Duskblades and rays

[Thorin]

So, I recently read something about the duskblade beeing able to use disintegrate on the weapon withh his ability to channel touch attacks thriuh melee weapons... but disintegrate is a ray... so...

What? Are they using some metamagic feat or something?

[RMS Oceanic]

Where did you read that? As far as I know, Spell Storing weapon aside, Duskblades can only channel touch spells.

[Blackfang108]

So, I recently read something about the duskblade beeing able to use disintegrate on the weapon withh his ability to channel touch attacks thriuh melee weapons... but disintegrate is a ray... so...

What? Are they using some metamagic feat or something?

They're munchkining.

AKA, using "creative" interpertations of the rules, because the description never says "range of touch," but "touch spell" and they're interpertating that as "all spells that require any sort of touch attack"

[Thorin]

They're munchkining.

AKA, using "creative" interpertations of the rules, because the description never says "range of touch," but "touch spell" and they're interpertating that as "all spells that require any sort of touch attack"

Ok, the real quesion then: Is this ok or are they trying to break the game?

[Fishy]

So, Reach Spell, which turns touch spells into rays, is a +2 Metamagic. How much would a hypothetical metamagic that turned a ray into a touch spell cost? More dangerous to use, but you get to throw attack rolls multiple times, as well as Arcane Channeling and things...

[Gorbash]

Ok, the real quesion then: Is this ok or are they trying to break the game?

It's not ok, becuase it's not valid by rules.

And it's also not possible to break the game with it, because Disintegrate is not a broken spell.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I have a hard time to see how changing Disintegrate, a Ranged Touch attack, into a melee attack that requires you to beat the AC of the ennemy, to become broken.

Let it do it, to be honest. This is additional special damage, so it's not even multiplied in a critical hit, where if you roll a 20 for your range touch attack, you'd be autorised to double damage.

[nightwyrm]

I have a hard time to see how changing Disintegrate, a Ranged Touch attack, into a melee attack that requires you to beat the AC of the ennemy, to become broken.

Let it do it, to be honest. This is additional special damage, so it's not even multiplied in a critical hit, where if you roll a 20 for your range touch attack, you'd be autorised to double damage.

It's not just about disintegrate. If you allow disintegrate to work, you'd have to allow other ray spells like enervation to work too, and ray debuffs are some of the best debuffs in the game.

One of the ways to turn a ray into a touch spell is to take the enlighten fist PrC. I'm not aware of any other method.

[Fishy]

Actually, it's about Duskblade 13 and Full Attack Arcane Channeling.

Wield a whip, take Whirlwind Attack, and Disintegrate or Enervate everything within 15' of you? Sure, why not.

[Eldariel]

Actually, it's about Duskblade 13 and Full Attack Arcane Channeling.

Wield a whip, take Whirlwind Attack, and Disintegrate or Enervate everything within 15' of you? Sure, why not.

See, the problem there is "Enervate", not "Disintegrate". Everything getting a save (after you first hit 'em) keeps it in check. As far as Enervation goes, it's not a Duskblade spell. And well, it's still blocked by a 4th level spell so it isn't that bad.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Then again, you switch a spell that needs a ranged touch attack for the exact same one that you need to succeed on a full-armored attack.

(I wouldn't allow Whirlwind Attack. IT's not a "full attack action", it's a full action that makes an attack ;))

There are ways of breaking the spell Enervation much more (Split Ray, Chain, etc..) than allowing the Duskblade to use Ranged Touch attacks in his melee attacks...

[Blackfang108]

See, the problem there is "Enervate", not "Disintegrate". Everything getting a save (after you first hit 'em) keeps it in check. As far as Enervation goes, it's not a Duskblade spell. And well, it's still blocked by a 4th level spell so it isn't that bad.

Enervation IS on the Duskblade spell list, level 4, as is Disentegrate, lvl 5.

However, they are not "touch" spells, they're "ranged touch," and the two highest spell levels the Duskblade gets.

[Eldariel]

Enervation IS on the Duskblade spell list, level 4, as is Disentegrate, lvl 5.

However, they are not "touch" spells, they're "ranged touch," and the two highest spell levels the Duskblade gets.

