Rules Clarification- Unarmed Strikes

[Loki_42]

I had always assumed that Unarmed Strikes were touch attacks, since they were attacking somebody by touching them, and have always had them target touch AC.

A player of mine recently said that he didn't believe that was the case, and that they should target regular AC. (Don't ask me why the player was turning down a free advantage to hit when they were in a place with numerous armored opponents, but he did.) We tried to look this up in the rules, but couldn't find any clarification one way or the other.

To avoid an argument, I just said I would run with my interpretation for the session, and ask the fine folks at GitP later. So now, I'm asking you fine folks,

Is an unarmed strike considered a touch attack? Also, if it isn't, is it to big of a houserule to treat it as such?

[Flickerdart]

Unarmed strikes are just like attacks with manufactured weapons in almost every regard. They are made against regular AC.

[BillyBobJoe]

I think it would be a cool ability to give monks, but on anyone else, it would be a big advantage.

[Loki_42]

Thanks for the quick replies. I don't know how I got the idea in my head that they were touch attacks. I may keep running with it, seeing as how the character is a monk anyway, but at least now I know.

[Flickerdart]

There is a feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#unavoidableStrike) that does exactly this - let you make unarmed attacks as touch attacks, though not all the time.

[tyckspoon]

We tried to look this up in the rules, but couldn't find any clarification one way or the other.


The clarification, such as it is, is that unarmed strikes don't say they're touch attacks. D&D runs on general rules- attacks roll against full AC- unless something calls itself out as an exception- 'this attack is a touch attack'. Unarmed Strikes don't refer to themselves as touch attacks, ergo, no touch attack.

Fluffwise, a touch attack is typically something that doesn't need to land with any real force to inflict damage; it transmits damaging energy (most Touch Attack spells, a Pyrokineticist's flame whip), inflicts a poison, or similar. If it helps, imagine a riot/SWAT cop in full crowd-control gear- helmet, body armor, shield. Walk up to him and put your palm on him somewhere on him or his gear. Doesn't matter where, it doesn't even need enough force for him to feel that you've done it. That's a Touch Attack. Now try to punch him out. That's a lot harder, right? You'll probably just end up hurting your hand on the riot shield. That's an Unarmed Strike- it has to deal with the same defensive factors any other strike to harm does.

[Douglas]

If it helps for mental imagery/fluff understanding: something is a touch attack and rolls against touch AC if merely making contact is all you need. If just tapping someone lightly on the chest is sufficient, then it's a touch attack. If you need to hit hard enough to leave a bruise or other wound, it's a normal attack.

[Psyren]

Similarly, a ranged touch attack merely requires you to point at someone. A ranged attack needs some kind of impetus behind it - a projectile thrown or launched at someone.

[NecroRick]

Thanks for the quick replies. I don't know how I got the idea in my head that they were touch attacks. I may keep running with it, seeing as how the character is a monk anyway, but at least now I know.

Probably because of the section on touch spells. It goes on about touch attacks, and then it transforms into a discussion of unarmed attacks, and how you can use them to deliver touch spells as well as do regular damage.

If you read through it quickly it isn't obvious that you've transitioned from one kind of thing to another, so it would be easy to think that unarmed attacks use the touch rules.

[KillianHawkeye]

I had always assumed that Unarmed Strikes were touch attacks, since they were attacking somebody by touching them, and have always had them target touch AC.

As long as my Fighter can make touch attacks with his longsword, since I'm really just touching the enemy with my sword. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

As long as my Fighter can make touch attacks with his longsword, since I'm really just touching the enemy with my sword. :smallamused:

Remember: "what is sauce for the PCs..." :smalltongue:

[Zaq]

Similarly, a ranged touch attack merely requires you to point at someone. A ranged attack needs some kind of impetus behind it - a projectile thrown or launched at someone.

Of all the weird rules terminology that 3.5 has to offer (ever explain class level/character level/spell level/caster level/spellcaster level to a neophyte? It's awesome), "ranged touch attack" took me the longest time to get used to. I was used to thinking of "touch" as being a measure of distance, so having a ranged touch attack would be like having a ranged melee attack. (Go away, Bloodstorm Blade. Not the point.) It's not that I couldn't understand the concept of "attack made at range that also happens to target touch AC" . . . it's just that it took be forever to really accept it as a term that made any sort of sense.