Blade of Pain and Fear Finesseable?

[Tibbaerrohwen]

This spell has always been one of my favourites. It's just made of so much awesome; who doesn't want to wade into battle with a gnawing, biting blade of embodied terror?
I've never looked into it before, but is the Blade of Pain and Fear finesseable?

Thanks.

[Thespianus]

This spell has always been one of my favourites. It's just made of so much awesome; who doesn't want to wade into battle with a gnawing, biting blade of embodied terror?
I've never looked into it before, but is the Blade of Pain and Fear finesseable?

Thanks.

reading the spell shows that not only is it not Finesseable (it's not a "light weapon" and no special mention of Weapon Finesse), it also seems that you're not proficient with the weapon. ;)

It doesn't say what weapon type it is, if any, so you could run into a DM claiming that you're not proficient with the "3 foot long column". ;)

FWIW, I would allow it to be Finesseable, and that you're proficient with it. ;)

[Elric VIII]

The spell doesn't actually create a weapon that you use, like Ice Axe. It gives you the ability to make melee touch attacks. An unarmed touch attack, like an unarmed strike, is always considered a light weapon, and thus finessable.

[Thespianus]

The spell doesn't actually create a weapon that you use, like Ice Axe. It gives you the ability to make melee touch attacks. An unarmed touch attack, like an unarmed strike, is always considered a light weapon, and thus finessable.

What part of the spell makes it an "unarmed touch attack"?

In fact, the spell states that you make melee touch attacks "with this blade".

The RAW is not clear here.

[Pechvarry]

Weapon Finesse: You can treat touch spells as light weapons and use your Dexterity modifier (instead of your Strength modifier) on your touch attack rolls with such spells.

That seems like a pretty definitive yes, to me. Is spell? yes. Does touch attacks? yes.

Crunchwise, this is similar to Chill Touch but with a set duration instead of set number of touches. There is nothing mechanical related to the pillar. You could re-fluff this as falcon punch or a fire extinguisher and not be affected in any way.

[Terazul]

What part of the spell makes it an "unarmed touch attack"?

In fact, the spell states that you make melee touch attacks "with this blade".

The RAW is not clear here.

Actually it kinda is. It says you make melee touch attacks for the duration of the spell. Touch spells are weapon-like spells, which by RAW are applicable for Weapon Finesse as indicated by the Spell Compendium.

So yeah, you can.

[dextercorvia]

Touch spells in CArc are defined as having a range of touch, not simply allowing touch attacks. BoPaF does not qualify as a Weaponlike spell.

Edit p72

[Thespianus]

You're all probably right. The spell reads like a mix between Flame Blade (which mentions that the weapon is wielded as a scimitar.) and Chill Touch, and that got me confused, I suppose.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm

Would Flame Blade work the same as Blade of Pain and Fear, ie unarmed melee touch attacks? Or would scimitar-proficiency be needed for Flame Blade? Maybe I've been reading all these spells wrong. I've started another thread about this line of spells before, and thought I had a decent idea how they worked. :)

[Thespianus]

Touch spells in CArc are defined as having a range of touch, not simply allowing touch attacks. BoPaF does not qualify as a Weaponlike spell.

Edit p72

Oh, ok. That separates Chill Touch and Flame Blade even further.

Then it's a question of what kind of attack you actually use with Flame Blade (scimitar?) and BoPaF("blade-like column"??) ;)

[dextercorvia]

You're all probably right. The spell reads like a mix between Flame Blade (which mentions that the weapon is wielded as a scimitar.) and Chill Touch, and that got me confused, I suppose.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm

Would Flame Blade work the same as Blade of Pain and Fear, ie unarmed melee touch attacks? Or would scimitar-proficiency be needed for Flame Blade? Maybe I've been reading all these spells wrong. I've started another thread about this line of spells before, and thought I had a decent idea how they worked. :)

Flame Blade needs proficiency because it is wielded as a Scimitar. Fortunately, Druids have such proficiency. BoPaF shouldn't need one because it is an effect spell with no specific language -- you don't need proficiency to use an Orb spell.

[Thespianus]

Flame Blade needs proficiency because it is wielded as a Scimitar. Fortunately, Druids have such proficiency. BoPaF shouldn't need one because it is an effect spell with no specific language -- you don't need proficiency to use an Orb spell.

Hmm, ok. And, yes, that makes sense then. The spell Scimitar of Sand (Sandstorm) is an arcane spell and since Wizards are not procficient with Scimitars, that spell contains text about not needing Scimitar proficiency.

Cool. thanks.

But dang it, I still don't know if that means that Weapon Finess should be allowed for BoPaF. ;) Scimitars are not finessable, but what about the "blade like column" from BoPaF?

[dextercorvia]

Hmm, ok. And, yes, that makes sense then. The spell Scimitar of Sand (Sandstorm) is an arcane spell and since Wizards are not procficient with Scimitars, that spell contains text about not needing Scimitar proficiency.

Cool. thanks.

