3rd Ed The Duskblade and Arcane Channeling [Archive]

Desthro

2014-09-03, 08:49 PM

What this post is about:
Arcane Channeling is a very unique ability in the 3.5 world because it doesn't merely grant a specific ability. Rather, it modifies an existing, and well documented, action with specific wording. It is an attempt to analyze this ability on a step-by-step basis. Hopefully, it will dispel some deeply entrenched and generally accepted myths about the ability, or at the very least cast a new light on this fascinating class ability and open minds to the possibilities therein. I hope that this thread can lead to an eye-opening and constructive dialogue about this ability and the class that wields it.

What this post is not about:
Trolls, flamers, enraged nerds, and/or generally people who cannot contribute to a meaningful analysis or discussion. Yes, we know you exist, take your problems elsewhere.

About me:
I am a dedicated RPG fan and have been playing, analyzing, breaking, and theorycrafting with various RPG systems for nearly 20 years. Sometimes I disagree with the community at large, and I end up having a very heated discussion with a trusted friend of mine who maintains a web blog detailing his experiences in the gaming community. He suggested I bring this discussion here to the wonderful people who share a common interest in such things.

-=[]=-
Arcane Channeling
First, let's take the text of the ability directly out of Players' Handbook 2 (PH2) on page 20:

Arcane Channeling (Su):
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved. At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would otherwise last longer than 1 round.

Arcane Channeling is a complex, and difficult ability to analyze due to its compound nature. Due to that aspect of the ability, we must break it down sentence by sentence, and proceed given the information we obtain from our analysis.

The first sentence of the Arcane Channeling ability states that "you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack." This part of the sentence tells us what kind of standard action it is (as defined in the SRD under Standard Actions.) It also brings us to our first myth.

Myth #1: Arcane Channeling is an Attack Action
Reality: Arcane Channeling is a Cast a Spell Action

According to the SRD, Standard Actions are broken down in to groups of common actions, each of which has specific rules on how these actions interact with the various mechanics of the game. The types of Standard Actions are: Attack, Cast a Spell, Activate Magic Item, Use Special Ability, Total Defense, and Start/Complete Full-Round Action. Arcane Channeling is a "Cast a Spell" action, because of the words, "...cast a touch spell you know..." This part of the sentence also tells us what necessary rules apply to the casting of this spell, which is in this case: touch spells.

Normally, casting a spell does not require any form of an attack for it to resolve unless it falls into the category of touch or ranged-touch spells. However, touch spells have specific clauses related to making touch attacks as a part of casting the spell (taken directly from the d20 SRD):

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 casting 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.

Any touch spell you cast in a round also allows you to attempt to touch your target to deliver the spell in the same round. It does not cost you an action, and this rule is parallel to the wording contained within the first sentence of Arcane Channeling, "...cast any touch spell you know AND deliver the spell..." The next part of the sentence in question is where a large portion of many arguments arise. This is due, likely, to the removal of the touch attack wording as it is replaced with melee attack wording instead.

The first substitution that deviates from the Standard Action of "Cast a Spell: Touch Spells" is the language: "...and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack." First, we will discuss the nature of touch attacks and the ramifications of substituting the touch attack with a melee attack. Keep in mind, that despite the fact that it is no longer a touch attack, we are still resolving the action of: "Cast a Spell " and are not making an "Attack" as defined by the SRD.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Touch Attacks are very similar to Melee Attacks in that they require an attack roll, and are defended by AC with the noted modifications. This also brings us to the second myth.

Myth #2: Spells cast via Arcane Channeling cannot score critical hits
Reality: Any spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit

According to the Players' Handbook (PH) page 140:

Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll, such as shocking grasp or Melf’s acid arrow, can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll, such as lightning bolt, cannot score a critical hit.

Since we are casting a touch spell that requires an attack roll (touch or otherwise!), the spell can and will crit if the attack roll threatens a critical and is backed accordingly. Touch attacks have a threat/modifier of 20/x2, and that would be used if we were making a touch attack to deliver our spell. Since we are attacking with a melee weapon to deliver the spell, the threat range of the weapon and the critical modifier of the weapon apply to the attack made, as is with all attacks made with weapons. This is a strong assertion and will likely incur some lively and lengthy discussion. Holding the Charge (see below) also contains some wording that aligns with unarmed attacks and attacks made with natural weapons. Naturally, if you crit on those attack rolls, your spell will crit accordingly. The same applies to Arcane Channeling.

Myth #3: Missing your attack with Arcane Channeling causes your touch spell to become lost
Reality: If it misses, you can Hold the Charge because it is a touch 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. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Holding the charge states that if the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. This applies to unarmed attacks and natural weapon attacks, and with Arcane Channeling, melee weapon attacks. It is a natural and smooth application of the touch spell rules thus far.

The next few sentences in the Arcane Channeling ability are fairly clear and unambiguous.

"Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less."

I feel those do not need explanation.

However, the very next sentence is also a source of dissent amongst players and DMs alike. "If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved." It is also a part of our next myth.

Myth #4: The spell is "bonus damage" like sneak attack and/or weapon enchantments like flaming, shocking, or unholy burst.
Reality: The spell is being delivered by the attack as outlined under Holding the Charge. It is not bonus damage of any sort.

Fortunately for us, we have already gone over an extremely similar piece of language with Holding the Charge: "If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges." The similarity in the language is unmistakable. This also corroborates with the reality of Myth #3.

The last sentences are related to a further enhancement of the Arcane Channelling ability: "At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would otherwise last longer than 1 round."

By extrapolating the analysis we have made prior, you can take a full attack action to cast the touch spell instead of a standard action, gain a full attack progression, and have the spell affect each target you hit in melee combat that round. Unfortunately there are no specific hard and fast examples regarding whether or not you can affect the same target multiple times, or if you have to hit separate targets to gain the bonus spell duplication. However, there is one touch spell and one pseudo-touch spell that allows you to discharge it multiple times over its duration, Chill Touch and Produce Flame. The description of Chill Touch suggests that you can affect the same target multiple times with multiple touch attacks, and is the only core example of this effect that I could locate easily. Produce flame grants you a touch attack that deals damage. It's not a stretch, but there are no core examples unfortunately. The second problem is the XP cost and/or expensive material component costs. Duplicating the spell effects of such spells almost ALWAYS requires one to pay the XP/Material costs again, and I do not feel that this ability would work any differently. If its possible to work out a hard, reasoned path to the truth regarding the level 13 upgrade, I would be more than happy if we could do so.

Thank you for reading!

A_S

2014-09-03, 09:25 PM

Welcome to the playground :smallsmile: !

First, to your specific posts:

#1 I think your analysis of trying to categorize standard actions here is nonsensical. Although the SRD page you mention (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) lists many types of standard actions, it's not an exhaustive list; for instance, the ready action and many skill uses are also standard actions, despite not being listed there. Rather than saying "Arcane Channeling must fit into one of these categories, and it's not (Attack), it's (Cast A Spell)," I think it's better to think of Arcane Channeling as simply its own new type of standard action that does exactly what it says: It casts a spell, then makes an attack to deliver it. Thus, it triggers abilities that happen whenever you cast a spell, but also triggers abilities that happen whenever you make an attack (because it specifically says that you both cast a spell and make an attack as part of the standard action).

#2 I think this is widely acknowledged as correct. Have you played with people who disagree?

#3 This is interesting, and not something I've seen discussed before. At first glance, I agree with your reading here; you definitely cast a touch spell as part of the Arcane Channeling action, and that bit of text is just describing what happens if you cast a touch spell and fail to deliver it. By strict RAW, though, I'm not sure you can deliver the held charge with your weapon on subsequent rounds; you might have to actually touch the target.

#4 As far as I know, "bonus damage" isn't really a well-defined term in the rules (although it does get thrown around a lot). What rules would this interact with depending on whether damage from a channeled spell were or were not "bonus damage?" Are you talking about stuff like Sneak Attack damage not being multiplied on a critical hit? I'd say you get to multiply it because, as you say, the text of Arcane Channeling specifies that you're delivering the spell, that the rule that "spells you deliver with an attack roll can crit" is more specific than "don't multiply bonus damage dice on crit," especially since it's unclear whether channeled spell damage is bonus damage in the first place.

-----

On a more general note, I wanna ask: What made you want to make this post? Have you read things here that make you think this community has misconceptions about how Arcane Channeling works? Are these misconceptions your own gaming group has or had, and you wanna talk about them with others and see if they're widespread? As a general rule, most bits of rules text in 3.5 have been pored over, argued about, used in cute ways for CharOp, read again, argued about some more, etc. for 10+ years on these boards. You might get more feedback and discussion of the kind you want if you ask a few specific followup questions to your analysis, or give a few discussion points, rather than taking the "everyone is wrong about this, let me dispense my wisdom and correct you all" tone of your first couple paragraphs :smallwink: .

Desthro

2014-09-03, 11:42 PM

Thanks for your reply and your welcome! =)

#1 I think your analysis of trying to categorize standard actions here is nonsensical. Although the SRD page you mention (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) lists many types of standard actions, it's not an exhaustive list; for instance, the ready action and many skill uses are also standard actions, despite not being listed there. Rather than saying "Arcane Channeling must fit into one of these categories, and it's not (Attack), it's (Cast A Spell)," I think it's better to think of Arcane Channeling as simply its own new type of standard action that does exactly what it says: It casts a spell, then makes an attack to deliver it. Thus, it triggers abilities that happen whenever you cast a spell, but also triggers abilities that happen whenever you make an attack (because it specifically says that you both cast a spell and make an attack as part of the standard action).
It's actually pretty important because each grouping of actions contains its own rules and how they relate to the mechanics within the game. While the melee attack replacement will definitely be resolved with the rules governing attacks, (ie the Attack group of actions), the entire (Su) ability is mostly related to spellcasting. I was merely trying to explain that the rules that would apply most closely would be the ones under "Cast a Spell." My friend and I agreed to disagree, and here we are! =D

#2 I think this is widely acknowledged as correct. Have you played with people who disagree?
My good friend disagrees with me, and he's my DM regarding a game where this has come up in. We disagree on a lot of things actually, and we have very interesting discussions, so I figured I would post it here and see if my arguments are solid and well-reasoned. My research has shown that people do flop on this one from time to time. If that's not the case, then awesomeness!

#3 This is interesting, and not something I've seen discussed before. At first glance, I agree with your reading here; you definitely cast a touch spell as part of the Arcane Channeling action, and that bit of text is just describing what happens if you cast a touch spell and fail to deliver it. By strict RAW, though, I'm not sure you can deliver the held charge with your weapon on subsequent rounds; you might have to actually touch the target.
I would say you can still deliver the spell through the weapon since you technically haven't completed the ability yet in its entirety, and if you chose to channel a different spell, you lose the one you are holding. If anything, Arcane Channeling just allows for the use of a melee weapon to deliver touch-range spells (extending the ruleset found under Hold the Charge) and you don't suffer from AoOs and the casting time must be one SA or less. It would have been much easier to word it that way, but hey, that's just me. Ofc I think Hold the Charge is insane, and that's the risk of using a touch spell that has no save, but it is what it is no?

b]#4[/b] As far as I know, "bonus damage" isn't really a well-defined term in the rules (although it does get thrown around a lot). What rules would this interact with depending on whether damage from a channeled spell were or were not "bonus damage?" Are you talking about stuff like Sneak Attack damage not being multiplied on a critical hit? I'd say you get to multiply it because, as you say, the text of Arcane Channeling specifies that you're delivering the spell, that the rule that "spells you deliver with an attack roll can crit" is more specific than "don't multiply bonus damage dice on crit," especially since it's unclear whether channeled spell damage is bonus damage in the first place.

Yeah, the rules regarding bonus damage aren't very clear in general, I'd agree with that for sure. And the big problem lies where people change what the ability does based on preconceived notions, or partial interpretations of the ability. Just as an example, you said "channeled spell damage", and it's not really channeled anything, it's casting a touch spell this way, which specifically classified as a touch attack. Some people have argued that it is bonus damage on an attack, which is quite obviously not the case. (Unlike the Arcane Strike feat for example.) So I figured it was worth mentioning. Probably a bit unclear though.

On a more general note, I wanna ask: What made you want to make this post? Have you read things here that make you think this community has misconceptions about how Arcane Channeling works? Are these misconceptions your own gaming group has or had, and you wanna talk about them with others and see if they're widespread? As a general rule, most bits of rules text in 3.5 have been pored over, argued about, used in cute ways for CharOp, read again, argued about some more, etc. for 10+ years on these boards. You might get more feedback and discussion of the kind you want if you ask a few specific followup questions to your analysis, or give a few discussion points, rather than taking the "everyone is wrong about this, let me dispense my wisdom and correct you all" tone of your first couple paragraphs :smallwink:.

Actually, it was to settle a question between my friend and I. I have read things in various communities and each one of these has come up in the conversations read over the years. So I figured why not post about it, list my reasoning, and see what the response is like. (I admit I do not post in forums too often! Obviously! :smallredface:) And not everyone is wrong, it's just common misconceptions I have seen.

All in all, I appreciate the time you took to take a look at it. =)

Now if you have some insight regarding the level 13 extension of this ability. . . I am still all ears =D

A_S

2014-09-04, 02:26 AM

It's actually pretty important because each grouping of actions contains its own rules and how they relate to the mechanics within the game. While the melee attack replacement will definitely be resolved with the rules governing attacks, (ie the Attack group of actions), the entire (Su) ability is mostly related to spellcasting. I was merely trying to explain that the rules that would apply most closely would be the ones under "Cast a Spell." My friend and I agreed to disagree, and here we are! =D
Hm. I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing on anything substantive w/r/t the actual rules, just the usefulness of action categories.

Here's how I see it: The Arcane Channeling ability (paraphrased) says you cast a spell, then make an attack to deliver it, and that whole thing takes a standard action. You should resolve the part of that action that's casting a spell using the rules for casting a spell (it takes components if it the spell has components, etc.), and you should resolve the part that's an attack using the rules for making an attack (has a range of your reach because it's a melee attack, roll 1d20+AB to determine if it hits, etc.). Saying "most of the text for this ability is about the part where you cast a spell, so it's a 'cast a spell'-type action" doesn't really make any sense.

Is there a specific in-game outcome where you and your friend disagree about what should happen when you use the ability that depends on which category the action belongs to?

I would say you can still deliver the spell through the weapon since you technically haven't completed the ability yet in its entirety, and if you chose to channel a different spell, you lose the one you are holding. If anything, Arcane Channeling just allows for the use of a melee weapon to deliver touch-range spells (extending the ruleset found under Hold the Charge) and you don't suffer from AoOs and the casting time must be one SA or less. It would have been much easier to word it that way, but hey, that's just me. Ofc I think Hold the Charge is insane, and that's the risk of using a touch spell that has no save, but it is what it is no?
Having read the ability more closely, I disagree. The exact wording is (emphasis mine), "you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack." By my reading, once you've used your standard action, you're done using the Arcane Channeling ability. If you've failed to deliver the spell at the end of that action (because your melee attack missed), then you default to the general rules for what happens when you cast a spell (which you did as part of Arcane Channeling) but don't deliver it, which is that you have to touch your opponent to deliver the spell.

Using your weapon to deliver the spell on a subsequent action would no longer be "us a standard action to cast...and deliver..." and therefore is not something that Arcane Channeling allows you to do.

I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this though; this is actually the first time I've heard it suggested that you can hold the charge when using Arcane Channeling.

