Monster Touch AC

[RNightstalker]

I'm just wondering if anybody else wondered if ANY of the playtesters used touch attack spells when "testing". How many monsters have a respectable touch AC? Is it worth nerfing touch attack spells/abilities?

[Teth]

Touch attacks posing an escalated threat to someone relying on armor strikes me as "working as intended."

You stab a guy, and you have to actually penetrate his armor -- or find a gap in it, for finesse users -- if you want to hit something vital. Some wizard coming along with chill touch or whatever just has to touch you to ruin your day, and it's perfectly normal that your armor is suddenly meaningless. Everything has counters. Just don't balance things so that the party is always steamrolling encounters that should be challenging, or cheat so much that everything the party is going after somehow counters their strengths every time.

And realistically, a party that's good at dealing with armored foes and bad at dealing with undead is obviously going to choose what to go after based on what they'll live through and profit from. They're not going to thrust themselves into life-or-death situations they survive only based on luck unless there's something proportional to motivate them, whether greed or defending their homes or whatever. If you want them to be risking their lives fighting things that counter all their strengths, at least have a reason why they're doing that instead of legging it like a sensible person and looking for a different task.

[zlefin]

From what I've heard; while certain individual spells might be too strong, in general touch spells aren't a big problem balance-wise.

Ranged touch is more likely to be an issue than melee touch, as melee touch tends to involve getting uncomfortable close to monsters.

Most monsters have garbage touch AC. I'm not sure touch AC even rises as you get to higher CR; while some stats go up, they tend to get size penalties which make their touch AC worse. At higher levels anything targetting touch AC tends to hit on anything but a 1.

[Teth]

Ranged touch is more likely to be an issue than melee touch, as melee touch tends to involve getting uncomfortable close to monsters.

The tiger or whatever getting a free AoO is indeed the main countermeasure to casting a spell that involves walking up and touching the tiger.

Ranged, eh, either you're fighting something you can clean up easily, or it becomes a matter of the person that draws attention to themselves being given target priority. Unless you're directly bullying the other side as too stupid to figure out which party members are creating how much of a threat, "target the squishy caster that's making it harder for us to win" is basic tactics.

[RNightstalker]

At higher levels anything targetting touch AC tends to hit on anything but a 1.

That's what I'm getting at. At that point, what is the point?

[Teth]

That's what I'm getting at. At that point, what is the point?

You're postulating a high-level caster when asking that. What's the point of asking what's the point, given a high-level caster? They should already have dozens of ways to ruin someone's day, barring ambush or overwhelming force.

The fact that their touch attacks mostly always hit instead of fumbling around and failing to successfully touch someone half the time like a first-circle apprentice is by far the least threatening thing about a high-level caster.

We're talking someone that almost certainly has a couple Wand of Fireballs in their pocket and can open with greater invisibility and dimension door before spamming fireballs down on you from 400 feet in the air until the street turns into lava. Or whatever other horrid and utterly bullying tactic they think up.

Anything that legitimately has to worry about it being easy for them to land a hit with a touch attack is not a credible threat to a high-level caster.

[JNAProductions]

You're postulating a high-level caster when asking that. What's the point of asking what's the point, given a high-level caster? They should already have dozens of ways to ruin someone's day, barring ambush or overwhelming force.

The fact that their touch attacks mostly always hit instead of fumbling around and failing to successfully touch someone half the time like a first-circle apprentice is by far the least threatening thing about a high-level caster.

We're talking someone that almost certainly has a couple Wand of Fireballs in their pocket and can open with greater invisibility and dimension door before spamming fireballs down on you from 400 feet in the air until the street turns into lava. Or whatever other horrid and utterly bullying tactic they think up.

Anything that legitimately has to worry about it being easy for them to land a hit with a touch attack is not a credible threat to a high-level caster.

Like dragons?
Or giants?

[RNightstalker]

Like dragons?

What's the spell I've banned that's a touch attack for 3d6 damage that's a dragon slayer?

[Teth]

Like dragons?
Or giants?

Anyone willing to walk up and touch a hostile dragon to cast a spell, in robes, with caster HP, kind of deserves to get their spell off. At least it'll give them a happy memory before the AoO bite attack and finding out that the Huge+ dragon knows "Snatch and Swallow."

