Duskblade and special attacks

[yougi]

Hi!

One of my players has recently lost his characters and wants to make a Duskblade chain spike tripper. He has asked me if he could channel a spell in his trip attacks. What would be the RAW answer to this?

[eggs]

Channeling allows the DB to use a melee attack.
Trips are a type of attack.
It should work.

[Waddacku]

Also you can bypass the issue entirely with this little baby (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown). Plus on some good rolling you get to hit them with a spell, smack them twice, and prone them.

[Gotterdammerung]

Technically speaking, yes.

rule 7 on page 141 of the PHB classifies trip as a melee attack.


"These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As Melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity."

Now take that and apply it to the duskblades Arcane channeling and you will find that if the touch attack is successful for the trip attempt, then the channeled spell will resolve.

So, at 13th lvl duskblade, you could even do like a massive reach character with whirlwind attack, and make a melee attack on every enemy in reach, Then substitute all the melee attacks for trips, and deliver the spell to every enemy you successfully touch, regardless of whether or not you successfully trip them.

[GenghisDon]

I disagree with the previous posters. It will only work on actual attacks (ie a to hit vs AC, not vs touch ac). Of course, a trip character is going to be making many "normal" attacks anyway, so it's hardly much of a hinderance.

"melee attack" is the term used, and it is NOT interchangable with "melee touch". nice try though, fellas

[Raendyn]

RAW probably, not!
RAI Most probably, not! And while triping with spiked chain and zaping your enemy through it makes sense, the argument that answered"yes" was that special attacks are still melee attacks, I cant see how it makes sense to push someone over with your shoulder while charging and getting a free casting of a touch spell through your weap.... shoulder pad...

Special attacks, could have been name "ninja jutsus", the fact that the word "attack" is there doesnt mean anything special, not to mention that channeling mentions "melee attack delivered though weapon".

Its up to the DM to allow a trip-only exception and specifically triping through weapon, but playing with words with bad lures-lawering and making something obvious, seem otherwise sounds meh*.

[eggs]

"melee attack" is the term used, and it is NOT interchangable with "melee touch". nice try though, fellas
You're right. They are different. And a trip is a form of melee attack:


Trip

You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack.

...

Tripping with a Weapon

Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity.
This is what allows trips to be used in AoOs; it's also what permits a trip in arcane channeling.

But nice try, fella.

[GenghisDon]

{{scrubbed}}

[Gotterdammerung]

{{scrubbed}}

No, that isn't right.

I just showed you the text. It clearly says that a trip attack IS a melee attack.

Trip attack= melee attack.

Plain as day, clear cut, in the rules.


It does not matter that trip is a touch attack. The rules clearly classify trip as a melee attack, end of story.


This whole "melee attack is not a melee touch attack" business you are spouting is a completely different argument for a completely different thread. It has nothing to do with this argument, because this argument is clear cut in the rules.

No matter what a trip attack is, it is also a melee attack, as per the rules on page 141 of the PHB.

[GenghisDon]

sigh, whatever you all wish; I'm not going to agree with you, but I'm sorry for being rude about it. Happy gaming:smallsmile:!

[yougi]

At least that convinced me it wasn't so clearcut.

I'm mainly scared of a ghoul touch - trip -> coup de grace combo. Quite overpowered.

[Khatoblepas]

{{scrubbed}}

Wait... what? What? Wait. What?

What?

You're saying you can't use RAW to state how the rules work? Isn't that what the rules are for? This is baffling on every concievable level. Unless you're blatantly disregarding what's written in the book, it's really a nonissue.

Heck, you could channel a spell into a sunder attempt, and that is also a melee attack, though the weapon you attack will bear the brunt of the spell (I think?). I'm pretty sure you could start a grapple and channel a spell through it, since that also requires a melee attack.



I'm mainly scared of a ghoul touch - trip -> coup de grace combo. Quite overpowered.

You don't need to trip a person to coup de grace them if they're paralyzed. And it'd take two rounds to kill a dude if they're going to do that - one to channel ghoul touch (you can only full attack channel at level 13, at which point Ghoul Touch is not a priority), one to coup de grace.

It's also Fort Negates, which doesn't make it a whole lot of good for a Duskblade, who shouldn't really be focusing on save DCs. It's really not overpowered. Ideally a Duskblade uses Shocking Grasp at low levels and then graduates to Vampiric Touch. Standard stuff, really.

[GenghisDon]

At least that convinced me it wasn't so clearcut.

I'm mainly scared of a ghoul touch - trip -> coup de grace combo. Quite overpowered.