Now if you have some insight regarding the level 13 extension of this ability. . . I am still all ears =D
The things I've seen confusion about on that front are:

You only get to deliver the spell to each opponent you strike once. Note the wording (emphasis mine): "the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." No slamming the same person with Night's Caress five times in a round.
Once you take a full attack action to use Arcane Channeling [i]once in a round, the spell gets delivered by all the melee attacks you make that round, even if they're not part of that full attack action: "each target you hit in melee combat that round." So, if you have some way of making additional attacks after that full attack action (say, Shadow Pounce + swift action teleportation, or even just AoO's you make later in the round), they deliver your spell too.
There's at least one type of full attack action, the Whirlwind Attack feat, that isn't just the standard full attack routine. Because it's explicitly a full attack action, you can use Whirlwind Attack with Arcane Channeling at level 13. Probably not worth the massive feat investment, but cool.
That's all the insight I have on the subject.

*edit* Oh yeah, and if you're looking to win the critical hit argument with your friend, show him the rules on page 72 of Complete Arcane for "weaponlike spells." They're defined as "any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage," and it's specified that the Improved Critical feat works on them...so it's pretty clear that they can crit.

Gwendol

2014-09-04, 03:38 AM

Other classes can deliver spells through melee weapons. Here's the Ordained Champion channel spell ability:

Channel Spell (Su): At 3rd level, you can channel any spell available to you that has one creature or more as its target into your melee weapon. Doing so requires a move action and uses up a spell slot or prepared spell of casting time no greater than one standard action. The channeled spell affects the next target you successfully attack with that weapon, though saving throws and spell resistance still apply normally. Even if the spell normally affects an area or is a ray, it still affects only the target in this case. On a successful hit, the spell is discharged from the weapon, which can then hold another spell. You can channel your spells into only one weapon at a time. A spell channeled into a weapon is lost if not used within 8 hours.

Here the meaning is clear: once channeled the spell remains in the weapon until discharged, or is lost after eight hours. The weapon must successfully hit a target for the spell to discharge.

Arcane channeling works somewhat differently: if the melee attack hits successfully, the effect of the spell is resolved. Thus what that means depends on the spell in question. If the attack does not hit, the spell must still be stored in the weapon, just like a held charge. Some spells (Chill Touch) may allow for multiple attacks. Stored in a weapon that would mean attacking multiple targets if BAB (and CL) allows it.

Troacctid

2014-09-04, 04:14 AM

Can you channel through a grapple or trip attempt?

Gwendol

2014-09-04, 06:17 AM

Grapple: I don't see how as you channel the spell into a weapon. Just cast the spell and deliver it through a touch attack normally while making a hold to establish the grapple.

Trip: If you trip through the use of a weapon, yes.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-04, 09:52 AM

Skyrender

2014-09-04, 09:59 AM

I think the primary distinction that most people disagree over is whether arcane channeling represents a modification of the process of casting and delivering a touch spell, or as an alteration of an attack.

I think the problem most people have in understanding this ability lies in how people envision it. For some (myself included), you're taking a spell that already requires you to make contact with the target, and adding the ability to touch the target with a swing of your sword, instead of your hand (or fist, foot, claws, fangs, horns, tentacles, or whatever-else-have-you). Others view it primarily as making the attack, and then rushing to release the spell in that one single moment when the weapon is making contact. Still others view it as a temporary enchantment upon the weapon, altering it for that one attack that you can make.

Let's get something straight: This is not a temporary weapon enchantment, and any damage done by the spell is NOT bonus dice of damage for the attack! This is an attack PLUS a spell. As such, it is not treated the same as bonus dice of damage from the fire damage of a flaming sword, or the precision damage from a rogue's sneak attack.

Critical Characteristics: I've heard the arguments for using the critical characteristics of a weapon, and the ones for a spell, and I have to say the critical for the weapon is handled normally and the spell critical is, too. If you're using a scimitar, you'll threaten on 18-20, and do double damage upon confirmation. If you're using a heavy pick, you'll threaten on a 20, and do quadruple damage when you confirm. On the other hand, no matter what weapon you use, your spell will threaten on 20 and do double damage.

If you're gishing, try a duskblade 13/warlock 6-9/duskblade 14-16//warlock 1-5/enlightened spirit 1-10/divine oracle 2/warlock 10-12. With an average of just under a d8 for hit points, he's a bit too fragile to take the big hits. On the other hand, as soon as he gets transform magic at level 14 you can save your cleric from having to waste precious spells healing everybody up after every fight! Please note that this idea does, however, require a non-instantaneous at-will spell or spell-like ability, not including one of your own invocations (I recommend having another character with a level of warlock). What's more, in the middle of the fight you can use your eldritch blast o arcane channeling, and if you take battle caster, you can even use medium armor with no chance of invocation failure... and the two levels of divine oracle give you prescient sense, so you gain evasion no matter what kind of armor you're using! Be sure to pick up Improved Critical for both melee touch and ranged touch spells, if you can manage to fit them into your feat progression.

On a personal note, I like going into battle with a brilliant-energy rapier in one hand and a sorcerer's hand in the other. I like imagining that I'm using a lightsaber and a blaster. So I'm a Star Wars fan. Sue me.

Khedrac

2014-09-04, 10:05 AM

Skyrender

2014-09-04, 10:46 AM

Khedrac, who told you ray spells aren't touch spells? Every ray spell I know of requires a ranged touch roll.

Ray spells DO seem to make up the preponderance of ranged touch spells (not including melee touch spells modified to be used at range, by any of several means). On the other hand, there are spells like Melf's acid arrow, which creates a projectile, and all you hafta do is point and shoot (so to speak).

Look at it this way: a ray is a subtype of ranged touch. In turn, ranged touch is a subtype of touch (alongside melee touch, which you seem to think is simply called touch). The wording of the arcane channeling ability says that you can use any touch spell you know, which would include any spell you have access to from the duskblade class...

...or any other.

To put it as simply as possible, if the spell requires a touch attack roll, or a ranged touch attack roll, a range of 'touch,' or has a target that includes 'creature (or object) touched,' or in any way mentions touching the intended target to get it to work, it's a touch spell.

Shocking grasp is a good example of a melee touch spell. Physically resisting the spell is worse than useless, whether it's a knight in a clunky metal suit, or a dragon with layers and layers of big, thick scales. All it takes is touching the knight's armor, and the metal conducts it straight into the hapless warrior's body, ignoring the armor bonus of the armor completely. The dragon's scales are actually part of the dragon, so natural armor is ignored, too (of course, several kinds of dragons are flat-out immune to electricity, but you get the idea).

A ranged touch spell is like pointing a gun at a particular opponent in the middle of a fight scene in an action movie, while working through a complex polynomial equation in your head (hence the concentration required, and the attack of opportunity that it generally provokes). If you can't keep the little red dot pointed at the bad guy as he dodges out of the way, the shot (spell) goes off without harming him. Worst-case scenario, it hits your friend standing behind him, instead. (That's why you should grab precise shot if you're a ranged spell specialist!)

In point of fact, the OP already answered this point, more eloquently and diplomatically than I just did.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-04, 01:20 PM

Argument I had with my local group a while back: can a duskblade channel ranged touch/ray spells? They're technically "touch". Ray spells are a definite no from me, as they are "Effect: Ray", not "Target: One Creature", but a ranged touch spell that isn't a ray is a little more vague.

IIRC the only ranged touch spells that aren't rays are Conjuration ranged touch attacks (orbs, etc.)

I think a way to simplify the Duskblade's arcane channeling ability would be to word it thusly:

Arcane Channeling (su): A Duskblade of at least 3rd level can use a melee weapon attack or natural weapon attack to deliver a touch spell, similar to the rules regarding Unarmed Strikes and Touch Spells. (See page <insert reference here> of the Player's Handbook) The spell attack uses the standard rules for weaponlike spells (See Complete Arcane page <whatever>) regarding critical strikes.
Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells
As Rules of the Game has noted before, you can use an unarmed attack to deliver a spell with touch range. You make the unarmed attack as you would normally. Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell. If your attack roll is high enough to hit your target's regular Armor Class (not just its touch Armor Class), you deal unarmed strike damage and you also deliver the spell. If your attack roll fails to hit your target's regular Armor Class, the attack fails. It deals no damage and you don't deliver the spell either. You are, however, still holding the spell, just as if you failed with a touch attack.
At level 13, a Duskblade can use this ability as a full-round action to cast a spell with a range of Touch and deliver that spell with each melee weapon attack of a full attack action. If the spell's effects would normally last longer than one round, those effects end at the end of the Duskblade's current turn. If the Duskblade misses with all attacks, the spell is lost.

That should strip any ambiguity out of it, huh? It says the same thing, but referencing existing understandable rules.
(Also, the full round action doesn't get to keep the charge on misses. It's the trade-off of being able to hit multiple times, and that's kind of how it's worded now anyway.)

Desthro

2014-09-04, 01:30 PM

Just a clarification: Touch spells are not spells that require a touch attack, but spells that have a RANGE of "touch." Rays do not have a range of "touch" so they are by definition not touch spells.

Snowbluff

2014-09-04, 01:41 PM

You only get to deliver the spell to each opponent you strike once. Note the wording (emphasis mine): "the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." No slamming the same person with Night's Caress five times in a round.
Once you take a full attack action to use Arcane Channeling once in a round, the spell gets delivered by all the melee attacks you make that round, even if they're not part of that full attack action: "each target you hit in melee combat that round." So, if you have some way of making additional attacks after that full attack action (say, Shadow Pounce + swift action teleportation, or even just AoO's you make later in the round), they deliver your spell too.
There's at least one type of full attack action, the Whirlwind Attack feat, that isn't just the standard full attack routine. Because it's explicitly a full attack action, you can use Whirlwind Attack with Arcane Channeling at level 13. Probably not worth the massive feat investment, but cool.
That's all the insight I have on the subject.

1) There's no consensus here. A person hit would not longer be the target but the subject. The point is that Night's Caress isn't a great spell to be using, especially consider their are better ways for a DB to have effective damage and they can't crank DCs.

2) You channel DHop. Shoulder check yourself with your armor spikes. Commence shadow pounce. You channel DHop....

This is the real argument as to why you shouldn't be able to hit the same subject multiple times.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-04, 01:58 PM

2) You channel DHop. Shoulder check yourself with your armor spikes. Commence shadow pounce. You channel DHop....
This is the real argument as to why you shouldn't be able to hit the same subject multiple times.

Actually IIRC the only way to get shadow pounce is via FR specific prestige classes, which means the first time you do this, Mystra appears and eats you. Alternatively, your DM says "No you're not allowed to do that."

Also, how is a Duskblade 13 getting Wiz/Sor 5 spells known, for Night's Caress, other than Gestalt? And if it's Gestalt, the DM should have been more leery of allowing a Duskblade//Also Caster

The things I've seen confusion about on <the full attack channel> are:

You only get to deliver the spell to each opponent you strike once. Note the wording (emphasis mine): "the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." No slamming the same person with Night's Caress five times in a round.
Once you take a full attack action to use Arcane Channeling once in a round, the spell gets delivered by all the melee attacks you make that round, even if they're not part of that full attack action: "each target you hit in melee combat that round." So, if you have some way of making additional attacks after that full attack action (say, Shadow Pounce + swift action teleportation, or even just AoO's you make later in the round), they deliver your spell too.
There's at least one type of full attack action, the Whirlwind Attack feat, that isn't just the standard full attack routine. Because it's explicitly a full attack action, you can use Whirlwind Attack with Arcane Channeling at level 13. Probably not worth the massive feat investment, but cool.

1) The ability doesn't specify that restriction. If I hit someone, then hit them again, then he was 2 of my targets for attacks that round. There's precedent with other spells that allow multiple charges of a touch spell (earlier in this thread) so my reading is basically that Arcane Channeling2 turns every touch spell into a multi-hit touch spell, as long as you use your weapon attacks to make the attacks.
I don't know why people read this as "You can't affect the same person more than once with the spell" when it's not spelled out in the text. All that reading does is lessen the coolness of the ability. And I, for one, think that allowing PCs to do Cool Things™ should trump supposed balance issues.*

*-Barring, of course, spotlight hogging. But that's a different matter.
2) The spell is discharged at the end of your turn. So no AoO Arcane Channeling. As for Shadow Pounce: That's up to the DM to say "No" to.
3) Uhh...yeah that's just an awesome idea. I've got nothing to add there. (Maybe keep a +1 Whirling (MIC) Spiked Chain on your person in case you get surrounded?)

A_S

2014-09-04, 02:17 PM

I know this stuff has been argued before, so spoilered re: channeling on the same target multiple times:
1) There's no consensus here. A person hit would not longer be the target but the subject. The point is that Night's Caress isn't a great spell to be using, especially consider their are better ways for a DB to have effective damage and they can't crank DCs.

1) The ability doesn't specify that restriction. If I hit someone, then hit them again, then he was 2 of my targets for attacks that round. There's precedent with other spells that allow multiple charges of a touch spell (earlier in this thread) so my reading is basically that Arcane Channeling2 turns every touch spell into a multi-hit touch spell, as long as you use your weapon attacks to make the attacks.
I don't know why people read this as "You can't affect the same person more than once with the spell" when it's not spelled out in the text. All that reading does is lessen the coolness of the ability. And I, for one, think that allowing PCs to do Cool Things™ should trump supposed balance issues.*

*-Barring, of course, spotlight hogging. But that's a different matter.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if the "spell affects each target you hit," then people you hit are, indeed, targets. And one person is 2 targets if you hit him twice? No he isn't, he's the same person, and you targeted him twice. He's still the same target. We would need some rules text to the effect of "if an ability targets a character more than once, consider him a separate target each time you resolve the ability" in order to override the basic English use of "each target."

This isn't a balance issue thing for me (I'd be perfectly fine allowing it to hit the same target multiple times), it's just what seems to be the literal reading of the text. People you hit with your channeled spell are targets (it says so right in the ability). You get to affect each target with the spell. To make it work the way you're suggesting, it could have been written "the spell takes effect each time you hit a target in melee combat this round." But it wasn't.

More relevant:
2) The spell is discharged at the end of your turn. So no AoO Arcane Channeling.
The spell is discharged "at the end of the round." I was under the impression that meant at the end of the initiative round (so when the last person in initiative order takes their turn, the spell ends). Have I missed something that makes "the end of the round" mean "the end of your turn?"

nedz

2014-09-04, 02:34 PM

Myth #1: Arcane Channeling is an Attack Action
Reality: Arcane Channeling is a Cast a Spell Action

Myth #2: Spells cast via Arcane Channeling cannot score critical hits
Reality: Any spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit

Myth #3: Missing your attack with Arcane Channeling causes your touch spell to become lost
Reality: If it misses, you can Hold the Charge because it is a touch spell.

Myth #4: The spell is "bonus damage" like sneak attack and/or weapon enchantments like flaming, shocking, or unholy burst.
Reality: The spell is being delivered by the attack as outlined under Holding the Charge. It is not bonus damage of any sort.

Hi, welcome to the Playground. This is how I view your four points.

#1 Arcane Channeling is a Standard Action, period. Your distinctions are meaningless. Also, is there any relevance to this question ?

#2 The spell does not require an attack role, the weapon does: so the weapon can Crit, but not the spell.

#3 The rules are silent on this because you are not casting a Touch spell in the usual manner - you are Channeling it through your weapon. Spells like Chill touch are interesting because they allow for multiple touches, but again the rules are silent on how this works.

#4 CArc defines Weaponlike spells, which can have sneak damage etc. applied. This is not a Weaponlike spell, it is a Weapon through which a spell has been channelled. The weapon damage may therefore have sneak attack damage added, but not the spell. I think that your conclusion is right, though your reasoning seems slightly awry — simply because you are not casting a touch spell in the usual manner.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-04, 02:49 PM

I know this stuff has been argued before, so spoilered re: channeling on the same target multiple times:It seems pretty obvious to me that if the "spell affects each target you hit," then people you hit are, indeed, targets. And one person is 2 targets if you hit him twice? No he isn't, he's the same person, and you targeted him twice. He's still the same target. We would need some rules text to the effect of "if an ability targets a character more than once, consider him a separate target each time you resolve the ability" in order to override the basic English use of "each target."