And why is touch AC even a question at that point? The main defenses against a spell are saves and spell resistance, not touch AC, particularly at higher levels.

[JNAProductions]

Anyone willing to walk up and touch a hostile dragon to cast a spell, in robes, with caster HP, kind of deserves to get their spell off. At least it'll give them a happy memory before the AoO bite attack and finding out that the Huge+ dragon knows "Snatch and Swallow."

Shivering Touch and Spectral Hand are both available to level five Wizards. So with just a little prep, so you can cast Hand in advance, you can one-shot most dragons on an average roll.

Edit: Or, hell, use Abrupt Jaunt to avoid the AoO and ignore using Spectral Hand.

[Zanos]

Most touch spells are single target and do comparable damage to an AoE spell at that same level. Scorching Ray, at full caster level, does 12d6 fire damage to 1 target. Fireball, at full caster level, does 10d6 damage to many targets with a reflex save for half, and is one level higher. That seems fine to me.

Most of the touch attacks that carry seriously nasty side effects have saves. A standout is Ennervation, but I think people grossly overestimate how impactful 1d4 negative levels is on a single target in most encounters. Enervation is only extremely nasty if it's being used as the envelope for the mailman, and that says more about metamagic stacking builds than it does about enervation.


Shivering Touch and Spectral Hand are both available to level five Wizards. So with just a little prep, so you can cast Hand in advance, you can one-shot most dragons on an average roll.

Edit: Or, hell, use Abrupt Jaunt to avoid the AoO and ignore using Spectral Hand.
Dragons can easily destroy a spectral hand, 10ft teleport isn't gonna be enough to get inside the nastier dragons reach, and more powerful dragons have SR, which shivering touch does not automatically pierce. I agree that it can be a dragonkiller with the right setup, but it's not really as simple as casting 1 spell and winning.

[Teth]

I agree that it can be a dragonkiller with the right setup, but it's not really as simple as casting 1 spell and winning.

There's also the fact that if you somehow manage to wrangle a one-shot dragon-killing touch attack, but don't otherwise have the strength or background to back that up...word of that is going to get around, to people that want to force you to work for them, to dragons.

Then one day you're going to wake up in someone's dungeon with a sack over your head and in magical restraints. Or else to three or four dragons a couple size classes larger, simultaneously breath attacking the inn you're asleep in, as you're surrounded by an army of their dependents.

Finding a way to get in a lucky blow against something above your weight class is something you do once then shut the heck up about lest someone finds out a relatively weak person is walking around with enough gp in their bags to fill a modest dragon horde, or six or seven.

And even then, with D&D's proclivity for parties...are you sure none of your party members decided to sell you to a random noble, or file an accurate report on their adventure with their religious order?

[Zanos]

Having a character automatically killed by much stronger foes because they punched above their weight class is a little ridiculous at best, and combative DMing at worst. It's not really lore friendly considering dragons rarely congregate, and outside of specific campaign settings it's not in their nature to go on revenge quests for slain (adult) family members, as they're usually very solitary.

And It's now how I would advocate for solving the issue, if there is one. If a party, through tremendous luck, strategy, or skill, managed to defeat a much more powerful dragon, would you have them all massacred by angry Great Wyrms? I don't think so.

[Teth]

Having a character automatically killed by much stronger foes because they punched above their weight class is a little ridiculous at best, and combative DMing at worst. It's not really lore friendly considering dragons rarely congregate, and outside of specific campaign settings it's not in their nature to go on revenge quests for slain (adult) family members, as they're usually very solitary.

And It's now how I would advocate for solving the issue, if there is one. If a party, through tremendous luck, strategy, or skill, managed to defeat a much more powerful dragon, would you have them all massacred by angry Great Wyrms? I don't think so.

Rocks fall, everyone dies? No.

Actually facing consequences because you munchkined something up, were allowed to get away with it once because you took a risk that played out and didn't break the campaign too hard...but instead of taking the win, someone decided that meant they should keep exploiting their shiny new autowin button over and over, all while assuming nobody else in the world knew or cared what you were doing?

Spending some time being hunted everywhere and trying to figure out ways to escape or hide or get the heat off is a perfectly legitimate campaign narrative, and might make people spend a little time thinking out the ramifications in-world before trying to munchkin.