I'm glad of that, I believe I am correct.

As Khatoblepas said, one doesn't need trip for ghoul touch to paralyze.

Unlike him, however, I believe you can very well attempt to have somewhat decent save DC's, and targeting a fort spell vs low fort save targets (like a wizard, sorcerer, or rogue) certainly helps. Ghoul touch is "humanoids" only, so it really isn't a great concern in most D&D games, excepting low levels perhaps.

[Keld Denar]

Considering the spells you channel can already be delivered as a touch attack anyway. All this trick is allowing is the Duskblade to channel spells 10 ft away. Otherwise it is pretty much identical to casting the spell and going up to the person and delivering the touch. The advantage to being a Duskblade is that you get to make a melee attack and get a free spell out of it. If you take the melee hit out of it, you lose that advantage...

[Gotterdammerung]

Wait... what? What? Wait. What?

What?

You're saying you can't use RAW to state how the rules work? Isn't that what the rules are for? This is baffling on every conceivable level. Unless you're blatantly disregarding what's written in the book, it's really a non issue.


This is pretty much my response. I feel like I am either being trolled or taking crazy pills.

The ability works for melee attacks. The book clearly defines a "trip attempt" as a melee attack.

How is that not open and shut, clear cut, game over, end of discussion?

I don't even understand the counter argument. As far as I can tell the counter argument is
"Nuh-uh! And I don't need a page number to prove it because ... you are wrong!"







Quick Question
Are you saying the book does not define a trip attempt as a melee attack?

Well, in the book it says under the AoE chart in a Key right beside the little number 7,


"These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As Melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity."

Lets break that down.

"These attack forms substitute for a melee attack"
What attack forms, you might ask. Well, all of the attack forms with a little 7 by them in the chart. Does trip have a little 7? Why, yes, yes it does. So since trip is the only pertinent 7 to this discussion, can we ignore the other 7's? I don't see why not, that seems rational. =
Ergo, Trip substitutes for a melee attack.

"As Melee attacks, they can be used"
It says "as melee attacks", what is it referring too? Well the english language tells us that "as melee attacks" defines parameters of "they". And in context with the previous sentences, "they" refers to attack forms with a little 7 by their name. We know from before that trip has a little 7 by its name!

Ergo, As a melee attack, Trip can be used.

Ergo, the rulebook says trip is a melee attack.

Ergo, trip can be used with the duskblade ability.

[Gwendol]

Agreed, this shouldn't be a discussion. And as Keld pointed out, channeling the spell through a weapon and not taking advantage of the weapon damage is kind of going against the idea of the duskblade in the first place. Not that it's bad tactics, just that you are missing out on a lot of extra damage for trying to make the target prone instead of dead.

[Xaragos]

This is pretty much my response. I feel like I am either being trolled or taking crazy pills.

The ability works for melee attacks. The book clearly defines a "trip attempt" as a melee attack.

How is that not open and shut, clear cut, game over, end of discussion?

I don't even understand the counter argument. As far as I can tell the counter argument is
"Nuh-uh! And I don't need a page number to prove it because ... you are wrong!"


Quick Question
Are you saying the book does not define a trip attempt as a melee attack?

Well, in the book it says under the AoE chart in a Key right beside the little number 7,



Lets break that down.

"These attack forms substitute for a melee attack"
What attack forms, you might ask. Well, all of the attack forms with a little 7 by them in the chart. Does trip have a little 7? Why, yes, yes it does. So since trip is the only pertinent 7 to this discussion, can we ignore the other 7's? I don't see why not, that seems rational. =
Ergo, Trip substitutes for a melee attack.

"As Melee attacks, they can be used"
It says "as melee attacks", what is it referring too? Well the english language tells us that "as melee attacks" defines parameters of "they". And in context with the previous sentences, "they" refers to attack forms with a little 7 by their name. We know from before that trip has a little 7 by its name!

Ergo, As a melee attack, Trip can be used.

Ergo, the rulebook says trip is a melee attack.

Ergo, trip can be used with the duskblade ability.


Thank you for taking the time to explain this in such detail. I have had a meeting of the minds with my DM who stated that Trip, Grapple, Sunder, etc were all special attacks that could not be used for attacks of opportunity. I had always played games where they were considered legitimate for AoOs but could not find the chapter and verse to prove that RAW. This helps out one of the other members of our group immensely as he is a tripper.

BTW, very interesting question by the OP. I tend to agree that it can which opens up some nifty opportunities for hitting against touch ac vs full to channel.