But dang it, I still don't know if that means that Weapon Finess should be allowed for BoPaF. ;) Scimitars are not finessable, but what about the "blade like column" from BoPaF?


With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category,

Bladelike column of teeth spell effect doesn't appear in this list, nor was any rule made later to acknowledge that it is or should be.

[Thespianus]

Bladelike column of teeth spell effect doesn't appear in this list, nor was any rule made later to acknowledge that it is or should be.
Ok, so my original idea was right, apart from the proficiency part. :)

Thanks.

[Elric VIII]

Bladelike column of teeth spell effect doesn't appear in this list, nor was any rule made later to acknowledge that it is or should be.

Not to split hairs, but Flame Blade and Ice Axe specifically mentions that you make an attack with the weapon and those attacks are touch attacks. BoPaF simply mentions that you make melee touch attacks.

I recall a thread about this regarding Power Attack and the outcome ended up being that this particular spell is treated as an unarmed strike with regards to PA (and I would assume, WF).

[dextercorvia]

Not to split hairs, but Flame Blade and Ice Axe specifically mentions that you make an attack with the weapon and those attacks are touch attacks. BoPaF simply mentions that you make melee touch attacks.

I recall a thread about this regarding Power Attack and the outcome ended up being that this particular spell is treated as an unarmed strike with regards to PA (and I would assume, WF).

If you can demonstrate that it is somehow equivalent or treated as an unarmed strike, then you can finesse with it. There is nothing in the spell that makes it so, and the phrase 'melee touch attack' is not sufficient. There are other ways to make melee touch attacks without them being treated as UASs.

[Elric VIII]

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) seems to imply that a spellcaster delivering a touch attack resulting from a spell is making an unarmed attack. Ice Axe and Flame Blade are exceptions to this since the spell's description overrides it.

[dextercorvia]

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) seems to imply that a spellcaster delivering a touch attack resulting from a spell is making an unarmed attack. Ice Axe and Flame Blade are exceptions to this since the spell's description overrides it.

That is referring to touch spells which have a range of touch. BoPaF is not a touch spell, even though it allows for touch attacks. From the page you quoted:


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.

[Elric VIII]

That is referring to touch spells which have a range of touch. BoPaF is not a touch spell, even though it allows for touch attacks. From the page you quoted:

It seems to be implying that there is a difference between "touch spell" and "touch attack spell," since everywhere else that I have seen touch spells referenced, they have used the former wording. The latter is less of a formal name and more of a description (i.e. - a spell that results in a touch attack in some way).



Although it's not entirely a sound basis of argument, it also makes sense that such a spell may be finessed. If all you have to do is touch someone, why can't you do it in an agile fashion, rather than a forceful one?

[dextercorvia]

It seems to be implying that there is a difference between "touch spell" and "touch attack spell," since everywhere else that I have seen touch spells referenced, they have used the former wording. The latter is less of a formal name and more of a description (i.e. - a spell that results in a touch attack in some way).



Although it's not entirely a sound basis of argument, it also makes sense that such a spell may be finessed. If all you have to do is touch someone, why can't you do it in an agile fashion, rather than a forceful one?

I agree that it makes sense, and I think it makes a great houserule (if necessary), I just haven't seen anything that makes it RAW.

The word Deliver makes it clear to me that this is referring to standard touch spells. You never deliver the BoPaF.

[candycorn]

I think the quibble over "spells which grant touch attacks" and "touch attack spells" is a bit of a minutae thing.

Is it a spell? Yes.
Does it have a duration? Yes.
When it strikes, does it do so as a spell? Yes.
Does this mean it ignores DR? Yes.
Does this attack, which qualifies as a spell, use a touch attack? Yes.

Are the "two types" of touch attacks mechanically different? No. They use the exact same rules to adjudicate the attack itself.

What's the difference? Discharging and holding the charge. Basically, when the effect ends, not how the effect reacts when active.

Does it violate any rules to rule them the same? No.

[ThiefInTheNight]

It certainly counts as an attack for the purpose of breaking Invisibility.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

That seems like a pretty definitive yes, to me. Is spell? yes. Does touch attacks? yes.

Crunchwise, this is similar to Chill Touch but with a set duration instead of set number of touches. There is nothing mechanical related to the pillar. You could re-fluff this as falcon punch or a fire extinguisher and not be affected in any way.


I think the quibble over "spells which grant touch attacks" and "touch attack spells" is a bit of a minutae thing.

Is it a spell? Yes.
Does it have a duration? Yes.
When it strikes, does it do so as a spell? Yes.
Does this mean it ignores DR? Yes.
Does this attack, which qualifies as a spell, use a touch attack? Yes.

Are the "two types" of touch attacks mechanically different? No. They use the exact same rules to adjudicate the attack itself.

What's the difference? Discharging and holding the charge. Basically, when the effect ends, not how the effect reacts when active.

Does it violate any rules to rule them the same? No.

I think these two are pretty definitive. I should be alright.

Thanks.