Even just one person coming after them over revenge or simply wanting to steal the treasure they got goes a long way, and makes plenty of sense in-world. As long as that person knows how you did the thing and takes targeted measures, you already have a perfectly good narrative justification that doesn't involve suddenly turning all the encounters into constructs.

It's not like the response even has to kill the characters, just make the point that they can't rely on one trick to repeatedly farm dragons or whatever like they're too stupid to take defensive measures or even make themselves scarce.

If someone actually manages to break things, which touch AC existing alone never should, I strongly favor either asking them not to do that because it's making it hard to plan sessions everyone gets to enjoy, or else letting them keep their toy but face the consequences of having it instead of it existing in a vacuum where they're allowed to Mary Sue it up without anyone reacting.

Breaking their toy directly by constantly throwing immune mobs at them thereafter or whatever is bad play on the DM's part, kind of condescending to boot, and shows a distinct lack of creativity when there are plenty of ways to make them regret having abused the toy instead of just breaking it.

[Zombimode]

I'm just wondering if anybody else wondered if ANY of the playtesters used touch attack spells when "testing". How many monsters have a respectable touch AC? Is it worth nerfing touch attack spells/abilities?

That touch and ranged touch spells are very likely to hit but have the potential to fail is not a bug.

Also, consider the following:
- many monsters have crap touch AC, but some do not - this distinction is a feature
- touch attack spells require you to, well, touch the target and that may have ramifications: touching this particular monster might not be a good idea in general or standing next to it is not where you want to be
- ranged touch attacks are still ranged attacks which are hindered by cover and "shooting in melee" - your +6 might look great to hit the touch AC 8 target, but it doesn't look so great with -4 due cover and -4 for lack of Precise Shot

Also, I think you are forgetting what touch attack spells are compared against. Sure, often touch attack spells are likely to hit - but they actually have to hit. Compared to spells that just hit/affect the target (you know, like most spells...) requiring a touch attack is actually a downside.

[Biggus]

That's what I'm getting at. At that point, what is the point?

Looking at the average monster stats table here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623578-3-5-Average-Monster-Stats-UPDATED-TABLE&highlight=average+monster+stats) hitting with ranged touch attacks (and melee too if you have Weapon Finesse) becomes extremely likely around level 10 and virtually guaranteed around level 14, assuming the caster has a half-decent Dex and/or some other minor boosts to attack bonus (such as from Create Magic Tattoo).



- touch attack spells require you to, well, touch the target and that may have ramifications: touching this particular monster might not be a good idea in general or standing next to it is not where you want to be

There are lots of ways around this: Spectral Hand already mentioned, Reach Spell, metamagic rod of reach, Archmage's arcane reach class feature.



Also, I think you are forgetting what touch attack spells are compared against. Sure, often touch attack spells are likely to hit - but they actually have to hit. Compared to spells that just hit/affect the target (you know, like most spells...) requiring a touch attack is actually a downside.

Most spells which don't require a (ranged) touch attack allow a save, and most spells that require a touch attack don't allow a save. In the majority of cases, a touch attack is more likely to hit at mid-high levels than a save is to be failed.

[Twurps]

I'm just wondering if anybody else wondered if ANY of the playtesters used touch attack spells when "testing". How many monsters have a respectable touch AC? Is it worth nerfing touch attack spells/abilities?

Is 1mln too much to pay for a house??

Depends on how big it is? depends on how much money you have? depends on how much money make? or as the realtor would say: location, location, Location!

What I'm getting at is: it depends
If playing at the level people seem to 'expect' you to play here on the forum: touch spells are the least of your worries. If you're playing a simpler game, where AC actually matters all the way up to late game. It could be a problem. Or it could be the only thing keeping the castery character viable vs his 'high level high AC' enemies/monsters.

Since your asking if it should be nerfed, I'm inferring/guessing that at your particular table, 'Keeping up' isn't the casters problem and it tends more towards outperforming/outshining. What you do about that is still situation/group dependent though so I'd need a lot more details before coming up with any meaningful answer.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Rocks fall, everyone dies? No.

Actually facing consequences because you munchkined something up, were allowed to get away with it once because you took a risk that played out and didn't break the campaign too hard...but instead of taking the win, someone decided that meant they should keep exploiting their shiny new autowin button over and over, all while assuming nobody else in the world knew or cared what you were doing?