[Gwendol]

But, you can already hit against touch AC just by using the spell as described? Or get the obtain familiar feat and have the familiar deliver the touch spell at range. Really, this is nothing new. It's not an exploit of a "loophole". It's just applying the rules as written.

The Duskblade has always had this option.

[yougi]

Agreed, this shouldn't be a discussion. And as Keld pointed out, channeling the spell through a weapon and not taking advantage of the weapon damage is kind of going against the idea of the duskblade in the first place. Not that it's bad tactics, just that you are missing out on a lot of extra damage for trying to make the target prone instead of dead.

Well, to be fair, with Improved Trip you get an AoO on the target. With Full round channeling, it means you get an extra application of your spell.


But, you can already hit against touch AC just by using the spell as described? Or get the obtain familiar feat and have the familiar deliver the touch spell at range.

Yes, but with a weapon trip attack, you apply your weapon bonus to your roll. It's not much, but I mean, you still do.

[Keld Denar]

Well, to be fair, with Improved Trip you get an AoO on the target. With Full round channeling, it means you get an extra application of your spell.

Not really. A given foe can only be affected by a spell one time in a full attack channel, no matter how many times you hit that foe. If you have 5 attacks and channel a 5d6 Shocking Grasp, you don't get +25d6 damage against one foe (assuming all hits). You get +5d6 against that foe from the first hit. If you hit 2 foes, the spell would affect each, but spreading out attacks is generally a bad tactic due to how HPs work. Two half dead foes at the end of your round is most often more dangerous to you than one dead foe and one foe at full health.

Also, the extra attack with Imp Trip is not an AoO. It is a free action. It doesn't count against your AoOs per round.

[Gwendol]

Well, to be fair, with Improved Trip you get an AoO on the target. With Full round channeling, it means you get an extra application of your spell.



Yes, but with a weapon trip attack, you apply your weapon bonus to your roll. It's not much, but I mean, you still do.

No, it doesn't unless you trip as part of a full attack action.
Edit: And you still only get one application of the spell/target, Keld beat me to it.

[Gotterdammerung]

The OP didn't ask whether or not it was worth doing. Or if it was broken. Or if it was weak.

The OP asked if it was allowable by RAW.

The answer to the OP's question is, unequivocally, Yes. Yes it is most certainly allowed.


Whether or not it is worth it is entirely up to how creative the player can be.





If you hit 2 foes, the spell would affect each, but spreading out attacks is generally a bad tactic due to how HPs work. Two half dead foes at the end of your round is most often more dangerous to you than one dead foe and one foe at full health.

While this is true normally. It is most certainly not true for a "Lockdown" character. Trippers are not working off of massive damage. They are working off of battle field control. They are lock-down characters. And as such, they must spread their love around.


Also, of course the ability looks weak if you pick a crappy example like shocking grasp.

It isn't hard to expand the duskblade spell list and get a touch attack that actually works with the build.

For instance, a 12th lvl dusk blade with a whirlwind attack high reach spiked chain build could take Fiendish Bloodline from the Dragon Compendium. Now he can attack every enemy in a massive radius with a trip attack. If the touch hits, they have to save versus Bestow curse. He doesn't need as high to hit or damage so he can actually focus on save DC's if he wants. He chooses to curse them with a 50% chance to take no actions. Now he is a stronger lock down build.

This is just me shooting from the hip, off the top of my head. With some actual work and a little creativity, you could totally make this ability worth working into trip.

[ThiagoMartell]

For instance, a 12th lvl dusk blade with a whirlwind attack high reach spiked chain build could take Fiendish Bloodline from the Dragon Compendium. Now he can attack every enemy in a massive radius with a trip attack. If the touch hits, they have to save versus Bestow curse. He doesn't need as high to hit or damage so he can actually focus on save DC's if he wants. He chooses to curse them with a 50% chance to take no actions. Now he is a stronger lock down build.

You mean a 13th level Duskblade, right?

[Gnome Alone]

Agreed, this shouldn't be a discussion. And as Keld pointed out, channeling the spell through a weapon and not taking advantage of the weapon damage is kind of going against the idea of the duskblade in the first place. Not that it's bad tactics, just that you are missing out on a lot of extra damage for trying to make the target prone instead of dead.

Seems like for some people, even magically-assisted melee can't have nice things.

[Gotterdammerung]

You mean a 13th level Duskblade, right?

I meant take the feat at 12, do the combo @ 13.


And here is another use I thought of.