This discussion was regarding allowing Ranged Touch on Arcane Channeling; that is, whether a houserule is reasonable. Can't say I remembered seeing Enervation on the list, but I've misremembered things before. If that's true, I could see some issues with it, but meh, no more than Enervation itself offers - and there're still standard defenses against it that are rather common on higher levels.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I disagree with the ruling that ranged touch and touch are different, I belive "ray" and touch are different even if you are making a ranged touch attack.

Example is Acid arrow. Is a ranged touch that isn't a ray. Unfortunatly the Duskblade entry is very vague. It says touch spell. Doesn't say melee or ranged touch spell just touch spell. So there for it would include any Touch spell. Though a Ray would not be considered a touch spell do to it being a Ray. Rays under the spell section in the SRD have the own write up.


Also the fact then would be that except for cantrips you only get two spells a level you can channel. That's kinda ridiculous. It's in no way rediculous or unbalanced to allow all touch spells to be channeled including ranged touch spells.


When my players play duskblades I let them channel rays as well. It's not broken in the least.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

From the FAQ page 16:

Can a duskblade (PH2 20) using arcane channeling
channel ranged touch spells through his weapon attack or is
the ability limited to melee touch spells only?
“Touch” spell refers to spells that require a melee touch
attack to deliver. The duskblade can’t use arcane channeling to
deliver a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.

Anyone who tries to channel a ranged touch spell with Arcane Channeling is breaking the rules.

[monty]

From the FAQ page 16:

Anyone who tries to channel a ranged touch spell with Arcane Channeling is breaking the rules.

FAQ is not RAW. And I'm pretty sure touch does not mean melee touch.

[Chronos]

It does make you wonder why Duskblades get so many rays on their spell list, though. I suspect that the original creator of the class did intend the ability to work with rays, and just didn't phrase it right.

[Saph]

I just assumed they were there to give the class a ranged alternative for when you can't or don't want to get into melee. A few of the ones on the list are quite decent, too.

Anyway, rules seem pretty clear on this one. No, you can't Arcane Channel rays.

- Saph

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The FAQ may not be RAW, but the RAW definition of "touch spell" is a spell with a Range: Touch entry:

Range
A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following.

Personal
The spell affects only you.

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.

Close
The spell reaches as far as 25 feet away from you. The maximum range increases by 5 feet for every two full caster levels.

Medium
The spell reaches as far as 100 feet + 10 feet per caster level.

Long
The spell reaches as far as 400 feet + 40 feet per caster level.

Unlimited
The spell reaches anywhere on the same plane of existence.

Range Expressed in Feet
Some spells have no standard range category, just a range expressed in feet.

You will not find any place in the rules that refers to a ray as a "touch spell" and it was never the designers' intent to allow them to be used with Arcane Channeling. Just because some groups will let you get away with cheating doesn't mean you should tell other people to do the same.

[Bluebeard]

What? Are they using some metamagic feat or something?

Enlightened Fist works.

[Sparafucile]

I'm currently playing a lv. 2 duskblade (i.e. just about to get channeling), so my DM and I recently went over this argument (atypically, he was the one advocating allowing ray spells to be channeled, while I was, and am, a little uncomfortable with that reading). The confusion, as I see it, comes from the fact that the range entry on PHB 174-175 seems clear, but it is contradicted by the PHB Glossary definition of "touch spell": "...Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks." Going on to read the definition of "touch attacks" yields "...Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged."

That, to me, seems just as clear as the entry under "Range", but completely contradictory in its meaning. Personally, I'd say that channeling spells that require ranged touch attacks is arguably allowable under RAW (since RAW appears contradictory in this case), but is probably not a good RAI decision. As Saph says, the presence of the ray spells on the Duskblade list is probably intended to allow the PC decent ranged options when melee channeling isn't feasible.

As a side note, considering that this topic seems to come up with some regularity and always generates at least some debate, it seems a little uncharitable to simply accuse those following the more permissive reading of "cheating." This really does seem to be a case that could go either way, and that's probably fine as long as the group thinks it over and agrees about the decision.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

From the PHB glossary:

touch spell: A spell that delivers its effect when the caster
touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to
unwilling targets by touch attacks.

The last sentence only says HOW a 'touch spell' is delivered to unwilling targets, the first sentence defines what a 'touch spell' actually is. Only spells that are delivered when the caster physically touches a target are considered touch spells, not any spell that makes any sort of touch attack. They're two completely different things that happen to be dispensed using similar rules.

