saying it says you get to make a touch attack on the same turn you cast a touch spell and not that you can substitute an unarmed attack for that touch attack.

2. I am also saying that when you cast the spell you possess a charge, which can then be delivered by the previously mentioned touch attack.

I believe you are saying that even if you manage to get an additional unarmed attack during the same turn as you cast the spell, you could not use to deliver the charge, because you are required to wait one turn and postpone the charge. Am i correct?

[Galsiah]

@ olentu

You're reading way too much into this. Why would they even include the part about being able to touch a target in the same round as you cast the spell if you don't get to discharge the spell? Also, look at the line stating

"To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later"

This implies that after you cast the spell, any time you touch a subject, the spell is discharged. ANY TIME. Even during the same round. You don't have to be "holding the charge" for the spell to take effect.

[olentu]

hrmmmm, i think you may be misunderstanding my point.

1. I'm saying it says you get to make a touch attack on the same turn you cast a touch spell and not that you can substitute an unarmed attack for that touch attack.

2. I am also saying that when you cast the spell you possess a charge, which can then be delivered by the previously mentioned touch attack.

I believe you are saying that even if you manage to get an additional unarmed attack during the same turn as you cast the spell, you could not use to deliver the charge, because it does not meet what is said in the Holding the Charge section. Am i correct?

Let me just reiterate. I am saying that yes one can make a touch attack in the round the spell is cast proper restrictions on such an attack applying of course as per


Er yes you can touch the target in the round it is cast but since the holding the charge section does not apply one can not use any abilities presented in that section.

But the ability to use an unarmed attack or natural weapon presented in holding the charge


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

only applies while holding the charge and at no other time.

Second I am saying that the only time that one can be, without DM fiat, said to be holding the charge is in the round after the spell is cast.




Now I am however not talking about complete arcane. That may (I would have to look it up) allow one to make an unarmed attack (and not a natural weapon attack in general) in place of a touch spell. But I do recall that that I think only applies when one has the improved unarmed strike feat and as such is a different situation with different requirements and allowances then the holding the charge section.


@ olentu

You're reading way too much into this. Why would they even include the part about being able to touch a target in the same round as you cast the spell if you don't get to discharge the spell? Also, look at the line stating

"To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later"

This implies that after you cast the spell, any time you touch a subject, the spell is discharged. ANY TIME. Even during the same round. You don't have to be "holding the charge" for the spell to take effect.

Oh you can discharge the spell but that does not mean one is holding the charge (being postponing the discharge of the spell) since one may in fact be causing the spell to discharge earlier then scheduled which would be hastening the discharge of the spell and not postponing it.

Without a statement as to when the originally scheduled discharge time is from the rules the only time that can be said to be after such is in the round after the spell is cast since only then is one allowed by the rules to hold the charge.

[Galsiah]

The spell does not specify any scheduled discharge time, thus we have to use the earliest possible time of discharge as the "scheduled" discharge, since it would not be possible for the spell to be discharged before that point. Under this interpretation, which is the only acceptable one for the purpose of the word "postpone", any time after which the spell has been completed that you use the touch attack would be considered "postponing" the spell.

[WarrenZig]

hrmmmm, i see, but since all you have to do is make physical contact with an opponent to deliver the charge, why wouldn't you be able to say cast a quicken chill touch, then make an unarmed attack and have the spell go off on a successful hit?

Oh, and all the feat does is replace the free touch attack with a free melee attack.

Edit: I've been reading through this and so far, there is no part that says that you cant use an unarmed or natural attack to deliver it before holding a charge. Hell all it says is that you have to touch the subject, not that you need to use a touch attack, though it does say you get a free touch attack to make.

[olentu]

The spell does not specify any scheduled discharge time, thus we have to use the earliest possible time of discharge as the "scheduled" discharge, since it would not be possible for the spell to be discharged before that point. Under this interpretation, which is the only acceptable one for the purpose of the word "postpone", any time after which the spell has been completed that you use the touch attack would be considered "postponing" the spell.

You want to give me a rules quote on that discharge time proscription. If not then you are just making up a houserule.


hrmmmm, i see, but since all you have to do is make physical contact with an opponent to deliver the charge, why wouldn't you be able to say cast a quicken chill touch, then make an unarmed attack and have the spell go off on a successful hit?

Oh, and all the feat does is replace the free touch attack with a free melee attack.

Edit: I've been reading through this and so far, there is no part that says that you cant use an unarmed or natural attack to deliver it before holding a charge. Hell all it says is that you have to touch the subject, not that you need to use a touch attack, though it does say you get a free touch attack to make.

The answer is because the rules only allow one to use an unarmed attack when holding the charge (again ignoring complete arcane since it is a different ability with different requirements and allowances).