Drow of the underdarks Poison spell feat allows you to add a poison to the material component of a spell. You run the risk of poisoning yourself but this can easily be skirted with master of poisons or the right race and several other ways. The material component changes the spell to add the affects of the poison. If it is an injury poison used the touch spell has to do damage. The dose of poison is consumed with the casting.

Now we just use any of the old tricks to get spells to make poison for us.

And combo it with a duskblades channeling ability.

Go find your baddest nastiest poison and you can add that to your whirlwind attack vampiric touch.

[Gwendol]

Don't get me wrong; I like lock-down builds. And I like the duskblade. To channel while tripping is a non-issue, and as you rightly point out; depending on what the goal is full-attack trip-channeling can be very efficient (dealing out debuffs for example). The OP had some misconceptions on how the trip-channeling works that I think needed to be sorted out, as well as the idea that delivering the spell through a weapon melee touch attack was somehow using a rules loophole or stretching the rules in any way (it isn't).

[Umbranar]

I have played a duskblade in this way and we rules it only works on the free attack from improved trip. The touch was not enough and I think it should work that way.

[Gwendol]

I have played a duskblade in this way and we rules it only works on the free attack from improved trip. The touch was not enough and I think it should work that way.

That's fine, but the OP asked about the RAW ruling, which is quite clear.

[Person_Man]

My opinion is that a Spiked Chain Duskblade using Knock-Down with Channel Spell would work fine. If you were just using Imp. Trip, Channel Spell would have no effect on the touch attack or opposed check to Trip, but would effect the follow up attack (and every attack thereafter if your Duskblade 13 or higher). Or could also use the Ritiik - exotic weapon from Frostburn, basically a weaker version of Knock-Down but without the Combat Expertise->Imp. Trip pre-reqs.

[Gotterdammerung]

My opinion is that a Spiked Chain Duskblade using Knock-Down with Channel Spell would work fine. If you were just using Imp. Trip, Channel Spell would have no effect on the touch attack or opposed check to Trip, but would effect the follow up attack (and every attack thereafter if your Duskblade 13 or higher). Or could also use the Ritiik - exotic weapon from Frostburn, basically a weaker version of Knock-Down but without the Combat Expertise->Imp. Trip pre-reqs.

It is fine to homebrew it that way. But that isn't RAW.

The channel spell is based off of hitting the target, not damaging the target.

So you start a trip attempt. You hit.

Did you hit with a melee attack?
Yes I did, just now.

Then you can activate your channel ability. Congratulations!

[Person_Man]

It is fine to homebrew it that way. But that isn't RAW.

The channel spell is based off of hitting the target, not damaging the target.

So you start a trip attempt. You hit.

Did you hit with a melee attack?
Yes I did, just now.

Then you can activate your channel ability. Congratulations!

So, by your reading of the rules, I can also Channel Spell with a Disarm attempt?

[Daftendirekt]

So, by your reading of the rules, I can also Channel Spell with a Disarm attempt?



DISARM
"As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent..."

Yep. I'd say you can.

[ThiagoMartell]

So you disarm the dude and somehow he suffers the effect of the spell?
EDIT: Nevermind, disarm never hits anything, it's a contested roll.

[Greyfeld85]

Not really. A given foe can only be affected by a spell one time in a full attack channel, no matter how many times you hit that foe. If you have 5 attacks and channel a 5d6 Shocking Grasp, you don't get +25d6 damage against one foe (assuming all hits). You get +5d6 against that foe from the first hit. If you hit 2 foes, the spell would affect each, but spreading out attacks is generally a bad tactic due to how HPs work. Two half dead foes at the end of your round is most often more dangerous to you than one dead foe and one foe at full health.

Also, the extra attack with Imp Trip is not an AoO. It is a free action. It doesn't count against your AoOs per round.

I'd just like to take a moment to point out that the bolded part of this post isn't the only accepted translation of the ability. There are many people who believe that you can actually strike the same enemy multiple times with the same full attack channeling.

The debated section of wording states:

... the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round.

One side argues that since it states "each target," the intention is only a single casting per target. The other side argues that it affects "each target" every time that target is hit.

However, the ability doesn't state one way or the other, and as far as I'm aware there's never been any errata to settle the debate.

Personally, I side with the latter translation, because spreading your full attack among multiple targets tends to drop a combatant's effectiveness as a damage dealer, and duskblades don't really have the class features necessary for tanking. And even if I'm wrong, I don't find it unbalanced to allow the extra damage to a single target.