[Riffington]

They're munchkining.

AKA, using "creative" interpertations of the rules, because the description never says "range of touch," but "touch spell" and they're interpertating that as "all spells that require any sort of touch attack"

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Sparafucile]

I see what you're saying, and I think that's a fair reading. That said, one could argue that if your reading were the only possible one, the authors would have simply amended the second sentence to read "by a melee touch attack," since that's clearly laid out as a subset of the touch attack description. This assumes that there is a specialized, non-intuitive, game definition of the verb "to touch" that also allows for touch at range; I think that stretches plausibility, and I think that your reading is the better one, but I'm not convinced that this other reading is necessarily discounted by the RAW. I hope that makes sense, and I apologize if this comes off as being needlessly argumentative - that's not my goal.

[Blackfang108]

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

It means exactly what I'm using it to mean: exploitation of percieved loopholes, real or imaginary.

Intent is not important to the definition.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

It means exactly what I'm using it to mean: exploitation of percieved loopholes, real or imaginary.

Intent is not important to the definition.

The question, beyond the RAW of the wording, is whether it is even exploitation. The Duskblade isn't exactly overpowered, with it's whole 5th level spells. Does Disintigrate being channeled really break anything?

[SolkaTruesilver]

STOP

You have entered pure rule-lawyering, which isn't helpful at all to the discussion.

It will boil down to this:

- Does it break gameplay?
- If it does so, does it break it so the game is not enjoyable anymore?


It will depend on your player's behavior, GM's tolerance, etc...

It's not because a rule is written that it's right. It's a game, and rules are guidelines to be interpreted with logic and jugement. Not laws to be followed by the letter if you don't feel like them.

So, my suggestion would be to temporarily allow a player to do it, unless you notice that its detrimental to gameplay. Its the only proper jugement call a GM (or a player) should care about. Rules be damned.

[Sinfire Titan]

I think the main thing people are ignoring is that there's all ready a precedent set for channeling Rays into melee attacks. Enlightened Fist levels are required for that, something CO agrees with the FAQs about (very rare for that to happen).

[Sparafucile]

STOP

You have entered pure rule-lawyering, which isn't helpful at all to the discussion.

I'll assume this is aimed at me. While I wholeheartedly agree that "rule-lawyering" is unhelpful, even disastrous, in actual gameplay, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to try to clarify things on a forum dedicated to RPGs and their rules. As noted above, this question comes up regularly, so obviously there is some amount of disagreement over the specifics of the rules involved. Shouting "STOP" and telling everyone to figure it out with their own group may indeed be the last, best solution (if the rules prove unclear, or people insist on alternate readings regardless of the clarity of the rules), but is it really necessary before the conversation is even played out?

Biffoniacus, Sinfire, and others make good, rules-centric arguments against channeling rays. I think their case is probably the winning one, but it seems to me that there's enough ambiguity that people looking for a rules-centric reason to allow ray channeling can find one, and I was sharing the reasoning that my DM and I recently discussed on that topic; the point is to further the discussion and help people decide one way or the other. Of course this is something that groups ultimately will decide on their own, but isn't the point of this forum discussion to help people order their thoughts in advance of talking about these topics with their group?

For what it's worth, I'm personally convinced that ray channeling isn't really supported by the rules or the intention of the class's designers, and it's not really necessary to make the class fun to play and useful in a group. My DM is convinced of the contrary (at least the rules part). We'll still, when my Duskblade PC hits 3rd level, have to finish hashing out how we want to handle this - maybe this forum topic will provide some insight to us when the time comes. It won't do that, though, if legitimate inquiry into the workings of the rules get shouted down by accusations of "rule-lawyering."

[Riffington]

A munchkin is someone who makes it a habit to seek personal power even when it's contrary to realism or to the fun of other players. It's not the same thing as a rules lawyer or a dice thief, though there may be some overlap.

The question of whether Duskblades can (RAW) channel rays is "no, unless they use an Enlightened Fist loophole." The question of whether they should be able to is less clear (it's certainly not overpowered compared to other options at that level). The question of whether the designer had intended to give them that power is unclear. As to whether a player who didn't properly parse the RAW is a munchkin: that's a resounding "no". It's a totally reasonable mistake to assume that Duskblades were given all those rays so they could channel them into touch attacks.