Spending some time being hunted everywhere and trying to figure out ways to escape or hide or get the heat off is a perfectly legitimate campaign narrative, and might make people spend a little time thinking out the ramifications in-world before trying to munchkin.Alternately, you're forcing the group to optimize even harder, just to survive, which makes the problem worse.

Congratulations on starting the arms race instead of talking to them about it or just finding ways to work around their autowin button. Like, say, using groups of ranged enemies to harry the party from behind proper cover instead of using one big bruiser that can be one-shotted, for example.

[Buufreak]

requiring a touch attack is actually a downside.

This point right here is why I think spell warp sniper is trash. Taking an aoe that could do a masse effect to an entire army and converting it to a ranged touch that now requires an attack roll for the sweet sweet bonus of "now it only hits 1 target, but could crit" is a basket of suck in my book.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What makes shivering touch so insane for its level is the fact that you can make repeated touch attacks with it for 1 round/level.


Shivering Touch
Necromancy [Cold]
Level: Cleric 3, Sorcerer 3, Wizard 3, Disciple of Thrym 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

Yes, that means you deal 3d6 Dex damage per hit, and you can make touch attacks repeatedly every round. And it's a great metamagic target, dealing 18+1.5d6 Dex damage on a single touch if you've Maximized and Empowered it. (Great for Extend + a metamagic rod of Empower + Sudden Maximize, or whatever.)

[Arkain]

This point right here is why I think spell warp sniper is trash. Taking an aoe that could do a masse effect to an entire army and converting it to a ranged touch that now requires an attack roll for the sweet sweet bonus of "now it only hits 1 target, but could crit" is a basket of suck in my book.

And it can miss on a 1 :smallbiggrin:
The point, though, seems to be first to add sneak attack damage, second to remove any reflex save and third, to simply have the option to take those often high damage spells and use them for your schtick instead of learning and/or preparing another one in case you want to shoot a sneaky ray.

[Buufreak]

And it can miss on a 1 :smallbiggrin:
The point, though, seems to be first to add sneak attack damage, second to remove any reflex save and third, to simply have the option to take those often high damage spells and use them for your schtick instead of learning and/or preparing another one in case you want to shoot a sneaky ray.

Right you are on the bonus damage bits, but for that I'd much rather go something like arcane trickster or unseen seer.

[ShurikVch]

Rocks fall, everyone dies? No.

Actually facing consequences because you munchkined something up, were allowed to get away with it once because you took a risk that played out and didn't break the campaign too hard...but instead of taking the win, someone decided that meant they should keep exploiting their shiny new autowin button over and over, all while assuming nobody else in the world knew or cared what you were doing?

Spending some time being hunted everywhere and trying to figure out ways to escape or hide or get the heat off is a perfectly legitimate campaign narrative, and might make people spend a little time thinking out the ramifications in-world before trying to munchkin.

Even just one person coming after them over revenge or simply wanting to steal the treasure they got goes a long way, and makes plenty of sense in-world. As long as that person knows how you did the thing and takes targeted measures, you already have a perfectly good narrative justification that doesn't involve suddenly turning all the encounters into constructs.
That reminded me of Every Parent's Worst Nightmare (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html)

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/oots/images/9/97/OOTS0628.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/241?cb=20160830193249

[Rebel7284]

What makes shivering touch so insane for its level is the fact that you can make repeated touch attacks with it for 1 round/level.
Yes, that means you deal 3d6 Dex damage per hit, and you can make touch attacks repeatedly every round. And it's a great metamagic target, dealing 18+1.5d6 Dex damage on a single touch if you've Maximized and Empowered it. (Great for Extend + a metamagic rod of Empower + Sudden Maximize, or whatever.)

There are a number of ways to read the spell that I have seen. As always, you offer the most broken interpretation as an undisputed fact. Do you not understand why doing that is NOT helpful?