[Greyfeld85]

So you disarm the dude and somehow he suffers the effect of the spell?
EDIT: Nevermind, disarm never hits anything, it's a contested roll.

Arcane Channeling only requires the attack be successful, and if you manage to disarm somebody, then that would count as a successful attack.

Anyway, it's only really a contested roll in the sense that they're trying to hang onto their weapon while you rip it away from them. A disarm can be anything from grabbing it with your hands and trying to yank it away, to causing them to jar their hand by striking the weapon, to digging your fingers into his wrist so his fingers unlock from the weapon's hilt. There's no singular way to fluff a disarm, and most of them put your weapon in a position to channel its spell into your opponent.

[ThiagoMartell]

Arcane Channeling only requires the attack be successful, and if you manage to disarm somebody, then that would count as a successful attack.

Anyway, it's only really a contested roll in the sense that they're trying to hang onto their weapon while you rip it away from them. A disarm can be anything from grabbing it with your hands and trying to yank it away, to causing them to jar their hand by striking the weapon, to digging your fingers into his wrist so his fingers unlock from the weapon's hilt. There's no singular way to fluff a disarm, and most of them put your weapon in a position to channel its spell into your opponent.

Arcane Channeling triggers on a hit. You just quoted the text in the post before that. There is no hit on a contested roll. So it does not trigger AC. I'm not arguing fluff.

[RagnaroksChosen]

So, by your reading of the rules, I can also Channel Spell with a Disarm attempt?


I'm of the same opinion as Person_man.. the touch attack wouldn't do any thing, the follow up strike would.

The reason being is to prevent something like
round 1. cast and hold a touch spell
Round 2. use an unarmed attack to deliver the spell and because the unarmed attack is a melee attack also channel another touch spell.

[Gwendol]

I'm pretty sure the DB needs a weapon to channel.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I'm pretty sure the DB needs a weapon to channel.


True... 1 level of monk or any thing that give unarmed attacks like a monk would fix that.. as there unarmed count as a manufactured weapon... I am not saying it is optimal or any thing.

[Gwendol]

You mean this:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.?

Treated as generally is not automatically the same as being a weapon. I wouldn't bet on it being automatically accepted.

[ThiagoMartell]

You don't need a class ability to punch someone with a touch spell. Anyone can do that.

[Gwendol]

Yes, but delivering a touch spell the way RagnaroksChosen describes is through an unarmed strike, which is a standard action, which you can't do if you already spent your action casting a (touch) spell. Or at least that's how I've understood his reasoning.

It is flawed in more ways though, like being able to deliver an held spell the same round you channel a second spell, with the same attack.

[ThiagoMartell]

Yes, but delivering a touch spell the way RagnaroksChosen describes is through an unarmed strike, which is a standard action, which you can't do if you already spent your action casting a (touch) spell.
You explicitly can do so. Check pages 132 and 136 of Rules Compendium. There are rules for such in Complete Arcane and the Player's Handbook, RC only compiles them.

[Greyfeld85]

You explicitly can do so. Check pages 132 and 136 of Rules Compendium. There are rules for such in Complete Arcane and the Player's Handbook, RC only compiles them.

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

Attacking with an unarmed strike, with a touch spell charged, requires two standard actions (which usually means eating up two rounds). But Arcane Channeling allows for casting the spell and attacking in the same round.

[eggs]

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying.
Check out Rules Compendium p32 and Complete Arcane p72.

[ThiagoMartell]

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

Attacking with an unarmed strike, with a touch spell charged, requires two standard actions (which usually means eating up two rounds). But Arcane Channeling allows for casting the spell and attacking in the same round.

It does not. Just read on Complete Arcane or Rules Compendium.

[eggs]

CAr pg. 72 talks about caster levels and weaponlike spells. You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't see anything here that says you can make an actual unarmed strike and cast a touch spell in the same round.
Yeah, it's one of those:
"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"

[Gwendol]

Yes, but doesn't allow for what is proposed above, namely to hold the charge of one touch spell, then channel a second spell and deliver in essence two spells with one unarmed strike.

[ThiagoMartell]

Yes, but doesn't allow for what is proposed above, namely to hold the charge of one touch spell, then channel a second spell and deliver in essence two spells with one unarmed strike.
That's not possible for different reasons. If you cast another spell while holding the charge, you lose the charge.

[Gwendol]

Exactly! That's what I was trying to get at (post #42 above).

[Mari01]

Exactly! That's what I was trying to get at (post #42 above).

I dont understand what you're referencing.

[Gwendol]

The second paragraph of that post.