This isn't a balance issue thing for me (I'd be perfectly fine allowing it to hit the same target multiple times), it's just what seems to be the literal reading of the text. People you hit with your channeled spell are targets (it says so right in the ability). You get to affect each target with the spell. To make it work the way you're suggesting, it could have been written "the spell takes effect each time you hit a target in melee combat this round." But it wasn't.

More relevant:
The spell is discharged "at the end of the round." I was under the impression that meant at the end of the initiative round (so when the last person in initiative order takes their turn, the spell ends). Have I missed something that makes "the end of the round" mean "the end of your turn?"

AFAIK You haven't missed anything. I must have misread something re:end of round/turn. The wording seems to imply that it only affects targets hit during the full attack action you take as part of casting the spell, but it's rather ambiguous. Man Wizards could use better editing...

Every time you attack a creature, it becomes the target of that attack. It doesn't matter whether it was also the target of another attack in that round. If I attack a creature twice, that creature is the target of two of my attacks, so yes, it is two targets. If it has DR, the DR applies to each attack individually. If I have riders on my attacks, (Sneak attack damage, Skirmish damage, DFI damage, etc.) the riders apply to the individual attacks. It doesn't matter that the same creature was already a target of one of my attacks, it is now also the target of the next attack. The game, in general, doesn't differentiate between making an attack against the same target or making an attack against different targets. This ability doesn't have a specific rule about that, so why would it be different?
(And that's the crux of my mechanical argument here, as opposed to the cool-and-or-fun factor argument.

And in response to nedz, who I can't quote since I only saw his post as part of the topic review while previewing:
1) As far as which sort of standard action it is: It is Cast a Spell. This might be important for things like readied actions, or feats which interact with specific standard actions. It is not, for instance, attacking as a standard action with a spell attached.

2) Touch spells are weaponlike spells. Weaponlike spells are "Spells which require an attack roll". A Duskblade's Arcane Channeling is an extension of the Delivering a Touch Spell rule; namely, that you can use a melee weapon attack to deliver the touch spell. (Much the same way that you can punch someone with an unarmed strike and deliver a touch spell also)

edit:
3) You are, in fact, casting a touch spell in the normal manner. You are simply delivering it through a unique delivery system. The Duskblade's Arcane Channeling works almost exactly the same as a touch spell being delivered via an unarmed strike, as the rules already cover. The only difference is that you are allowed to use a weapon to do the delivery.

Desthro

2014-09-04, 03:25 PM

Critical Characteristics: I've heard the arguments for using the critical characteristics of a weapon, and the ones for a spell, and I have to say the critical for the weapon is handled normally and the spell critical is, too. If you're using a scimitar, you'll threaten on 18-20, and do double damage upon confirmation. If you're using a heavy pick, you'll threaten on a 20, and do quadruple damage when you confirm. On the other hand, no matter what weapon you use, your spell will threaten on 20 and do double damage.

This was actually something I wanted to lay out specifically, but either forgot about it or didn't think it through completely. The reasoning behind using the weapon modifier for threat range and multiplier is because only weapons have threat ranges and multipliers for criticals. Hold the Touch, discussed earlier, states that touch spells can be delivered via unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks (both of which have a 20/x2 threat/multiplier), "weapon-like spells," when treated as a weapon, have 20/x2. When you deliver the touch spell via a touch, you use "weapon-like spells" because that is your "weapon" in this case and has the 20/x2 range/modifier; if its delivered via a natural attack, the natural attack is your "weapon" and uses 20/x2 for natural weapons, and if it is delivered via an unarmed strike, that is your "weapon" and it uses 20/x2. Spells in and of themselves do not have a threat range or critical damage modifier specified. Only their methods of delivery do, and they are (for the most part), all 20/x2. The only exception to this would be in arcane channeling, where an alternative to the above is used, a melee weapon.

It is much, much, much simpler in application, avoids unnecessary complication and difficult house-ruling, and makes sense.

It's not specified, but analysis of the underlying factors usually reveals a strong, pertinent method of consistency.

Desthro

2014-09-04, 03:39 PM

Hi, welcome to the Playground. This is how I view your four points.
#1 Arcane Channeling is a Standard Action, period. Your distinctions are meaningless. Also, is there any relevance to this question ?
It's the TYPE of standard action that matters. Please read thoroughly and the material therein.

#2 The spell does not require an attack role, the weapon does: so the weapon can Crit, but not the spell.
You are pretty incorrect here and need to read everything in its entirety. If there are specific points you would like to discuss, please let me know.

#3 The rules are silent on this because you are not casting a Touch spell in the usual manner - you are Channeling it through your weapon. Spells like Chill touch are interesting because they allow for multiple touches, but again the rules are silent on how this works.
It still is casting a touch spell and follows the rules for touch spells, unless you feel like anything that slightly modifies the rules completely abolishes the rules that are already stated. That's completely and utterly nonsensical. Comparatively: if I make an attack (ie with a weapon) in an unusual manner (IE: arcane channeling, smiting, etc.), then by your reasoning, those attacks shouldn't follow the rules for other "normal" attacks because they are making attacks in an unusual manner. Also, you can "channel" (code word for deliver), the touch spell through an unarmed attack or a natural attack per the Hold the Charge rules. You do not have to use a melee touch attack all the time to deliver the spell, and this ability lets you extend that ruling into melee weapons.

#4 CArc defines Weaponlike spells, which can have sneak damage etc. applied. This is not a Weaponlike spell, it is a Weapon through which a spell has been channelled. The weapon damage may therefore have sneak attack damage added, but not the spell. I think that your conclusion is right, though your reasoning seems slightly awry — simply because you are not casting a touch spell in the usual manner.
Please read the above rebuttal, it is very similar and covers this.
Also: Weapon-like spells are a type of weapon. The weapon is the spell itself. If you use an alternative method of delivery, IE: unarmed strike or natural weapon, you are choosing a different weapon to deliver your spell with.

Khedrac

2014-09-04, 03:49 PM

is because only weapons have threat ranges and multipliers for criticals.
Ignoring the rest of the argument for the moment, the above statement is flat out wrong. Any "weapon-like spell"(e.g. Shocking Grasp) has a critical range of 20 and a multiplier of ×2, it's just that the WotC convention is not to print the critical range if it is 20. See Complete Arcane pages 85 & 86 for the rules of spells and criticals.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-04, 03:53 PM

FWIW, from the FAQ:

If a duskblade scores a critical hit when channeling a spell through a melee attack, is the spell’s damage multiplied just like the weapon’s?

The rules aren’t as clear as they could be, but the Sage is inclined to say no. Here’s the key sentence, from the PHB II, page 20: “If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.” If you score a critical hit, the attack deals the normal (critical) damage. Then the spell resolves normally, but it’s just a rider effect applied due to the successful attack roll—you’re not actually using the spell in the normal manner, so it can’t score a critical hit.

When a duskblade (PH2 20) uses arcane channeling to deliver a spell but misses with the weapon attack, is the spell discharged or can he try to deliver the spell again on his next turn?

This follows the normal rule for touch spells; that is, a melee touch spell that misses its target is not discharged. However, when using the improved version of this class feature gained at 13th level, the spell is discharged at the end of the round regardless of whether you hit or not (as described on page 20).

At 13th level, the duskblade’s arcane channeling class feature (PH2 20) says “you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round.” If you hit the same creature more than once during the full attack action, does the spell affect it each time you hit?

No. The spell affects each target only once.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-04, 04:00 PM

Ignoring the rest of the argument for the moment, the above statement is flat out wrong. Any "weapon-like spell"(e.g. Shocking Grasp) has a critical range of 20 and a multiplier of ×2, it's just that the WotC convention is not to print the critical range if it is 20. See Complete Arcane pages 85 & 86 for the rules of spells and criticals.

On this note, I would also like to indicate the text of a few spells:

You must make a ranged attack to hit the target. If you hit, the splinterbolt deals 4d6 points of piercing damage. A splinterbolt threatens a critical hit on a roll of 18-20.

You can fire one additional splinterbolt for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three at 11th level). You can fire these splinterbolts at the same or different targets, but all splinterbolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

A creature's damage reduction, if any, applies to the damage from this spell. The damage from splinterbolt is treated as magic and piercing for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

You conjure a cloud of sharp knives around you.

The knives float in the air around your upper body, pointing in the direction you look.

Each round as a free action at the beginning of your turn, you can release one of these knives at any target within 30 feet that you can see.

This is a ranged attack that uses an attack bonus equal to your caster level + your key ability modifier.

Each successful hit deals 1d6 points of damage +1 per three caster levels (maximum +5) and threatens a critical hit on a roll of 19-20.

Damage reduction applies to knife attacks from this spell.

A shimmering green beam of light springs forth from your outstretched hand.

You can direct this ray at any target in range.

If you hit the target, the ray deals 1d6 points of force damage.

Against undead and constructs, the ray deals 2d8 points of force damage.

Against aberrations, the ray deals 5d6 points of force damage and threatens a critical hit on a roll of 19-20.

An aberration slain by this damage is immediately transformed into pungent-smelling inert plant matter.

You can generate one additional ray for every four levels above 5th (to a maximum of four rays at 17th level).

The rays can be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

A lance-wielding rider of pure force, bearing the symbol of your deity, springs into being and immediately makes one attack against a target you designate within range.

The rider's attack bonus is equal to your base attack bonus plus your Wisdom modifier.

If the rider appears in a location at least 10 feet distant from its target, the spiritual charger gains an additional +2 bonus on the attack roll because it is able to make a charge before attacking.

A spiritual charger deals 2d8 points of force damage, +1 point per three caster levels (up to a maximum of 2d8+5 at 15th level).

A spiritual charger threatens a critical hit on a natural 20 and deals triple damage on a successful critical hit.

...which confirms that the standard held for weapons and monsters (that is, don't list it if it's 20/x2) also holds true for spells.

Desthro

2014-09-04, 04:05 PM

nedz

2014-09-04, 04:14 PM

#1
The Type of Standard Action is Arcane Channelling. It is not an attack type action, nor is it a cast a spell type action, it is something else.

#2
With a Weaponlike spell you are using the spell as a weapon and so you can crit. With AC you are channelling that spell through a weapon — you do not make a separate attack role for the spell and so the spell cannot Crit. There is no RAW justification for any other interpretation. If you were to make an attack with your weapon, without Channelling, and then cast a quickened touch spell you would need to make two attack roles — either of which could crit.

#3
You are not casting the spell normally, otherwise it would provoke, you are channelling the spell through your weapon. As I said the rules are silent on what happens if you miss.

#4
See #2

Ed:
Further
Look at Intimidating Strike ( Player's Handbook II, p79)
As a standard action you get to make an attack and an intimidate check. This is quite similar to AC and again is a different type of standard action which they hadn't even thought of when they wrote the PH. IS is not an Attack type standard action, nor is it an Intimidate type standard action, it is another new type of standard action.

Also, please read the relevant section on Weaponlike spells from CArc.

Desthro

2014-09-04, 04:45 PM

So I took a deeper look into this, and I still feel that my analysis is mostly correct, though the conclusion may be incorrect, and warrants further discussion.

Ignoring the rest of the argument for the moment, the above statement is flat out wrong. Any "weapon-like spell"(e.g. Shocking Grasp) has a critical range of 20 and a multiplier of ×2, it's just that the WotC convention is not to print the critical range if it is 20. See Complete Arcane pages 85 & 86 for the rules of spells and criticals.

The actual wording is:
Unless the spell description says otherwise, a weaponlike spell threatens a critical hit on a roll of 20 and deals double damage with a critical hit.

When combined with the wording from PH140:
Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll, such as shocking grasp or Melf’s acid arrow, can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll, such as lightning bolt, cannot score a critical hit.

This leads us to the conclusion that a weapon-like spell is a "weapon" for the purpose of adjudicating effects that are weapon-related with spells. This is why feats can affect your "weapon" when using weapon-like spells. It is also why you can deal precision damage with them, because they are for all intents and purposes, weapons.

You make an attack with this "weapon" and if the attack succeeds, the target suffers the effects accordingly. We all know this is how touch spells work. The question then becomes whether or not attacks made with other weapons to deliver the touch spell's effects take the place of the "weapon" that the spell creates for you. I would say yes, since you are now making an attack roll with a different weapon for that purpose, and not the "weapon" created for you by the spell itself.

nedz

2014-09-04, 05:44 PM

What happens when you channel through a weapon with a different Crit range or multiplier ?

Desthro

2014-09-04, 05:56 PM

What happens when you channel through a weapon with a different Crit range or multiplier ?

That's the 100$ question.

There are a lot of possible options that could be poured through. We know that the touch spell can crit because it requires an attack to be delivered. They type of weapon or attack is unimportant for that purpose.

The easiest and least complicated route is to just use whatever your used weapon's threat range and modifier are, and call it a day. This is nice because it flows very, very well with all of the current feats and applications of them.

The most difficult would be imposing a binary critical system for this purpose, and creating a weird, if this then that situation. Multiple feats from different sources would be required to scale it, (like weapon focus (longsword) and improved critical (touch spells)) which is somewhat counter-intuitive and difficult to play with.

Snowbluff

2014-09-04, 06:01 PM

What happens when you channel through a weapon with a different Crit range or multiplier ?

If it says the attack would threaten, so I say it would threaten. Since they share an attack roll, they are the same attack. Not sure about multipliers, though.

Desthro

2014-09-04, 06:43 PM

If it says the attack would threaten, so I say it would threaten. Since they share an attack roll, they are the same attack. Not sure about multipliers, though.

That's actually a very fair interpretation, I'm inclined to agree with the shared attack roll part. I wouldn't be against having split modifiers, but for simplicity just saying use your current weapon's threat range and crit modifier is easy.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-04, 09:47 PM

That's actually a very fair interpretation, I'm inclined to agree with the shared attack roll part. I wouldn't be against having split modifiers, but for simplicity just saying use your current weapon's threat range and crit modifier is easy.

Kaorti Resin Falchion anyone?

Snowbluff

2014-09-04, 09:58 PM

Kaorti Resin Falchion anyone?

You don't really need a falchion. A scimitar is handy if you need a hand free.

Gwendol

2014-09-05, 01:47 AM

backwaterj

2014-09-05, 04:21 AM

I happen to think the FAQ nailed it this time around.

The weapon used can score a critical hit but the spell can't since you roll for the weapon hit and not for aiming the spell: “If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.” Not much room for misinterpretation IMO.

A missed attack should result in the charge being held, as per the usual rules for delivering touch spells (since the rules for AC are silent on the matter).

Finally, when full attacking the reading of the rules implies the target can only be affected once by the spell, but as other have noted, the wording is ambiguous enough.

As for the original questions: #1. Arcane channeling is a Standard Action, period. It is its own kind of standard action, that does not provoke an AoO.
#2. The rules for AC are such that only the weapon can score a critical hit since the spell is delivered "on top of it" (without an attack roll)
#3. The rules for AC are silent on this, and thus the normal rules for delivering a touch spell apply. In the normal case that means the spell is being held (in the weapon). See also the rules for other classes able to channel spells through weapons
#4. Any damage caused by the spell is spell damage, separate from anything the weapon does

Agreed. I'd also like to give a blanket amen to everything nedz has said on the topic.

AC is already one of the more powerful abilities in 3.5, considering action economy and such things as Power Attack, reach, and the full attack option at 13. The wise thing would seem to be not to make it any more powerful than is explicitly stated.

Speaking personally, my DM and I (okay, mostly I) have come up with the following rulings:

1: Touch spell means touch spell, meaning by the book "range of touch". It does not matter which class supplies the spells, or even RAW whether they're arcane or divine. It does, however, exclude psionics, invocations, and the like which are not spells.

2: Crit damage is applied to the weapon as normal, but not to the spell. If the crit is that . . . critical, I just deliver the spell as a touch attack instead.