Hmm interesting position. Though that does mean that since the rules do not however grant an attack roll while still requiring one the character automatically fails the touch unless one generates an attack roll from some other means when trying to touch an opponent.


Additionally that means that the spell automatically is used should any part of the caster touch anything that is a valid target including themselves and unless one is ones own opponent no attack roll is needed so it automatically hits.

I suppose you would not want to cast any touch spells that could target yourself since you will automatically be hit by them.


You know "Oh no Bestow Curse. If only my blood vessels had not touched my lungs."

I think that spell does not require a touch attack in the description.

[Elric VIII]

Well, this has become a topic of contention while I've been gone, and there have been some quite interesting points. Let me just add a bit of my own ideas into this debate.

First,

No, it's RAW. The rules here (Player's Handbook, page 141) define "holding the charge" as just postponing the discharge of the spell. The same rules state that you can discharge the spell in the casting round, which means you are of necessity holding the charge up until that happens.

No house rules involved here.
I truly believe (not out of convenience to the end I wish to accomplish) that this does, in fact, describe what is happening. While there may be wiggle room while debating whether it is 100% RAW, it seems to be RAI that holding a charge refers to any postponing of a spell.



Second,

Now I am however not talking about complete arcane. That may (I would have to look it up) allow one to make an unarmed attack (and not a natural weapon attack in general) in place of a touch spell. But I do recall that that I think only applies when one has the improved unarmed strike feat and as such is a different situation with different requirements and allowances then the holding the charge section.

Based on this, am I to understand that there is no debate as to whether Improved Unarmed Strike allows me to make an unarmed attack as part of the discharge on the turn in which the spell is cast?



Third,

Also the definition of the word "Hold"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hold

There you go, proof everything i said is in the book.
I love you for linking to the dictionary as part of your argument



Lastly, This came up in out game today. While wielding a THW I used a free action to take a hand off it and then attempted to cast a touch spell. I missed my attack. The next round, rather than attacking with my THW (which would require me to touch it with my hand again and, as I understand it, discharge the spell harmlessly) I elected to make an attack with my spiked gauntlet to discharge the spell. While we allowed it to work, another player brought up the point that since I'm using a gauntlet I'm not actually touching the subject. Is that point valid?

And thank you all for the responses.

[WarrenZig]

1. It seems that it's an issue of how Holding the Charge is interpreted with an argument for discharging the spell only applying to unarmed attacks/Natural attacks the round after the cast and the other which says that it can be discharged from an attack in the first round.

2. Improved Unarmed Strike (CAr) changes your free touch attack into a melee attack.

3. ehem.....sorry ladies only.

4. Gauntlets are used to make unarmed attacks so it shouldn't interferer with the spell and you are free to touch your weapon still, because the spell would only discharge on a valid target.

[olentu]

Well, this has become a topic of contention while I've been gone, and there have been some quite interesting points. Let me just add a bit of my own ideas into this debate.

First,

I truly believe (not out of convenience to the end I wish to accomplish) that this does, in fact, describe what is happening. While there may be wiggle room while debating whether it is 100% RAW, it seems to be RAI that holding a charge refers to any postponing of a spell.



Second,


Based on this, am I to understand that there is no debate as to whether Improved Unarmed Strike allows me to make an unarmed attack as part of the discharge on the turn in which the spell is cast?



Third,

I love you for linking to the dictionary as part of your argument



Lastly, This came up in out game today. While wielding a THW I used a free action to take a hand off it and then attempted to cast a touch spell. I missed my attack. The next round, rather than attacking with my THW (which would require me to touch it with my hand again and, as I understand it, discharge the spell harmlessly) I elected to make an attack with my spiked gauntlet to discharge the spell. While we allowed it to work, another player brought up the point that since I'm using a gauntlet I'm not actually touching the subject. Is that point valid?

And thank you all for the responses.

Well Like I said if the originally scheduled discharge time for the spell is after you are discharging it with a touch attack then you are hastening the discharge and not postponing. Of course since the originally scheduled discharge time is not listed one can only say with out houserules that the round after casting counts.


As for the complete arcane thing I would have to go and read it. While I may do so later right now it is uncertain to me since I do not know the precise text. So perhaps.

For the spiked gauntlet thing a spiked gauntlet is not an unarmed attack but rather a light melee weapon and so I it should not work.

[Flumph]

This is just a guess, but since casting a spell and attacking are two separate actions, the reason that natural attack delivery is under 'delay' is because on the average turn, a character can't take that many actions. Maybe if the spell was quickened, or took a move action to cast, your DM would let you deliver it with a touch attack in the same round. Sorry if this isn't relevant!

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Thread necromancy, locked.