Interpretation 1: The spell does ability damage, the shivering (cosmetic) effect lasts for round per level
Interpretation 2: You can make touch attacks that deal dex damage for round per level
Interpretation 3: Whoever wrote the spell was clearly confused about the distinction between a penalty to an ability and ability damage and tried to put a duration on ability damage. Thus the spell REQUIRES DM adjudication as it's nonsensical as written.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There are a number of ways to read the spell that I have seen. As always, you offer the most broken interpretation as an undisputed fact. Do you not understand why doing that is NOT helpful?The spell is broken. It lets you make touch attacks for 1 round/level. It even says it right there. "Duration: 1 round/level." It doesn't discharge on a touch. So the spell allows you to make touch attacks (as per the rules for touch attack spells) for the spell's duration. Your other "interpretations" are ignoring rules and making stuff up to replace them. The spell is broken, but it's hardly the result of my "interpretation," since it's fairly clearly spelled out.

[Lukalaly]

The spell is broken. It lets you make touch attacks for 1 round/level. It even says it right there. "Duration: 1 round/level." It doesn't discharge on a touch. So the spell allows you to make touch attacks (as per the rules for touch attack spells) for the spell's duration. Your other "interpretations" are ignoring rules and making stuff up to replace them. The spell is broken, but it's hardly the result of my "interpretation," since it's fairly clearly spelled out.

I think saying the duration applies to the penalty (or damage, rather, even though it normally doesn't work that way) is definitely the most reasonable interpretation. If they wanted you to be able to do the attack multiple times, wouldn't they have just said that in the spell description? Does ray of enfeeblement let you shoot rays for a minute/level? Does touch of idiocy let you make a touch attack for 10 minutes/level? Of course not. Why would shivering touch work any differently? Additionally, it's not like it's impossible for ability damage to just go away, even though it's unusual (I can't think of any other cases.)


Ability Damaged: The character has temporarily lost 1 or
more ability score points. Lost points return at a rate of 1 per day
unless noted otherwise by the condition dealing the damage.

Lost points return at a rate of 1 per day unless noted otherwise. It is noted otherwise right there in the spell, with all the lost points returning after 1 round/level.

Note: I know that the last clause isn't there in the earlier description of ability damage in the special abilities section, but I don't think that means it wouldn't apply here. After all, taking ability damage is what gives you the "Ability Damaged" condition, is it not? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way, this is the only time I've seen it used as a condition, so I assume that's how it works. Even if I'm wrong on that though, I don't think that really weakens the argument, seeing as specific trumps general and this is a specific case of ability damage lasting a shorter amount of time.

[gijoemike]

There are a number of ways to read the spell that I have seen. As always, you offer the most broken interpretation as an undisputed fact. Do you not understand why doing that is NOT helpful?

Interpretation 1: The spell does ability damage, the shivering (cosmetic) effect lasts for round per level
Interpretation 2: You can make touch attacks that deal dex damage for round per level
Interpretation 3: Whoever wrote the spell was clearly confused about the distinction between a penalty to an ability and ability damage and tried to put a duration on ability damage. Thus the spell REQUIRES DM adjudication as it's nonsensical as written.

Thank you Rebel, the spell is a touch spell meaning that it can be held but it doesn't mention charges like the spell Ghoul Touch. So it is a 1 and done charge spell. Yet it has round/level. I interpret this to mean the effect and damage of the spell is very temporary. But then the spell deals ability damage instead of just a penalty like the spell Ray of Enfeeblement. This allows a targets dex to hit 0 which is a good thing.

How I think they intended the spell to work:
Caster slaps a target who begins to shake and shiver uncontrollably. This teeth clattering coldness lasts rnd/lvl and can be bad enough the target falls to the floor in the fetal position trying to get warm again.

But here is thing that most posts do not mention. Shivering Touch has built in exceptions. There are dozens of creatures this spell will not work on. Anything with the cold subtype is flat out immune. Anything that is immune to ability damage is flat out immune to this too. There are spells that can give you a sub-type of cold or make you immune to the damage. Any large threat would take precautions to protect their glaring weakness from being so easily exploitable.

[Psyren]

That's what I'm getting at. At that point, what is the point?

For a big animal with no other defenses, not much.

But other monsters have more defenses than simple touch AC. Concealment, miss chance, cover, SR, resistances, immunities, and several others.

There's also the simple tactical consideration that most touch spells have shorter range than, say, an arrow, or even a fireball. While you benefit from ease of hitting, you're often putting yourself in more danger to do so than other ranged attackers.