3: Bonuses to damage, for example from the Knowledge Devotion feat, apply only to weapon damage, and not to the spell, since the spell is part of the weapon attack. Likewise, extra damage such as sneak attack only applies to weapon damage.

4: Charges can be held. This not only lines up with the core description of a touch spell, but makes sense of the specific exception for full-attack channeling.

5: Full attack effects each physical target with the touch spell once (I don't see anything particularly game-breaking about ruling the other way, but the English language seems to imply this was the intent).

Desthro

2014-09-05, 09:46 AM

AC is already one of the more powerful abilities in 3.5, considering action economy and such things as Power Attack, reach, and the full attack option at 13. The wise thing would seem to be not to make it any more powerful than is explicitly stated.
I disagree, full-casters are stronger than pretty much every melee class that exists, there's no reason to house-rule it's power down just because people are afraid of it. It quite literally is touch-spell casting with a melee weapon instead of a touch attack, unarmed strike, or natural weapon. It is arguably LESS powerful than unarmed strike or natural weapon delivery, because the spell can still crit with an unarmed strike or natural weapon delivery. And that's without a core class ability behind it.

1: Touch spell means touch spell, meaning by the book "range of touch". It does not matter which class supplies the spells, or even RAW whether they're arcane or divine. It does, however, exclude psionics, invocations, and the like which are not spells.

Correct.

2: Crit damage is applied to the weapon as normal, but not to the spell. If the crit is that . . . critical, I just deliver the spell as a touch attack instead.
If this is the case, then no touch spells can crit because you have to make an attack to deliver the spell. The attack roll is separate from the spell, and thusly the spell cannot crit (even in the touch-spell rules, you make the touch attack AFTER casting the spell, so it can't possibly be a part of the spell). That doesn't make much sense at all. If you can deliver the spell with an unarmed strike or natural attack, and still have the spell crit that way, then delivering it with a melee weapon should be no different unless it is expressly stated otherwise. And it isn't.

3: Bonuses to damage, for example from the Knowledge Devotion feat, apply only to weapon damage, and not to the spell, since the spell is part of the weapon attack. Likewise, extra damage such as sneak attack only applies to weapon damage.
If you were making the attack with the spell "weapon" I see no reason why you shouldn't add Knowledge devotion feat to the spell "weapon," just like with Sneak Attack. Conversely, no double dipping. You pick which weapon you want to use, the "spell weapon" (which only uses touch AC), or your Melee Weapon, (which hits vs AC). Either one is acceptable for delivering the touch spell as specified.

4: Charges can be held. This not only lines up with the core description of a touch spell, but makes sense of the specific exception for full-attack channeling.
If you are going to go with the core description of a touch spell, then the spell can crit if you are forced to deliver it with a melee attack vs a touch attack. Let's just be consistent in that application.

5: Full attack effects each physical target with the touch spell once (I don't see anything particularly game-breaking about ruling the other way, but the English language seems to imply this was the intent).
I don't see that being a problem, but the question was more related to XP/Material costs, like with Raise Dead for example.

backwaterj

2014-09-05, 06:46 PM

I disagree, full-casters are stronger than pretty much every melee class that exists, there's no reason to house-rule it's power down just because people are afraid of it. It quite literally is touch-spell casting with a melee weapon instead of a touch attack, unarmed strike, or natural weapon. It is arguably LESS powerful than unarmed strike or natural weapon delivery, because the spell can still crit with an unarmed strike or natural weapon delivery. And that's without a core class ability behind it.

Player's Handbook seems to contradict this interpretation, addressing the specific issues of unarmed and natural attacks:

If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.

This text, incidentally, is nearly identical to AC's. The spell discharges, no attack roll is made for it, only for the unarmed or natural attack itself. Damage without an attack roll cannot crit. Certainly saying that only touch spells made as touch attacks may crit is a valid interpretation, since the touch spell itself is the attack in that case.

If you were making the attack with the spell "weapon" I see no reason why you shouldn't add Knowledge devotion feat to the spell "weapon," just like with Sneak Attack. Conversely, no double dipping. You pick which weapon you want to use, the "spell weapon" (which only uses touch AC), or your Melee Weapon, (which hits vs AC). Either one is acceptable for delivering the touch spell as specified.

I think we're basically on the same page here. While RAW it's valid to say "damage is damage and I get it twice" I can smell that variety of cheese a mile away. If you allow either, though, it should be declared beforehand as that extra damage may be affected by damage reduction, energy or spell resistance.

Just to be clear, if a touch spell is made with Arcane Channeling it is not a touch attack and it targets normal AC, not touch AC. If the weapon misses, so does the spell. Not sure if that's what you meant by "spell weapon" or if you were referring to using a touch attack to deliver it.

I don't see that being a problem, but the question was more related to XP/Material costs, like with Raise Dead for example.

Of course you pay those as many times as the targets you affect. Granted, RAW doesn't state it outright but come on! In any case, the issue of affecting a given target twice in a round was raised and that's my two copper on that discussion . . . I doubt you'd need to raise him twice on your same turn anyway. :smallbiggrin:

A_S

2014-09-05, 08:24 PM

I doubt you'd need to raise him twice on your same turn anyway. :smallbiggrin:
Well, given that Raise Dead brings you back with not much in the way of HP, it's fairly likely that the second attack you're using to deliver the second Raise Dead charge would kill the target a second time...so in a way you'd need to...

Desthro

2014-09-06, 01:10 AM

Player's Handbook seems to contradict this interpretation, addressing the specific issues of unarmed and natural attacks:
This text, incidentally, is nearly identical to AC's. The spell discharges, no attack roll is made for it, only for the unarmed or natural attack itself. Damage without an attack roll cannot crit. Certainly saying that only touch spells made as touch attacks may crit is a valid interpretation, since the touch spell itself is the attack in that case.

Actually the rules for touch spells are as follows:
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 casting 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.

If you notice, you make the touch attack AFTER you finish casting the spell. Either way your original argument is flawed. If the attack is not a part of the spellcast, as you posit, then it cannot crit. This disproves that quite literally, word for word. It is the action of delivering the spell with an attack that allows the spell to crit. If you do that with a touch attack, an unarmed attack, a natural attack, or a melee weapon attack, it should make zero difference.

Second, the touch spell itself is NOT the attack. The touch attack is. The spell resolves before you even get to make a touch attack in the first place. Saying otherwise is a blatant abbreviation of the rules quoted from the SRD above.

Thirdly, the "Hold the Charge" rules you are mentioning only clarify what should be obvious, if you make an attack with something other than a touch attack against regular AC, you should get the damage for it. It doesn't somehow fundamentally change the touch spell's rules for use described above. If you crit on the attack, the spell crits. Simple. Also, on page 140 of PH, it doesn't say "requires a touch attack roll" it says "requires an attack roll" It's pretty clear.

Just to be clear, if a touch spell is made with Arcane Channeling it is not a touch attack and it targets normal AC, not touch AC. If the weapon misses, so does the spell. Not sure if that's what you meant by "spell weapon" or if you were referring to using a touch attack to deliver it.
Yes this isn't hard to understand. I believe I mentioned the spell-weapon uses a touch attack and that targets touch AC earlier, and unarmed/natural/melee weapons target regular AC.

Desthro

2014-09-06, 01:12 AM

Well, given that Raise Dead brings you back with not much in the way of HP, it's fairly likely that the second attack you're using to deliver the second Raise Dead charge would kill the target a second time...so in a way you'd need to...
11 dmg is easily managed with something like a sap or a whip to deal non-lethal damage.

A_S

2014-09-06, 01:52 AM

11 dmg is easily managed with something like a sap or a whip to deal non-lethal damage.

I know :smallbiggrin:. The joke was that you wouldn't have needed the second Raise Dead in the first place if you hadn't made the attack you used to channel it...

Gwendol

2014-09-06, 08:25 AM

Desthro

2014-09-06, 09:46 AM

Desthro, you seem to think that the crit of the spell has some kind of meaningful impact on the usefulness of AC. It doesn't.
Furthermore, delivering the spell on top of a weapon attack present huge advantages, especially taking advantage of 2-handed weapons and martial feats.
The attack roll is for the weapon strike and the spell is delivered on top of that.

Prove to me that that is how it is and that the spell, delivered with an attack roll, does not crit when your attack crits. Every single instance that I can find specifies "attack roll" and not "touch attack roll." Yes it presents "huge" advantages. It's a core class ability. I don't care if you don't like that, or if you don't think it's fair, or if its too strong and you want to house-rule it down. I want irrefutable evidence in the rules that says the touch spell can only crit on a touch attack.

As of right now, every single piece of evidence I have provided says otherwise. Overpowered or not.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-06, 10:01 AM

How about this part then?

The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.

The melee attack hits and deals damage, including the crit. Then the spell fires, with no attack roll, on the person you struck. Since the spell has no attack roll for it, it doesn't crit.

Desthro

2014-09-06, 11:50 AM

How about this part then?
The melee attack hits and deals damage, including the crit. Then the spell fires, with no attack roll, on the person you struck. Since the spell has no attack roll for it, it doesn't crit.

How about the touch spell rules from the SRD that say the exact same thing but people apply it separately for no reason? You cast the spell. Then you make a touch attack. If you are successful, the spell discharges. If you miss the spell isn't discharged. (per hold the charge) There are too many pieces of this puzzle that people are not looking at in its entirety. Technically, NO SPELLS of any kind have an attack roll per the SRD rule right there. You cast the spell (which doesn't have an attack requirement to cast). Then you make a touch attack (which requires an attack roll) . If you succeed on touching your opponent, the spell discharges. You can make touch attacks anytime you want, spell or no spell. They aren't the exclusive realm of touch-spells only and a part of the cast.

The spell needs to be delivered by an attack.
The critical rules on page 140 state "A spell that requires an attack roll, such as shocking grasp or Melf’s acid arrow, can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll, such as lightning bolt, cannot score a critical hit."

It's an obvious inconsistency to say that the touch attack is a part of the spell, when it clearly states you cast the spell THEN make a touch attack. It's not "make a touch attack as a part of casting the spell." It's THEN make a touch attack.

The spell needs to be delivered by an attack of some sort period.
If the attack is not part of the spell, then it can't crit according to page 140. Since no spells require an attack roll as a part of the casting, no spells can crit by that pure interpretation. However, we believe that the intent was to allow for spells to crit if they have to be delivered by an attack of some kind, hence the broad language of "requires an attack roll" vs "requires a TOUCH attack roll." If you want to say that the spell must be delivered by an attack, and if that attack crits, so does the spell, that's fine. But it applies universally since it says attack roll, and not touch attack roll. Any attack roll that can be used to discharge the spell qualifies per 140.

If it said "requires a touch attack roll" I would agree with you 100%. But it doesn't, and given all the other pieces of this puzzle that point towards spell-crit via melee weapon, you can't just pick one part and say no, because the entire rule set for spells, spell criticals, touch spells and hold the charge must be examined and integrated because they ALL APPLY. And if they are inconsistently applied, then you are bending the rules to adjudicate an outcome in your favor. Simple as that.

nedz

2014-09-06, 12:02 PM

The spell needs to be delivered by an attack.
The critical rules on page 140 state "A spell that requires an attack roll, such as shocking grasp or Melf’s acid arrow, can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll, such as lightning bolt, cannot score a critical hit."

But the spell doesn't require an attack roll, the weapon does. I thought this was obvious when I pointed out that the weapon could have a different threat range and multiplier than a Weaponlike spell would have. AFAIK there are no rules to reconcile this.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-09-06, 12:29 PM

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

When you AC, the spell's damage becomes extra dice damage over and above the weapon's normal damage. An AC'd Shocking Grasp is no different from the +1d6 shocking weapon property in this regard. It will not multiply, only the dice damage of the "base weapon" does. When you use Shocking Grasp normally, the base weapon damage is the 5d6 electricity. When you use a Falchion and arcane channel shocking grasp, it's the 2d4 of the sword.

Sucks for Duskblades, but that's the RAW. And AC is a very potent ability, and no one forces you to use it on damage spells only. My favorite one is the level 2 spell that teleports someone it hits against their will.
Similarly, if you choose to use unarmed strike or a natural weapon against full armor class and discharge a touch spell, it would also not multiply on a crit in those cases. If all you care about is damage-dealing, you're better off hitting touch AC and using the spell alone.

EDIT: The main thing to understand is that in any situation, the "weapon" is what you're attacking (and rolling to hit) with. If you're using Shocking Grasp normally, the spell is the weapon. If you're channeling it into your falchion, the falchion is the weapon.

backwaterj

2014-09-06, 04:06 PM

Sucks for Duskblades, but that's the RAW. And AC is a very potent ability, and no one forces you to use it on damage spells only. My favorite one is the level 2 spell that teleports someone it hits against their will.

Likewise. Good times, good times. :smallbiggrin:

Desthro, it seems like you've foregone the conclusion at this point. You asked the Playground for advice and overall that advice seems to be contradicting some of your initial assumptions about the way AC works.

If your group agrees to play it by your version of the rules, then that's great, do it. But it doesn't make everyone else here wrong.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-09-06, 06:10 PM

Likewise. Good times, good times. :smallbiggrin:

I've never gotten a chance since it's a high level build (16+), but I'd really love to do a Duskblade with 3 levels in Dervish, so 2 combats per day, he can move and full attack channel, corralling enemies with that spell, and also picking up Whirlwind Attack (once Dervish gives Spring Attack, you have all the pre-reqs) to hit everyone around him with it.

(There is also Binder 3 level dip for Paimon to get WWA and Dance of Death, but I think by strict RAW DoD doesn't work with full attack arcane channeling unlike Dervish Dance, and...you have to wait till level 16 do to that, too.)

backwaterj

2014-09-06, 06:55 PM

I've never gotten a chance since it's a high level build (16+), but I'd really love to do a Duskblade with 3 levels in Dervish, so 2 combats per day, he can move and full attack channel, corralling enemies with that spell, and also picking up Whirlwind Attack (once Dervish gives Spring Attack, you have all the pre-reqs) to hit everyone around him with it.

(There is also Binder 3 level dip for Paimon to get WWA and Dance of Death, but I think by strict RAW DoD doesn't work with full attack arcane channeling unlike Dervish Dance, and...you have to wait till level 16 do to that, too.)

Yet more proof Dervish is just a fun build for anything.

Gwendol

2014-09-07, 02:49 PM

Prove to me that that is how it is and that the spell, delivered with an attack roll, does not crit when your attack crits.
As of right now, every single piece of evidence I have provided says otherwise. Overpowered or not.

Fax Celestis beat me to it. You keep referencing the rules for delivering touch attacks, which aren't that relevant in a discussion about arcane channeling.
In any case, I've given you my feedback on your thoughts of how AC should work. Hope it helps!

Desthro

2014-09-07, 05:28 PM

Fax Celestis beat me to it. You keep referencing the rules for delivering touch attacks, which aren't that relevant in a discussion about arcane channeling.
In any case, I've given you my feedback on your thoughts of how AC should work. Hope it helps!

I am challenging that viewpoint because I believe it is incorrect from a comprehensive analysis.
Since the general acceptance of that viewpoint is based on a piecemeal analysis from one section to another, it is obvious that I cannot explain myself thoroughly enough to communicate it. I have said that you make the touch attack separately from casting the spell, so you can't crit with the spell per most interpretations that prevent Arcane Channeling from critting. Nobody here will address the specific instances of inconsistency in that ruling and discuss it with me. They say I am wrong, because we have always done it this way, and then cite a part of the puzzle to support themselves. :smallfrown:.

Like this guy, for example:

StreamOfTheSky
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/act...m#criticalHits
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
When you AC, the spell's damage becomes extra dice damage over and above the weapon's normal damage. An AC'd Shocking Grasp is no different from the +1d6 shocking weapon property in this regard. It will not multiply, only the dice damage of the "base weapon" does. When you use Shocking Grasp normally, the base weapon damage is the 5d6 electricity. When you use a Falchion and arcane channel shocking grasp, it's the 2d4 of the sword.

