Touch Attacks of Opportunity

[Grayson01]

I know there is an Epic feat that lets a character make a touch spell for an AOO, is there a feat or a rule that allows for Touch attacks of Opportunity?

Edit: specifically for Dread Necros Touch attack ability

[OldTrees1]

No feat required.

[Curmudgeon]

No feat required.
I'm not sure how you get that idea. You don't threaten any squares by being able to touch creatures in them, an threatening is the basic requirement for AoOs.
If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

[Crake]

I'm not sure how you get that idea. You don't threaten any squares by being able to touch creatures in them, an threatening is the basic requirement for AoOs.

If you already have a touch spell charged in your hand, or you have a touch attack that threatens (such as an incorporeal touch attack, or an energy drain touch attack) then you aren't treated as unarmed.

[Curmudgeon]

If you already have a touch spell charged in your hand ... then you aren't treated as unarmed.
That doesn't exactly equal the benefit of Spell Opportunity [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#spellOpportunity), where you get to cast the spell as part of the AoO. But you're right: if you've already charged your body with a touch attack spell, and haven't discharged it by (perhaps accidentally) touching anyone/anything which would be a suitable target, you're considered armed.

[tyckspoon]

I'm not sure how you get that idea. You don't threaten any squares by being able to touch creatures in them, an threatening is the basic requirement for AoOs.

This seems like an opportune time to remind people about the difference between being able to make an attack with a touch (ie, you have some ability that lets you attack people every time you make contact with them, whether that's a passive special ability or holding the charge on a Touch spell) and having a Touch Attack ability that must be specifically activated to be used (something like a Dread Necromancer's Charnel Touch feature.) The former could be used on an Attack of Opportunity, as it's basically just another form of weapon where this part of the rules are concerned. The latter could not, as it requires its own action -typically a Standard- that is not compatible with the weird not-an-action attack that you get from Attacks of Opportunity.

[OldTrees1]

That doesn't exactly equal the benefit of Spell Opportunity [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#spellOpportunity), where you get to cast the spell as part of the AoO. But you're right: if you've already charged your body with a touch attack spell, and haven't discharged it by (perhaps accidentally) touching anyone/anything which would be a suitable target, you're considered armed.

True, but the OP only asked what was needed to make a touch attack as an AoO.
The answer: If you have a touch attack, you can make a touch attack as an AoO.

@tyckspoon
Good reminder

[Grayson01]

Sorry guess I should have put this in the OP. I was asking because I am making a Dread Necromancer. So I was talking specifically Touch attacks not while storing a touch spell ready to go, but that is good to know. However I will have spiked gauntlets on. But I really wanted to know about using the special ability touch attacks

[OldTrees1]

Sorry guess I should have put this in the OP. I was asking because I am making a Dread Necromancer. So I was talking specifically Touch attacks not while storing a touch spell ready to go, but that is good to know. However I will have spiked gauntlets on. But I really wanted to know about using the special ability touch attacks


Charnel Touch (Su): Negative energy flows through a dread necromancer's body, concentrating in her hands. At will, but no more than once per round, she can make a melee touch attack against a living foe that deals 1d8 points of damage, +1 per four class levels. This touch heals undead creatures, restoring 1 hit point per touch, +1 per four class levels. A dread necromancer can use the spectral hand spell to deliver this attack from a distance.

It does not mention the action cost to use. Thus it is a Standard action.
But if it was intended as a Standard action then why would there be a limit to once per round?
This implies to me that the author failed at writing it as similar to a Natural Attack.

So
RAW: You can never use it on an AoO.
RAI: Depending on your DM's reading, you might be allowed to use it on an AoO.

[TuggyNE]

It does not mention the action cost to use. Thus it is a Standard action.
But if it was intended as a Standard action then why would there be a limit to once per round?
This implies to me that the author failed at writing it as similar to a Natural Attack.

Quite possibly, but a devil's advocate would note the existence of Belt of Battle, Chronotyryn (form), celerity, and assorted other methods of gaining additional standard actions.

[OldTrees1]

Quite possibly, but a devil's advocate would note the existence of Belt of Battle, Chronotyryn (form), celerity, and assorted other methods of gaining additional standard actions.

Thanks for posting the devil's advocate position.

Common response would be to note the lack of those options for a Dread Necromancer at the time of printing. Belt was printed afterwards and the rest cannot be obtained by Dread Necromancer class features.

Less common response would be to note the general lack of cross book checking from WotC authors.

[The Viscount]

It does not mention the action cost to use. Thus it is a Standard action.
But if it was intended as a Standard action then why would there be a limit to once per round?
This implies to me that the author failed at writing it as similar to a Natural Attack.

So
RAW: You can never use it on an AoO.
RAI: Depending on your DM's reading, you might be allowed to use it on an AoO.

I'm not sure that you can make the intuitive leap from standard action to no AoO. You'd certainly be able to say that you can make the AoO only if you haven't attacked with it in that round. The author of DN failed at a number of things, the biggest of which was that most things aren't phrased in the correct terminology.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure that you can make the intuitive leap from standard action to no AoO. You'd certainly be able to say that you can make the AoO only if you haven't attacked with it in that round. The author of DN failed at a number of things, the biggest of which was that most things aren't phrased in the correct terminology.

An AoO does not allow a Standard Action (Attack, Bullrush, Strike Manuevers). Instead it allows a melee attack or things that can be substituted for a melee attack (Trip, Disarm).

However I agreed that RAI seems to heavily imply the author intended it as a 1/round substitute for a melee basic attack. (Thus usable on an AoO).

I suspect most DMs would rely on RAI in this case.

[Curmudgeon]

However I agreed that RAI seems to heavily imply the author intended it as a 1/round substitute for a melee basic attack. (Thus usable on an AoO).

I suspect most DMs would rely on RAI in this case.
I would tend to disagree with you, in part because "melee basic attack" is a 4.0 D&D convention rather than 3.5.

[OldTrees1]

I would tend to disagree with you, in part because "melee basic attack" is a 4.0 D&D convention rather than 3.5.

I used to call it by 3.0's "Attack Action" terminology. People started arguing despite that being held over in 3.5. To be more clear I now called it "melee basic attack".

Yes the basic "Attack(melee)" action is part of 3.5 and is heavily referenced.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes the basic "Attack(melee)" action is part of 3.5 and is heavily referenced.
What you're referring to exists only on Table 8–2: Actions in Combat as a standard action. An attack is something different: it's what takes up all of that standard action, but it's also what's used repeatedly in a full attack action or in the "no action" AoO.

[OldTrees1]

What you're referring to exists only on Table 8–2: Actions in Combat as a standard action. An attack is something different: it's what takes up all of that standard action, but it's also what's used repeatedly in a full attack action or in the "no action" AoO.

Thank you for the correction.
And thank you for getting on the same page.