Except that the explicit wording of Arcane Channeling says you can "...cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack." It is not damage "above and beyond" the damage of a Standard Action: Attack, it is the delivery of a touch spell under Standard Action: Cast a Spell: Touch Spells.

(Also the part, "When you use Shocking Grasp normally, the base weapon damage is x and y" Your touch attack is a 0d0 attack with a 20/x2 modifier that doesn't get dmg bonuses because it's not hitting vs straight AC, and it's also made separately from the touch spell casting, and the rules say you are "considered armed" as opposed to "armed" so the touch spell isn't a weapon, and is being delivered by an attack that is separate from casting the spell and is thusly bonus damage from your interpretation and should not crit.) Except on page 140, it says if a spell requires an attack roll.. (of any kind...) the spell can crit.

Along with the touch spell ruling that says you cast the spell, then attack with a touch attack, (btw, touch attacks have a crit range/modifier of 20/x2, but do not deal damage on their own, so the wording "deal attack damage first, then deal spell damage" is largely unnecessary, and we know that Wizards doesn't print a LOT of unnecessary things.) And I've said that since the touch attack is made separate from the spell per the touch the spell rules, either everyone's interpretation that nothing crits through ac is incorrect, -or- touch spells cannot crit at all based on the interpretation. And we both know that those are incorrect rulings.

Worst case scenario we check for two sets of threat ranges; best case, we use the weapon's ranges.

In no example or ruling provided, does anyone comprehensively go through and check to see for the inconsistencies in the rulings made previously.

Desthro

2014-09-07, 05:32 PM

Likewise. Good times, good times. :smallbiggrin:

Desthro, it seems like you've foregone the conclusion at this point. You asked the Playground for advice and overall that advice seems to be contradicting some of your initial assumptions about the way AC works.

If your group agrees to play it by your version of the rules, then that's great, do it. But it doesn't make everyone else here wrong.

I didn't ask for "advice" either, I asked for a discussion. I want a comprehensive look at the information. I went in with zero assumptions on how AC worked. But hey, that's what I am here for, to find someone who can look over it in its entirety.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-07, 05:44 PM

It is not a "make an attack" or "cast a spell" action. That's the main breakdown here.

It is a "use special ability" action, and it follows its own rules. The feature itself says "spend a standard action to cast a spell and deliver it with a melee weapon attack".

It then goes on to clarify that you make an attack, determine damage, and then the spell's effects affect the creature struck after the attack is resolved. The weapon can crit, but the spell cannot: while it is being delivered by a crittable melee attack, it does not require an attack roll as part of the casting. Arcane Channeling basically alters the Target line to "creature you struck previously in melee this round".

IAmTehDave

2014-09-07, 06:01 PM

Arcane Channeling basically alters the Target line to "creature you struck previously in melee this round".

No, Arcane Channeling alters the rules for Delivering a Touch spell to "You can deliver a touch spell with a melee weapon attack. See the rules for Touch spells and Unarmed Strikes. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity for casting a touch spell in this manner." You cast the spell and THEN make the attack, (Just like *GASP* the regular rules for a touch spell) therefore your target line makes no sense.

Nowhere does it say the spell can't critically strike.
(Additionally, nowhere does it say under the full attack that creatures can only be hit once by the channeled spell, and reading it like that is absolutely bonkers to me, but that's a different issue here)

backwaterj

2014-09-07, 06:06 PM

IAmTehDave

2014-09-07, 06:23 PM

Desthro, your main argument here seems to be based on the "standard" use of a touch spell: delivering said spell by touch as part of the Cast a Spell action (or on a subsequent round).

This fails to take into account that when casting a touch spell via melee touch, the spell damage is the only damage inflicted by this attack. The attack roll is not for the touch but for the spell. Thus the spell itself is the attack and normal crit rules apply.

For every other use cited, Arcane Channeling included, the spell damage is a rider effect that occurs (as specified in the text in PHB and PHBII) "after the attack is resolved". The point and the intent seem clear. In these cases the attack roll is for the melee attack, not the spell, therefore crit rules apply to the melee attack and not the spell. Otherwise you could just as easily crit with a fireball as an arcane archer. Yes, I'd like crit, sneak attack, and all the other goodies to apply to both weapon and spell damage, but by the rules it's not going to happen.

For someone who asked for a discussion, you seem unwilling to consider the reasonable, rules-supported, and fairly unanimous points being made by your fellow Playgrounders. As such I don't really see this "discussion" going anywhere if you aren't willing to reexamine your conclusions.

I'd like to argue against the unanimity of the fellow playgrounder points. I, for one, am entirely unconvinced that the Arcane Channeling isnt' just a poorly written way of saying "See those rules for using an unarmed strike for delivering a touch spell? Yeah, you can do that with a melee weapon now, and not provoke an attack of opportunity while doing it."

1) For instance, if a Sorcerer cast Shocking Grasp, and then punched the target (an "armed" unarmed strike against the target, requiring an attack roll against the target's AC) would Shocking Grasp be able to crit? The base rules seem to think so. Why would AC be any different?

2) If a Duskblade Arcane Channeled Shocking Grasp, and then (using the rules found in the DM's guide) made a melee touch attack against a target using that weapon to deal 0 damage, would Shocking Grasp affect them? 2b)Would Shocking Grasp be able to crit?

DarkSonic1337

2014-09-07, 06:30 PM

As far as channeling a spell and criticals go, I don't see how it is any different than delivering a spell through an unarmed strike or natural attack.

nedz

2014-09-07, 06:50 PM

Desthro, you seem to be under the illusion that the rules are clear cut and can be subject to rigorous analysis. Whilst often this is the case, if you check out the link in my signature below you will find a list of hundreds of rules which are so badly written that they just don't work. It may well be the case that we are looking at a dysfunctional rule here, though I think it's just badly written.

First lets look at Touch spells.

Touch

You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

This fails for Arcane Channelling at the first line since you do not have to touch the target; so, clearly, the rules for Touch spells do not apply.

Also, the concept we are using here is that of Weaponlike spells which are defined in CArcane p85

Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, ... . Such spells can threaten critical hits, ...
Since the spell you are channelling does not require an attack roll it is not a Weaponlike spell, and since these are the only spells for which critical hits are defined you cannot crit with them. With Arcane Channelling you have to make an attack roll for the Weapon, but the spell is then resolved automatically.

backwaterj

2014-09-07, 06:58 PM

As far as channeling a spell and criticals go, I don't see how it is any different than delivering a spell through an unarmed strike or natural attack.

I'd like to argue against the unanimity of the fellow playgrounder points. I, for one, am entirely unconvinced that the Arcane Channeling isnt' just a poorly written way of saying "See those rules for using an unarmed strike for delivering a touch spell? Yeah, you can do that with a melee weapon now, and not provoke an attack of opportunity while doing it."

1) For instance, if a Sorcerer cast Shocking Grasp, and then punched the target (an "armed" unarmed strike against the target, requiring an attack roll against the target's AC) would Shocking Grasp be able to crit? The base rules seem to think so. Why would AC be any different?

2) If a Duskblade Arcane Channeled Shocking Grasp, and then (using the rules found in the DM's guide) made a melee touch attack against a target using that weapon to deal 0 damage, would Shocking Grasp affect them? 2b)Would Shocking Grasp be able to crit?

The problem here is that the specific rules under holding the charge (PHB 142) are a bit vague, but even here they say that "you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges" (emphasis mine). To me if this was meant to allow crit or precision damage it would have been worded "you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell." But that may be splitting hairs.

On the other hand, I think Manyshot sets an excellent precedent:

Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage.

The situation is nearly identical: multiple damage rolls for a single attack roll. And Manyshot states flat-out that precision and crit damage only apply to one of those attack rolls. Why should Arcane Channeling be treated differently? (No, "it's magic" is not a valid response.)

If you want to house-rule that the crit damage applies to the spell and not the melee attack, or that it's divided evenly between them, I see no problem with that. But no double-dipping.

Troacctid

2014-09-07, 07:25 PM

The problem here is that the specific rules under holding the charge (PHB 142) are a bit vague, but even here they say that "you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges" (emphasis mine). To me if this was meant to allow crit or precision damage it would have been worded "you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell." But that may be splitting hairs.

You are forgetting that Arcane Channeling can be used with non-damaging spells too. Your wording would make no sense if you were channeling, say, Touch of Fatigue or Bear's Endurance.

Desthro

2014-09-07, 09:28 PM

Fax Celestis

2014-09-07, 09:50 PM

That's because this isn't a cast a spell action. It is a special ability that casts a spell as part of it's functionality.

backwaterj

2014-09-08, 12:57 AM

You are forgetting that Arcane Channeling can be used with non-damaging spells too. Your wording would make no sense if you were channeling, say, Touch of Fatigue or Bear's Endurance.

Yeah, I thought about that after the fact. That would also make any houseruled clause allocating crit damage to spell only or splitting it break down pretty badly.

There isn't a single touch spell that is cast where you make an attack roll as a part of the casting. PG 140 says this" you cast the spell, THEN you make a touch attack.

Technically this is true, but casting the spell enables the single attack action you wouldn't otherwise have. Just because it's not the same action doesn't mean it's not the same spell doing the attack and dealing the damage, however.

For the record, the precise wording on page 140 is:

To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject

Two parts of the same action to cast the spell. So it's the spell, not a weapon, making the attack in this case.

Gwendol

2014-09-08, 02:17 AM

I am challenging that viewpoint because I believe it is incorrect from a comprehensive analysis.
Since the general acceptance of that viewpoint is based on a piecemeal analysis from one section to another, it is obvious that I cannot explain myself thoroughly enough to communicate it. I have said that you make the touch attack separately from casting the spell, so you can't crit with the spell per most interpretations that prevent Arcane Channeling from critting. Nobody here will address the specific instances of inconsistency in that ruling and discuss it with me. They say I am wrong, because we have always done it this way, and then cite a part of the puzzle to support themselves. :smallfrown:.

You keep mixing up the rules for delivering spells with a touch attack and AC. I really don't know why.

The rules for AC are reasonably self-contained. They allow the duskblade to cast a (touch) spell, make a melee attack, and deliver the spell through the weapon on a successful hit, and all this with a standard action. You can't crit with the spell, because you aren't delivering it through a touch attack.

Also, considering the corner case of delivering the effect of the spell as an unarmed strike:
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

In this case you are no longer considered armed (?), you deal normal damage, and the spell discharges. The spell can not score a critical hit in this case since:
Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. and the unarmed strike is not a touch attack.

Troacctid

2014-09-08, 02:53 AM

You can't crit with the spell, because you aren't delivering it through a touch attack.

That's incorrect. As per the weaponlike spell rules, if the spell requires an attack roll (touch or otherwise) and deals damage, it can crit.

Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses.

Channeled spells do require an attack roll to be delivered, so although the rules are silent on this specific issue, I don't see a problem interpreting them as being able to crit. As a DM, I'd rule the spell as 20/x2 crit, regardless of the weapon's threat range.

Gwendol

2014-09-08, 03:27 AM

That's incorrect. As per the weaponlike spell rules, if the spell requires an attack roll (touch or otherwise) and deals damage, it can crit.

Channeled spells do require an attack roll to be delivered, so although the rules are silent on this specific issue, I don't see a problem interpreting them as being able to crit. As a DM, I'd rule the spell as 20/x2 crit, regardless of the weapon's threat range.

I see where you are coming from, but looking at the RAW I fail to the the support for this interpretation. A ray that you aim? Yes. A flame blade or ice axe strike? Absolutely. A touch spells delivered through a touch attack? Again yes, since the rules are explicit on the subject. AC or delivering a touch spell through an unarmed strike? No, not under the current rules. The melee attack is resolved, and then the spell is discharged.

backwaterj

2014-09-08, 03:51 AM

In this case you are no longer considered armed (?), you deal normal damage, and the spell discharges. The spell can not score a critical hit in this case since: and the unarmed strike is not a touch attack.

Your conclusion is correct, but not the reasoning. Anything requiring an attack roll can crit, not just ranged or melee touch attacks. But since the rider spell requires no separate attack roll, the spell cannot crit in this case, though the attached unarmed or natural attack can.

The default is one attack roll, one critical hit. I can't think of a single example where this is unarguably not the case. Therefore if both the attack and spell can crit, you should be making a separate attack roll for each. And I guess since we're arguing from absence of rules to the contrary, that's also a reasonable interpretation since nowhere in AC's rules does it say you use the weapon's attack roll as the spell's.

Troacctid

2014-09-08, 04:04 AM

I see where you are coming from, but looking at the RAW I fail to the the support for this interpretation. A ray that you aim? Yes. A flame blade or ice axe strike? Absolutely. A touch spells delivered through a touch attack? Again yes, since the rules are explicit on the subject. AC or delivering a touch spell through an unarmed strike? No, not under the current rules. The melee attack is resolved, and then the spell is discharged.

It only discharges on a successful attack roll, so it seems pretty fair to say an attack roll is required.

There's no rule explicitly covering the scenario, so there's room for interpretation. I think you could argue either way. Allowing the spell to crit on a channel makes about as much sense to me flavor-wise as allowing it to crit on a standard touch, and from a game balance perspective it doesn't seem necessary to make Duskblades give up the possibility of critting with the spell when they're already making the substantial sacrifice of targeting regular AC instead of touch AC.

Gwendol

2014-09-08, 04:17 AM

Your conclusion is correct, but not the reasoning. Anything requiring an attack roll can crit, not just ranged or melee touch attacks. But since the rider spell requires no separate attack roll, the spell cannot crit in this case, though the attached unarmed or natural attack can.

The default is one attack roll, one critical hit. I can't think of a single example where this is unarguably not the case. Therefore if both the attack and spell can crit, you should be making a separate attack roll for each. And I guess since we're arguing from absence of rules to the contrary, that's also a reasonable interpretation since nowhere in AC's rules does it say you use the weapon's attack roll as the spell's.

That was pretty much what I was trying to convey, although I seem to have failed. If you instead of attacking with the spell (e.g. a touch attack) decide to deliver the spell with another attack, the spell can no longer crit. It is a lot more evident when looking at spells channeled by spellswords and ordained champions, since they channel any spell known.

Desthro

2014-09-08, 04:19 PM

Maybe we can put this into a programming perspective...
(forgive my brutal C fails, it's simplified for the purposes of discussion), we would likely pass pointers to the character class to each function so that that information would be available, etc etc for all intents and purposes we're going to pretend we are doing that cause why? cause eff writing a real program. =D LoL
So the initial function call is:
use_an_ability(str ability_name,str insertappropriateinfohere, str insertappropriateinfohere2, ...)

It needs to know what the name of the ability is, so we give it that so it can get started

use_an_Ability("arcanechanneling", "[whateverspellderp]")

it digs through a switch to find the appropriate function to call
switch (ability_name)
{
case "blah": break;
case "blahblah": break;
case "blahblahblah": break;
case "arcanechanneling":
arcanechanneling(1, insertappropriateinfohere);
break;
...
}

Oh look! We call the arcane channeling function to see what it does! Okay lets look at that

void arcanechanneling(int enemy1,str spell_name)
{
if(spell_type(spell_name)!="touchspell") return;
if(spell_cast_time(spell_name))!="one_standard_action") return;

cast_a_spell(spell_type(spell_name),enemy1,spell_n ame);

so we start casting the spell (note we are three functions deep at the moment)

void cast_a_spell(str spell_type, int target, str spell_name)
{
if(spell_type(spell_name)!="touchspell")
{
yadda yadda yadda;
}
else
{
do_touchspell(spell_name,target,"meleeattack")
...

so we call the do touchspell function which probably looks a lot like this:
void do_touchspell(str spell_name, int target, str delivery_method)
{
struct attack_success touchspell (YES I know this is not how its done but it gets the idea across
{
bool crit=false;
bool success=false;
}

touchspell = do_attack(target,delivery_method);

struct do_attack(int target,str attack_type)
{
struct attack_success info;
int roll=(rnd(20)+1);
if(roll>=getacfortarget(target))
info.success=true;
if(roll>=getthreatrangeweapon(1)&&info.success==true)
info.crit=true;

//deal damage if damage is dealt by the attack
do_weapondamage(info,"[whateverfunctiontocallweapon]",target);
//since the hit/crit info is needed by the touchspell function
return info;
}

The attack function is pretty simple and basic, and yeah I get that people will argue that it isn't complicated enough, or whatever, but really it is a step-by-step process that illustrates what arcane channeling should be doing.

so it does anything that the attack is supposed to do, and returns the success and whether it crits or not, now that we know that we go back to the touchspell function

if(touchspell.success==true)
{ [execute spell effects here]
if(touchspell.crit==true)
[modify the damage here]
}

done

Right there, we did attack damage first, then resolved the effects of the spell delivered accordingly. The last bit is open to interpretation, as everyone most definitely agrees upon, but we are STILL inside the touchspell function, and resolved a melee attack FIRST (wait that's exactly what happens in the touchspell text AND the arcane channeling text too...) which was necessary to fulfill the touchspell casting requirements. People will argue that it should look differently, but this is a very OOP approach to the ability, which is very understandable and functional.

Once that gets done, we pull back, the touchspell function resolves, then the cast_a_spell function, there's not much left for the arcanechanneling function to do, so that resolves, then the use_an_ability function has finished being called, that resolves, and poof we are done. So yeah, from a simplistic approach here to make the functions as inclusive as possible, they should crit according to touchspell rules.

Granted they aren't as specific as we need them to be if this was for real, exceptions are explicitly stated in most programming, and with rules, explicit denies are far more common than explicit acceptances. I would program these functions this way, since it makes for better OOP, but hey, who am I do say right? =P

The only area that is grey, is whether we pull the crit damage modifer from the weapon, or from the spell, I would say we pull the damage modifier from the spell, since we already confirmed spell critical. That would be the most likely result of such an action.

(notice that the attack is polled as a part of the cast_a_spell function, and not prior to the cast_a_spell function... which is what lots of people argue about.)

Desthro

2014-09-08, 04:26 PM

It only discharges on a successful attack roll, so it seems pretty fair to say an attack roll is required.

Thank you for making that astute observation.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-08, 04:37 PM

You're still not getting it. The "cast a spell" function of a standard action never comes into the picture, otherwise Arcane Channeling would require two standard actions. Arcane Channeling casts one of your known spells itself as part of its activation, and its function is to allow you to make a melee attack, inflict damage, and then cast that spell targeting the struck creature. Order of Operations, then, is:

Activate Arcane Channeling
Make Attack Roll
Inflict Melee Damage (determine if a crit at this time based upon weapon's threat range)
Cast Spell (replacing "Target: Touched Creature" with "Target: Last Creature Struck In Melee"
Resolve Spell

The spell itself never gets an attack roll and as such cannot crit.

Desthro

2014-09-08, 05:33 PM

You're still not getting it.

Activate Arcane Channeling
Make Attack Roll
Inflict Melee Damage (determine if a crit at this time based upon weapon's threat range)
Cast Spell (replacing "Target: Touched Creature" with "Target: Last Creature Struck In Melee"
Resolve Spell

The spell itself never gets an attack roll and as such cannot crit.

You really don't follow the process step by step.
It's actually like this:

Activate Arcane Channeling (says spend a standard action to do the following:)
-CAST A TOUCH SPELL
--DELIVER SPELL WITH MELEE ATTACK instead of a TOUCH ATTACK
----Make Attack Roll
------Determine Effects of Attack
--Determine Effects of Spell based upon prior attack
-Resolve Arcane Channeling

In the description of the ability, it does not say, "make a melee attack then cast the touch spell," it says "cast a touch spell you know and then deliver it with a melee attack." Last time I checked my English, you do the first things first and then the last things last. Could be wrong though.

nedz

2014-09-08, 05:52 PM

You really don't follow the process step by step.
It's actually like this:

Activate Arcane Channeling (says spend a standard action to do the following:)
-CAST A TOUCH SPELL
--DELIVER SPELL WITH MELEE ATTACK instead of a TOUCH ATTACK
----Make Attack Roll
------Determine Effects of Attack
--Determine Effects of Spell based upon prior attack
-Resolve Arcane Channeling

In the description of the ability, it does not say, "make a melee attack then cast the touch spell," it says "cast a touch spell you know and then deliver it with a melee attack." Last time I checked my English, you do the first things first and then the last things last. Could be wrong though.

Nope, it's like this.

Channel Touch spell into weapon
Roll to hit with weapon (Which may crit)
If weapon hits

Roll damage
Resolve spell effect

There is no roll to hit for the spell so there can be no crit.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-08, 06:01 PM

In the description of the ability, it does not say, "make a melee attack then cast the touch spell," it says "cast a touch spell you know and then deliver it with a melee attack." Last time I checked my English, you do the first things first and then the last things last. Could be wrong though.
That is summarial text. You are ignoring the following sentence:

If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.

These are two separate events, hence the necessary use of a semicolon. The attack resolves, then the spell resolves as a "rider" effect. Since the spell never had an independent attack roll (such as one made during the normal casting of a touch-range spell), it cannot crit.

It is in essence the same effect of having a spell-storing weapon. Attack happens, damage resolves, and then effects of attack resolve (such as the spell generated from Arcane Channeling, Smiting Spell metamagic, or poison applied to a weapon).

Desthro

2014-09-08, 06:02 PM

That is summarial text. You are ignoring the following sentence:
These are two separate events, hence the necessary use of a semicolon. The attack resolves, then the spell resolves as a "rider" effect. Since the spell never had an independent attack roll (such as one made during the normal casting of a touch-range spell), it cannot crit.

It is in essence the same effect of having a spell-storing weapon. Attack happens, damage resolves, and then effects of attack resolve (such as the spell generated from Arcane Channeling, Smiting Spell metamagic, or poison applied to a weapon).

You say they are two separate events, I say they are two effects that occur simultaneously, and the information is there to tell us which one to do first, not to explicitly separate them.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-08, 06:05 PM

If that were the case, they would not have used "then". That sentence is the indicator that the attack happens, damage resolves, and then the spell effect is determined ex post facto.

"I went to the park and played with my dog; then I went to the ice cream parlor." does not indicate that I went to the park and the ice cream parlor simultaneously. I did the first, and I did the second afterwards.

backwaterj

2014-09-08, 06:38 PM

Nope, it's like this.

Channel Touch spell into weapon
Roll to hit with weapon (Which may crit)
If weapon hits

Roll damage
Resolve spell effect

There is no roll to hit for the spell so there can be no crit.

Exactly this. No need for programming language, it really is that simple.

Desthro

2014-09-08, 07:55 PM

If that were the case, they would not have used "then". That sentence is the indicator that the attack happens, damage resolves, and then the spell effect is determined ex post facto.

Okay, so how is that any different than: "To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later." They use "then" there too. We are re-iterating the same subject matter, and you still haven't explained the inconsistency. You determine whether you touch the subject or not, THEN the spell discharges without its "own attack roll" creating an inconsistency in the ruling you are applying. They also do not occur simultaneously as is suggested by yourself and others.

"I went to the park and played with my dog; then I went to the ice cream parlor." does not indicate that I went to the park and the ice cream parlor simultaneously. I did the first, and I did the second afterwards.

Your sentence is substantially different in that you are describing two different events that are unrelated to the first event.

The quote you are trying to use: "If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved,"
describes two events that are related to the first event in that sentence. IE: They are dependent upon the first. It is a complex sentence construction, if the first event does not occur, then neither of the following occur either. A further example of a closer analogy would be more like: "I walked into a wall, it hurt pretty badly, then the wall fell over." Both events are inherently related to the original event, if the first did not occur, then neither will the second or third events.

Since the discharge of the spell is dependent upon the success of the attack, (as outlined in all of the aforementioned touch spell rules we have discussed before), it must be able to crit accordingly.

Desthro

2014-09-08, 08:00 PM

One more thing, the use of the word "then" creates a dependent clause and since it is listed after the semi-colon, it actually is a grammatical error linking a dependent clause to a independent clause via semi-colon; a semi-colon is used to link two independent clauses pertaining to similar things.

Actually, i found an example online that says if they are list items, it is possible to separate them in that fashion, it still indicates that they are both related to the original "If" statement:
"link lists where the items contain commas to avoid confusion between list items" from http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html

Fax Celestis

2014-09-08, 08:58 PM

Okay, so how is that any different than: "To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later." They use "then" there too. We are re-iterating the same subject matter, and you still haven't explained the inconsistency. yes, I have. One attack roll, one crittable effect.

The quote you are trying to use: "If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved,"
describes two events that are related to the first event in that sentence.Incorrect. There are two events, not two events related to a third. The first event is a melee attack, and if that attack resolves successfully, the spell also resolves independently.

One more thing, the use of the word "then" creates a dependent clause and since it is listed after the semi-colon, it actually is a grammatical error linking a dependent clause to a independent clause via semi-colon; a semi-colon is used to link two independent clauses pertaining to similar things.

Actually, i found an example online that says if they are list items, it is possible to separate them in that fashion, it still indicates that they are both related to the original "If" statement:
"link lists where the items contain commas to avoid confusion between list items" from http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html

As this is not a group of three or more items, this is not a list, and the fact that this isn't a group of three or more items that include commas ("Seattle, Washington; Sacramento, California; Portland, Oregon") a semicolon is inapproperiate for list usage anyway. The use of the semicolon here indicates that these are two independent clauses that share context. With that knowledge we can rewrite the sentence as two sentences and retain its meaning:

"If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved."

"If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally. Then, the effect of the spell is resolved."

The semicolon used here is merely to add context into a situation when it likely wasn't even necessary. However, as it was, we have what we have. I will once again refer you to the FAQ:

If a duskblade scores a critical hit when channeling a spell through a melee attack, is the spell’s damage multiplied just like the weapon’s?

The rules aren’t as clear as they could be, but the Sage is inclined to say no. Here’s the key sentence, from the PHB II, page 20: “If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.”

If you score a critical hit, the attack deals the normal (critical) damage. Then the spell resolves normally, but it’s just a rider effect applied due to the successful attack roll—you’re not actually using the spell in the normal manner, so it can’t score a critical hit.

I would like to conclude with asking you a question: if I crit with a poisoned weapon, do I multiply the initial poison damage? If I crit with a sudden surge longsword +1 (bull-rush as part of attack), and I am a Dungeoncrasher fighter, do I multiply the damage from shoving them into the wall? Both are rider effects that are powered by the weapon's attack roll that inflict their own damage.

Gwendol

2014-09-09, 01:44 AM

backwaterj

2014-09-09, 05:07 AM

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 11:44 AM

The answer to this supposed inconsistency lies in the first four words of your quoted text: "To use these spells", followed by what is definitively a list of two steps. Thus, touching the subject is part of using the spell, regardless of whether it's the same action. Spell gets attack roll, spell crits. The fact that the "cast a spell" action is in the past is no more relevant than the fact that cloudkill you just walked into was cast three rounds ago; it's still a spell effect and treated accordingly.

For AC, unarmed/natural attacks, and all other sorts of channeling the attack roll is made by a weapon, not a spell effect. Since it only requires a single attack roll for the weapon, it only allows a single instance of crit damage for the weapon.
(Bolded for Emphasis)
Touching the subject is expressly NOT part of casting the spell. Touch spells do not have attack rolls. Ranged touch spells do. Touch spells are cast and then stored in your hand. (see: Holding a Charge) You can, as part of the same standard action used to cast the spell, attempt a touch attack against your target. If that touch attack hits, the spell discharges. Many touch spells don't call out attack rolls in their rules text, as there's a unified rule for Touch spells. Those that do are just reiterating how touch spells work. Most of the time they read more like "The creature you touch..." or "The touched creature..." not "Make a touch attack against a target, then <Spell effect>" Contrast Ray of Frost, for instance: You cast the spell, and must succeed at a ranged touch attack to hit your target. It's called out in the spell text. If you miss, SOL, no second chance. The attack roll is part of the spell, and missing means you failed the spell. Touch spells, however, you can keep missing until you hit; the spell itself isn't the attack, but the spell can crit if the attack used to deliver it does.

Comparing Duskblade's AC to, say, Ordained Champion is comparing Elephants to Hippopotami. Sure, they're both potentially dangerous large mammals, but they're very different. Ordained Champion's Channel Spell is such a different beast to AC that the comparison is pointless (Can channel, say, Fireball. Why you'd want to is beyond me, but it's not "resolve a touch spell with a weapon" it's "Cast a spell into your weapon as a move action, then attack with the weapon and affect the first person you hit with the spell so stored.")

I know I'm not the OP, but no one has convinced me (Or, it seems, the OP) that AC isn't just a modification of the Touch Spell attack rules, and treating it any different than such is mind boggling. There's no text that says the spell can't crit, so you can't really say "Specific trumps General". (I'd argue the same for full attack channel. There are examples of touch spells you can attack multiple times with in the same round, and affect the same creature multiple times. AC doesn't say "Any creature can only be affected once by this [spell/ability]")

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 12:22 PM

Touching the subject is expressly NOT part of casting the spell.

Not the case.

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 casting 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.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

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. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#touchSpellsinCombat

Cast touch spell (1 standard action casting time) and touch one target

Cast touch spell (1 standard action castingtime) and touch two to six allies

TOUCH
You must touch the target to affect it. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. If you aren’t in combat when you cast a touch spell, you can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting.

Touch Spells in Combat
Using a touch spell during combat requires some special considerations.

Allies and Touch Spells:
To use a touch spell on allies during combat, you cast the spell and then touch those you can reach. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If the spell allows you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell, you can’t hold the charge (see below)—you must touch all targets of the spell in the same turn that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows only one target, you can touch that target during the same turn you cast the spell, or you can hold the charge. You can move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. If you use a full-round action to touch multiple targets, you can take only a 5-foot step.

Opponents and Touch Spells:
To use a touch spell against an opponent during combat, you cast the spell and then touch that opponent. You can touch the opponenton the same turn you cast the spell. To touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll to make a melee touch attack. You can hold the charge and move as deﬁned for touching allies.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke attacks of opportunity. Touch attacks to deliver touch spells follow all normal rules for touch attacks—see Touch Attacks, page 16.

Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge a touch spell during the turn when you cast it,you can hold the charge of the spell indeﬁnitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round until you successfully discharge the spell. If you touch anything while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. Intentionally touching anything, even a ﬁgment that isn’t really present, discharges the spell as well. You continue holding the charge if something touches you.

Unarmed and Natural Attacks with Touch Spells:
If you hold the charge of a touch spell, you can make a normal unarmed attack or an attack with a natural weapon at a later time. In this case, you’re considered armed only if your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. Otherwise, you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon, and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you’re still holding the charge.

Does a warlock’s hideous blow invocation (CAr, page 134) require one standard action to use the hideous blow and another round to strike with a melee weapon, or can the hideous blow and the melee weapon attack be done as a single standard action?

Making an attack with hideous blow is considered part of the same standard action as using the hideous blow invocation (much like the casting of a touch spell allows an attack to be made as part of the spell’s casting).

What kind of action is it to attack with a spectral hand spell?

Attacking with a spectral hand is part of the action of casting the touch spell to be delivered. If the initial touch attack misses, you can make additional attacks with the spectral hand in later rounds using the normal rules for holding the charge of a touch spell (PH 176).

Touch Spells: The duration for a touch spell doesn't begin until the caster touches a subject and delivers the spell to a recipient. Attempting to touch a recipient requires a melee touch attack and that is part of the action used to cast the spell during the round when the spell is completed. If the recipient is willing to be touched, it's usually best to just assume the caster touches the recipient.

If the caster does not touch a recipient then (either because she doesn't try to or the melee touch attack fails), she must use an action (usually the attack or full attack action) to touch a recipient during a later round. This is called "holding the charge." A caster holding a charge is considered armed and can use an attack of opportunity to make a melee touch attack and deliver the spell.

Whenever the caster touches anything, the held charge is discharged, even if what the caster touches isn't a valid target for the spell (in that case, the spell is wasted). The charge also is lost (and wasted) if the caster casts another spell. Otherwise, a caster can hold a charge indefinitely. DMs should feel free to set some reasonable limit to how long a character can hold a charge, perhaps 1 hour or until the caster has to go to sleep (or trance in the case of elves).

A very few touch spells (water breathing, for example) can be partially discharged. If so, this will be mentioned in the spell's target entry and its descriptive text, or both.

As a full-round action you can touch up to six friends willing creatures, object that willing creatures hold, or objects just lying round by themselves), provided that all the recipients are within the caster's reach. (The caster can extend her reach a little by taking a 5-foot step during the process.) To use this option, you must first cast the spell and hold the charge. Because the recipients are willing, no melee touch attack is required. You must decide how to distribute the spell's effect before touching anything.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040831a

Cast a Spell: Most spells require one standard action to cast. To cast any spell, you must provide any components the spell requires. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for details. Casting a spell usually provokes an attack of opportunity from every foe that threatens you when you cast.

As a nonaction, you can make a Concentration check to cast a spell defensively. Doing so allows you to cast the spell without provoking attacks of opportunity, but you must succeed at the Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell. Other conditions, such as poor weather, continuing damage, or hostile spells also can break your concentration; see the Concentration skill description in the Player's Handbook for details.

If you cast a spell with a range of touch, you can touch one recipient as a nonaction that's part of the action you used to cast the spell. You also can opt to hold the charge for a spell with touch range. Though you can lose the charge by accident, you must use a standard action to deliver the spell where you want it. As a full-round action, you can touch up to six friends with a touch spell, but that's worthwhile with only a few spells. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for details.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050628a

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 12:30 PM

Not the case.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#touchSpellsinCombat
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040831a
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050628a

And all of those say, to wit:
You cast the spell. Also, when you cast the spell, you can make a touch attack. You don't have to, because you can hold the charge.

So please, tell me where I have to make a touch attack as part of the same standard action as casting the spell? That's the difference I was pointing out. If I cast Ray of Frost, I have to make the attack roll as part of casting the spell. No holding off until I can get to a better position or my ally clears my LoS. Cast the spell, make the attack, intrinsic to the spell. Shocking Grasp? I can cast it, dance for two rounds (as long as I don't touch anything) and then walk over to an enemy and zap them. Otherwise, if I'm next to the target, I can cast the spell, and as a NONACTION make a touch attack to deliver the spell. Note that touching the target is not an inherent part of casting the spell.

If I cast the spell, and then later touch someone, can the spell no longer crit, because it's not "the spell's attack roll"?

I reiterate my question: Why is Arcane Channeling being treated as if it's some Other thing, and not simply "You don't provoke AoOs when casting Touch spells while armed. You can use a weapon attack to deliver said touch spell. This works in all other ways as delivering a touch spell."?

Troacctid

2014-09-09, 12:32 PM

You can do a lot of things while doing other things. It doesn't mean they're the same thing. A lot of free actions and non-actions are done as part of another action. I'm pretty sure that's like in their definition. Arcane Channeling has you cast a spell and make a melee attack as part of the same action, just like a normal touch spell has you cast a spell and make a touch attack as part of the same action.

Edit: Yeah, what Dave said.

Edit 2: And double-checking, yes, it is literally in the definitions of "free action" and "not an action" that they're done as part of another action.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 12:50 PM

If I cast the spell, and then later touch someone, can the spell no longer crit, because it's not "the spell's attack roll"?No, because your touch attack doesn't have its own effect. The effect being performed is "delivering a touch spell".

I reiterate my question: Why is Arcane Channeling being treated as if it's some Other thing, and not simply "You don't provoke AoOs when casting Touch spells while armed. You can use a weapon attack to deliver said touch spell. This works in all other ways as delivering a touch spell."?Because of the way Arcane Channeling is phrased, you make the attack, determine the effects of the weapon, and then have an additional aftereffect of a spell delivered in addition to your melee attack. There's two steps of determination: "If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normallyStep 1; then the effect of the spell is resolvedStep 2".

You didn't answer my question earlier either:

f I crit with a poisoned weapon, do I multiply the initial poison damage? If I crit with a [I]sudden surge longsword +1 (bull-rush as part of attack), and I am a Dungeoncrasher fighter, do I multiply the damage from shoving them into the wall? Both are rider effects that are powered by the weapon's attack roll that inflict their own damage.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 12:57 PM

No, because your touch attack doesn't have its own effect. The effect being performed is "delivering a touch spell".

1) Because of the way Arcane Channeling is phrased, you make the attack, determine the effects of the weapon, and then have an additional aftereffect of a spell delivered in addition to your melee attack. There's two steps of determination: "If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normallyStep 1; then the effect of the spell is resolvedStep 2".

2) You didn't answer my question earlier either:

(Bullets added for clarity)

1) And that's the exact same way making a natural attack or unarmed attack with a touch spell works.* Why is it suddenly different because I'm using a weapon?
Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells

As Rules of the Game has noted before, you can use an unarmed attack to deliver a spell with touch range. You make the unarmed attack as you would normally. Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell. If your attack roll is high enough to hit your target's regular Armor Class (not just its touch Armor Class), you deal unarmed strike damage and you also deliver the spell. If your attack roll fails to hit your target's regular Armor Class, the attack fails. It deals no damage and you don't deliver the spell either. You are, however, still holding the spell, just as if you failed with a touch attack.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a

2) No, because there are no rules stating that those things can crit. There ARE rules stating that spells can crit.

*edit: In fact, that's the exact same way making a touch attack works with a touch spell: Resolve the touch attack, then if the touch attack hits, resolve the spell. It just skips mentioning the damage of the touch attack because the touch attack itself deals no damage. It is merely a means to deliver the spell.

Edit2: Okay, so the only caveat to the Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon to deliver a touch spell is that it seems like those can only be done while Holding the Charge, not during the same standard action as casting the spell. So Arcane Channeling is changing the timing of the ability to deliver the spell with a regular attack, but not the ability to. And still it has no wording about the spell not being able to crit.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 01:16 PM

1) And that's the exact same way making a natural attack or unarmed attack with a touch spell works.* Why is it suddenly different because I'm using a weapon?It isn't. A critical unarmed strike delivering a touch spell doesn't multiply the spell in that instance either.

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 deals as it’s discharged. If the unarmed strike misses, then the spell isn’t discharged. If the unarmed strike scores a critical hit, damage from the spell isn’t multiplied.

2) No, because there are no rules stating that those things can crit. There ARE rules stating that spells can crit.

And those rules also state that if you deliver the spell with a melee attack rather than a touch attack, they aren't multiplied.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 01:22 PM

It isn't. A critical unarmed strike delivering a touch spell doesn't multiply the spell in that instance either.
And those rules also state that if you deliver the spell with a melee attack rather than a touch attack, they aren't multiplied.

Then...why did you not bring these rules out in the first place? If that's the wording in the RC, then I'll concede the point that judging from this, it seems RAI the spell delivered with AC can't crit, if it follows the same sort of rules as the UAS delivering a touch spell. (I don't have access to the Rules Compendium. I'll take your word for this.) (I might house rule it to allow the spell to crit, probably based on weapon crit range (not multiplier though) but then again I'm generally in favor of letting PCs be awesome. It would, in that case, be strictly house rules, and I understand that. It's only HP damage anyway.)

(I'd still like to know why, other than the FAQ "I'm saying so", the full attack channeling in any way reads that the channeled spell only affects each target once.)

Edit: It's not strictly RAW, since it's not spelled out. I'd say AC not being able to crit is from extrapolating related rules, and as such RAI.

backwaterj

2014-09-09, 01:23 PM

And all of those say, to wit:
You cast the spell. Also, when you cast the spell, you can make a touch attack. You don't have to, because you can hold the charge.

So please, tell me where I have to make a touch attack as part of the same standard action as casting the spell? That's the difference I was pointing out. If I cast Ray of Frost, I have to make the attack roll as part of casting the spell. No holding off until I can get to a better position or my ally clears my LoS. Cast the spell, make the attack, intrinsic to the spell. Shocking Grasp? I can cast it, dance for two rounds (as long as I don't touch anything) and then walk over to an enemy and zap them. Otherwise, if I'm next to the target, I can cast the spell, and as a NONACTION make a touch attack to deliver the spell. Note that touching the target is not an inherent part of casting the spell.

No, but verbatim per the rules, it is an inherent part of using the spell. I believe they made the touch action separate to give you the option to move in between casting and touching but that's mostly irrelevant.

Honestly, this is a bit of a rabbit-trail as spell effects can linger long after the casting of the spell. This is the case for any spell with a duration, and it is the case for touch spells that miss or are held for later (again, per the rules). If it were me I'd just give touch spells a set duration of "x or until discharged" across the board since there's nothing explicitly stating you can't hold that charge for a month if you really wanted to, but I digress.

So, regardless of which action you're using to make the touch attack, it is still using the spell's effect to make the attack. Since merely touching someone causes no damage and the rules explicitly state touch attacks can crit, then logically the crit applies to the attached spell damage (see also attacks of opportunity below). You're essentially casting the spell and then using it as a weapon, much as you would with a spiritual weapon or an ice axe.

I know I'm not the OP, but no one has convinced me (Or, it seems, the OP) that AC isn't just a modification of the Touch Spell attack rules, and treating it any different than such is mind boggling. There's no text that says the spell can't crit, so you can't really say "Specific trumps General". (I'd argue the same for full attack channel. There are examples of touch spells you can attack multiple times with in the same round, and affect the same creature multiple times. AC doesn't say "Any creature can only be affected once by this [spell/ability]")

There's also no specific rule stating you don't make a separate attack roll for the channeled spell, per the normal rules. If we're reading "the spell discharges" (PHB) and "the effect of the spell is resolved" (PHBII) as meaning the full effect of the spell, including crit rules, then we must take the full effect of the spell, which means making a separate attack roll.

If, however (as Fax Celestis, nedz, and myself read it, among quite a few others) the discharge clause means that the specific effects of the spell are applied ignoring the spell attack dynamics (as is necessary if you're tacking it onto a separate type of attack roll that deals separate damage), then it means that the attack roll is not used, and neither are the crit rules. You can't pick and choose which attack rules apply.

The only specific example I've found of a similar situation is actually even more cut and dry than the channeling rules. Manyshot uses a single attack roll to simultaneously (not first this, then that) make multiple damage rolls. Crit and precision damage explicitly only apply to "the first arrow".

That said, there may be precedents that contradict this. If so I'd love to hear them.

As for full-attack channeling, I'm fine with reading it either way. My only objection is based on the way WotC uses the English language, which is questionable at best. :smallwink:

If I cast the spell, and then later touch someone, can the spell no longer crit, because it's not "the spell's attack roll"?

I reiterate my question: Why is Arcane Channeling being treated as if it's some Other thing, and not simply "You don't provoke AoOs when casting Touch spells while armed. You can use a weapon attack to deliver said touch spell. This works in all other ways as delivering a touch spell."?

But it is the spell's attack roll (see above.)

To state that "You don't provoke AoOs when casting touch spells while armed" would be redundant as you don't provoke AoOs normally while armed. To state that "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity" (PHB 141) makes it abundantly clear that there is a weapon analog involved (since you wouldn't be considered armed otherwise) and that that weapon analog is the spell itself. (as implied by the OP above with the term "spell-weapon").

To put it another way, if it was written (as is entirely rules-legal) "Attacking an opponent with a longsword is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity", does that mean that the hand that is used to deliver the sword attack is considered armed without the sword? Explicitly in the rules it is not (barring exceptions for Improved Unarmed Strike, natural attacks and the like). It is the sword that makes the attack and it is the sword that deals the damage, therefore it is the sword that crits. Why should substituting the words "touch spell" make any difference?

Not so with AC (and other damage-dealing touch spell delivery vehicles). In this case the weapon being used is just that: a physical weapon, not the spell. Otherwise a separate spell attack roll must apply.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 01:29 PM

I'd still like to know why, other than the FAQ "I'm saying so", the full attack channeling in any way reads that the channeled spell only affects each target once.

Again, because of how the ability is phrased.

At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would otherwise last longer than 1 round.

The "affects each target you hit" language used here indicates that it isn't reliant upon the number of strikes, just that you strike at all. It's a binary state: a creature either is a target or it is not.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 01:36 PM

Honestly, this is a bit of a rabbit-trail as spell effects can linger long after the casting of the spell. This is the case for any spell with a duration, and it is the case for touch spells that miss or are held for later (again, per the rules). If it were me I'd just give touch spells a set duration of "x or until discharged" across the board since there's nothing explicitly stating you can't hold that charge for a month if you really wanted to, but I digress.

Funny story: a touch spell with a duration doesn't begin its duration until you touch something.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 01:43 PM

No, but verbatim per the rules, it is an inherent part of using the spell. I believe they made the touch action separate to give you the option to move in between casting and touching but that's mostly irrelevant.
Intent for the attack roll is irrelevant to this discussion. You can cast the spell without making an attack. That means that the attack is not part of casting the spell.

Honestly, this is a bit of a rabbit-trail as spell effects can linger long after the casting of the spell. This is the case for any spell with a duration, and it is the case for touch spells that miss or are held for later (again, per the rules). If it were me I'd just give touch spells a set duration of "x or until discharged" across the board since there's nothing explicitly stating you can't hold that charge for a month if you really wanted to, but I digress.
There is: If you touch ANYTHING other than yourself, you discharge the spell at the thing you touch.

So, regardless of which action you're using to make the touch attack, it is still using the spell's effect to make the attack.
No, you're using your hand to make the attack. The fact that the spell is in your hand is immaterial to the attack itself, except that you're considered armed, and it has effects in very specific cases. (Shocking grasp gives you +2 to the attack roll if your target is wearing metal, for instance. I'm not sure if there's anything else.)
edit: removed irrelevant Golden Ice rambling.

There's also no specific rule stating you don't make a separate attack roll for the channeled spell, per the normal rules. If we're reading "the spell discharges" (PHB) and "the effect of the spell is resolved" (PHBII) as meaning the full effect of the spell, including crit rules, then we must take the full effect of the spell, which means making a separate attack roll.
No, because you already delivered the spell via the weapon attack. The spell doesn't care whether you attack with it. It concerns itself with what happens AFTER you touch the target. that is the full effect of the spell. (In most cases, the damage)

The only specific example I've found of a similar situation is actually even more cut and dry than the channeling rules. Manyshot uses a single attack roll to simultaneously (not first this, then that) make multiple damage rolls. Crit and precision damage explicitly only apply to "the first arrow".
Apples/Oranges. Multiple weapon damage v. Weapon damage + spell effect. Then spell effect is not "Precision damage" it is an extra effect added to the weapon attack.

But it is the spell's attack roll (see above.)
The spell has no attack roll. The spell is delivered via a separate touch attack, which has an attack roll. The spell inherits the attack's crit. (But see my concession above, to FC's rules clarification)

[spoiler=AoOs about casting spells]To state that "You don't provoke AoOs when casting touch spells while armed" would be redundant as you don't provoke AoOs normally while armed. To state that "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity" (PHB 141) makes it abundantly clear that there is a weapon analog involved (since you wouldn't be considered armed otherwise) and that that weapon analog is the spell itself. (as implied by the OP above with the term "spell-weapon").
I never said the delivery of the spell provokes an AoO. But casting Shocking Grasp without AC does provoke an AoO, since you are casting a spell. Not so if you cast it via AC, since AC says you don't provoke AoOs from the act of casting said spell.

Note: I'm just clarifying my own points here. Most of this is academic, as if (as I've been saying) the AC attack follows the same rules as attacking with an unarmed strike while holding a touch spell, the spell can't crit. Spelled out in plain english in the RC. I'm no longer arguing that the AC spell can crit, just that the actions taken as part of a touch spell are distinct actions, happening simultaneously.

The "affects each target you hit" language used here indicates that it isn't reliant upon the number of strikes, just that you strike at all. It's a binary state: a creature either is a target or it is not.
I disagree: A creature that is the target of more than one strike is a target each time, and a separate target at that. The ability doesn't have restrictive wording that every other single-affect restrictive effect I've seen has: namely, it doesn't say "A creature cannot be the target of this ability/spell more than once per turn/use/fortnight/whatever."
It seems a needlessly restrictive reading to say that "each target" is a binary reading of "Has the creature already been affected? If yes, then they're still the same target of this ability" as opposed to "Is this creature the target of one of the attacks in this full attack sequence? If yes, then it also takes the spell. Does it matter that it was ALSO the target of another of the attacks in this full attack sequence? no, no it doesn't. It is the target of this attack NOW"

Gwendol

2014-09-09, 01:46 PM

Then...why did you not bring these rules out in the first place? If that's the wording in the RC, then I'll concede the point that judging from this, it seems RAI the spell delivered with AC can't crit, if it follows the same sort of rules as the UAS delivering a touch spell. (I don't have access to the Rules Compendium. I'll take your word for this.) (I might house rule it to allow the spell to crit, probably based on weapon crit range (not multiplier though) but then again I'm generally in favor of letting PCs be awesome. It would, in that case, be strictly house rules, and I understand that. It's only HP damage anyway.)

(I'd still like to know why, other than the FAQ "I'm saying so", the full attack channeling in any way reads that the channeled spell only affects each target once.)

Edit: It's not strictly RAW, since it's not spelled out. I'd say AC not being able to crit is from extrapolating related rules, and as such RAI.

These rules are no different than what is said in the PHB or in the SRD, only phrased clearer.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 01:47 PM

I disagree: A creature that is the target of more than one strike is a target each time, and a separate target at that. The ability doesn't have restrictive wording that every other single-affect restrictive effect I've seen has: namely, it doesn't say "A creature cannot be the target of this ability/spell more than once per turn/use/fortnight/whatever."
It seems a needlessly restrictive reading to say that "each target" is a binary reading of "Has the creature already been affected? If yes, then they're still the same target of this ability" as opposed to "Is this creature the target of one of the attacks in this full attack sequence? If yes, then it also takes the spell. Does it matter that it was ALSO the target of another of the attacks in this full attack sequence? no, no it doesn't. It is the target of this attack NOW"

A question, then: if I cast slow, can I target one opponent twice to make him make two saving throws?

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 01:51 PM

These rules are no different than what is said in the PHB or in the SRD, only phrased clearer.

Neither the PHB nor the SRD say the spell can't crit. All they say is that you can deliver the spell with a Natural Attack or Unarmed attack. The Rules Compendium quote is the first thing I've read in this entire thread that actually changes the interactions. (Note, so we're not talking past each other: I rely on Occam's Razor in reading D&D rules, and always assume a terrible Copy Editor when wording is different. So if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I generally assume it is a small waterfowl of the family Anatidae.)

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 01:56 PM

A question, then: if I cast slow, can I target one opponent twice to make him make two saving throws?

No, because Slow states how many targets it can affect, and all targets have to make a single save. One action, one spellcast, one target selection, one resolution.
With AC, you are taking different actions (not Actions, but actions) that each resolve individually. Or does a Duskblade at your table make all their attacks for the round, and THEN resolve the touch spell on anyone they attacked?

The full attack AC reads, to me, that you spend 1 spell slot to make the proper touch spell apply on every attack that round, but someone worded it terribly.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 02:03 PM

No, because Slow states how many targets it can affect, and all targets have to make a single save. One action, one spellcast, one target selection, one resolution.
With AC, you are taking different actions (not Actions, but actions) that each resolve individually. Or does a Duskblade at your table make all their attacks for the round, and THEN resolve the touch spell on anyone they attacked?

That's how it works at my table, yes.

Consider thus: an "opponent" and a "target" are approximately the same in terms of the rules: an opponent is a kind of targeted creature. If you take the text and replace it, as if with a thesaurus entry, the way the ability works becomes clearer.

At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each opponent you hit in melee combat that round. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would otherwise last longer than 1 round.

backwaterj

2014-09-09, 02:11 PM

Intent for the attack roll is irrelevant to this discussion. You can cast the spell without making an attack. That means that the attack is not part of casting the spell.

Pointing out the irrelevancy of things already flagged as irrelevant is also irrelevant. :smallbiggrin:

Correct, it's not part of casting the spell. It's part of using the spell. That much at least is black and white.

There is: If you touch ANYTHING other than yourself, you discharge the spell at the thing you touch.

Hence the "if you really wanted to".

No, you're using your hand to make the attack. The fact that the spell is in your hand is immaterial to the attack itself, except that you're considered armed, and it has effects in very specific cases. (Shocking grasp gives you +2 to the attack roll if your target is wearing metal, for instance. I'm not sure if there's anything else.)
edit: removed irrelevant Golden Ice rambling.

If you want to say the hand makes the attack, fine. But the fact that the only damage is spell damage sort of defeats the purpose of the distinction. Otherwise on a backed-up natural 20 you would deal 0 x 2 damage.

No, because you already delivered the spell via the weapon attack. The spell doesn't care whether you attack with it. It concerns itself with what happens AFTER you touch the target. that is the full effect of the spell. (In most cases, the damage)

This is ignoring the basic crit rules, which only apply to base weapon damage for an attack made. You're either treating the spell as a separate attack with its own attack roll or (as RC confirms, see below) or as a rider effect such as poison or damage from the Holy weapon quality, which ignores both.

Apples/Oranges. Multiple weapon damage v. Weapon damage + spell effect. Then spell effect is not "Precision damage" it is an extra effect added to the weapon attack.

True, it's not perfect. But it is a precedent, of which I've still heard none from the other side. No one's arguing that the spell is precision damage, however for multiclass duskblade/rogues etc. the point is relevant.

The spell has no attack roll. The spell is delivered via a separate touch attack, which has an attack roll. The spell inherits the attack's crit. (But see my concession above, to FC's rules clarification)

This is adequately covered above.

I never said the delivery of the spell provokes an AoO. But casting Shocking Grasp without AC does provoke an AoO, since you are casting a spell. Not so if you cast it via AC, since AC says you don't provoke AoOs from the act of casting said spell.

I stand corrected.

Note: I'm just clarifying my own points here. Most of this is academic, as if (as I've been saying) the AC attack follows the same rules as attacking with an unarmed strike while holding a touch spell, the spell can't crit. Spelled out in plain english in the RC. I'm no longer arguing that the AC spell can crit, just that the actions taken as part of a touch spell are distinct actions, happening simultaneously.

Your concession literally snuck in at the last minute as I was composing the previous post, so I did not get a chance to read it until after the fact. Apologies!

I disagree: A creature that is the target of more than one strike is a target each time, and a separate target at that. The ability doesn't have restrictive wording that every other single-affect restrictive effect I've seen has: namely, it doesn't say "A creature cannot be the target of this ability/spell more than once per turn/use/fortnight/whatever."
It seems a needlessly restrictive reading to say that "each target" is a binary reading of "Has the creature already been affected? If yes, then they're still the same target of this ability" as opposed to "Is this creature the target of one of the attacks in this full attack sequence? If yes, then it also takes the spell. Does it matter that it was ALSO the target of another of the attacks in this full attack sequence? no, no it doesn't. It is the target of this attack NOW"

This is a valid way of reading the text. Not my preferred way, or FC's, but still valid.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 02:13 PM

That's how it works at my table, yes.

Consider thus: an "opponent" and a "target" are approximately the same in terms of the rules: an opponent is a kind of targeted creature. If you take the text and replace it, as if with a thesaurus entry, the way the ability works becomes clearer.
So if a Duskblade full-channeled Vampiric Touch, the damage of VT doesn't take effect until after all attacks have been made for the round? So a creature might have died from the VT damage but the Duskblade doesn't know, so they swing at the creature again for regular melee damage, then turn their attention to another creature. At the end of the round, the first creature takes the would-have-been-fatal-anyway VT damage, and the second creature takes VT damage, both at the same time?
What happens if the Duskblade makes an AoO against a third target after his turn, but before "the end of the round"? Are they not affected by VT? Or does all the VT damage happen at initiative 0, since that's "the end of the round" and only then do you actually know how many targets VT can have hit?

I disagree with your second premise: Any number of spells allow a single opponent to be targeted multiple times by the same spell. (Arcane Missiles, for instance, allows them to be the target of any number of missiles. Scorching Ray lets you target the same opponent multiple times with the rays. In neither case is the single opponent treated as if it were only affected by one part of the spell. But this is a bit Apples/Oranges, since the spells specifically call out that a creature can be affected by more than one of the spell's effects, and everything resolves all at once.) And if you change the wording from "each target" to "each opponent" then the ability is fundamentally different. Suddenly can't D-hop all your allies into better positions (one of, IMO, the best full-round-actions a Duskblade can pull off) since none of them are Opponents. But that's splitting hairs. Your reading seems to hinge on the fact that you only count a creature as a target once, regardless of the number of times they are targeted. I don't see where that logic comes from. In most cases, when there is separate resolution for distinct actions, either a single creature can be multiple targets, and thus affected multiple times, or the ability/spell is worded to specifically prevent that.

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 02:18 PM

I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to ask why you ruled that way on slow before if that's the case. Slow has the ability to affect multiple targets. If Arcane Channeling can target the same creature multiple times, why can't slow? Why wouldn't I just bomb every single target I have onto one creature to make it roll the save six, seven, eight times, to have a higher chance of failure? Or even burn off excess targets on creatures, doubling up to have a greater chance of success.

You can't have it both ways: either an effect can only target a creature once, and Arcane Channeling's effect only triggers once per targeted creature, or an effect can target a creature multiple times and slow and similar multi-target debuffs get a huge buff as they can force multiple saves on a creature in one casting.

backwaterj

2014-09-09, 02:20 PM

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 02:35 PM

Your concession literally snuck in at the last minute as I was composing the previous post, so I did not get a chance to read it until after the fact. Apologies!
Apology accepted. I hope I'm not coming across as hostile here, I'm trying to keep this civil. And I figured that the concession came through before you posted, so I read your post in that light. :smallcool:

If you want to say the hand makes the attack, fine. But the fact that the only damage is spell damage sort of defeats the purpose of the distinction. Otherwise on a backed-up natural 20 you would deal 0 x 2 damage.
Specific trumps general: A touch spell is called out in the rules as being able to crit if the attack used to deliver it is a crit. The unarmed rules, being even more specific, trump this; they say that a touch spell delivered with an unarmed attack cannot crit, even if the unarmed attack crits. Natural Weapons and AC would, in my reading, follow the UAS rules, and such be ineligible for crits. (Except my (now admitted) houserule, which states that Players get to be more awesome than the rules state. Maybe I should try Exalted...)

This is a valid way of reading the text. Not my preferred way, or FC's, but still valid.
It just seems like a needlessly restrictive reading. There are very few instances where being able to affect the same target more than once with a touch spell is, in and of itself, game breaking (or coming close to). Those few instances (Full Attack Dimension Hopping yourself, Shadowpouncing D-hop (which will get a book thrown at you in reality) or channeling other classes' spells) are better handled by reasonable GM arbitration, IMO.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to ask why you ruled that way on slow before if that's the case. Slow has the ability to affect multiple targets. If Arcane Channeling can target the same creature multiple times, why can't slow? Why wouldn't I just bomb every single target I have onto one creature to make it roll the save six, seven, eight times, to have a higher chance of failure? Or even burn off excess targets on creatures, doubling up to have a greater chance of success.

You can't have it both ways: either an effect can only target a creature once, and Arcane Channeling's effect only triggers once per targeted creature, or an effect can target a creature multiple times and slow and similar multi-target debuffs get a huge buff as they can force multiple saves on a creature in one casting.
Slow is one spellcast, one resolution. Full Attack Arcane Channeling is one spellcast, multiple resolutions. Every time I make an attack while under the effects of FAAC, it is also a new resolution of the touch spell I cast as part of the action. That's the distinction. Essentially in my reading, I'm casting Vampiric Touch and using my Arcane Channeling ability as an Attack Action (and thus having it be eligible for multiple attacks in a FRA) instead of a Standard Action, except that it only costs one spell slot instead of one spell slot per attack. Alternatively, since you can Whirlwind Attack as a FRA, you could Arcane Channel Whirlwind. In that case, it's only one resolution since the Whirlwind Attack expressly hits once on every target. (On the other other hand, IIRC there's something that lets you Whirlwind as an attack action, in which case everything goes to hell.)

Fax Celestis

2014-09-09, 02:46 PM

Yeah, like I said, I see where you're coming from. I play it differently at my table, and unlike the prior argument there's no actual rule about this anywhere that I know of.

IAmTehDave

2014-09-09, 03:02 PM

Perhaps the core of the issue is this:

From the targeted creature's perspective, he is "a target", regardless of the number of attacks.

From the attacking creature's perspective, he can be "multiple targets" since he is the target of multiple attacks.

I'd say it's valid for full-attack channeling for it to affect attacks of opportunity, since the spell effect ends "at the end of the round" not "at the end of your turn". Though I suppose a more literal interpretation would be it lasts until the end of the lowest initiative, at which point the round resets.

And since the ability is one that belongs to the Attacking Creature, why are we using the Targeted Creature's perspective? :smalltongue::smallwink:

Maybe wording the ability more clearly might help. I go back to my "terrible Copy Editing" statement on this, and posit the ability should read something more akin to: (And yes, I know I'm making a change to the level 3 version, which is a nerf to dippers but a buff to straight-Duskblades)

Arcane Channeling: A Duskblade of 3rd level or higher does not provoke attacks of opportunity for casting a spell on the Duskblade spell list with Range:Touch. In addition, she may use a melee weapon attack to deliver the spell. She can make this attack as part of the standard action used to cast the spell, or can make a regular touch attack as normal. If the weapon scores a critical hit, damage from the spell isn’t multiplied. She may also Hold the Charge as normal with a touch attack.

At level 13, the Duskblade may, as a full-round-action, cast a Duskblade Touch spell she knows and perform a Full Attack. Each melee attack she makes as part of this Full Attack Action or as Attacks of Opportunity before her next turn also applies the effect of the spell. If the spell has a duration other than Instantaneous, its duration becomes "Until the end of the round". If she casts another spell before her next turn, this effect ends. The Duskblade may not "Hold the Charge" of a touch spell cast in this manner.[Optional Rules text: A creature can only be affected by the channeled spell once per round unless the spell says otherwise.]

Less concise, but much clearer, spells out the involved rules, and prevents certain exploits (like full channel Raise Dead) while making others (Shadow Pounce) cost more. (Every full attack action you want to apply D-hop to requires a new spell slot expenditure) It's expressly worded out, but basically it turns the level 13 part into "You are Holding a Charge of the touch spell until the beginning of your next turn"

Yeah, like I said, I see where you're coming from. I play it differently at my table, and unlike the prior argument there's no actual rule about this anywhere that I know of.
So basically, the entire argument about Full Attack Channeling boils down to "WotC should hire better copy editors" or "WotC shouldn't allow wordings to be so vague that three people can read the text four different ways"?