Touch Attack question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Touch Attack question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Double Eagle
10-16-07, 01:40 PM One of my players recently bought a magic item with the "Retaliation" effect.

From what I remember, any melee attack which does over 10 damage to him, deals 1d6 (i think) damage back to the attacker.

The question came up of a damage-dealing spell with a range of "touch".

He felt that this counted as melee damage, because a melee touch attack is involved.

This didn't make sense to me however, and I ruled against it, because the spell's damage is not melee damage. There is just a melee touch attack to activate it, but the melee attack didn't deal the damage.

Was this correct?
Salla
10-16-07, 01:49 PM A melee touch attack is still a melee attack, so it would activate if the damage is sufficient. It would be different if the Retaliation property said 'weapon damage' or something like that.
Eightbitmage
10-16-07, 02:00 PM The spell is melee damage, just not melee weapon damage. Check the wording of the effect.
Colmarr
10-18-07, 03:24 AM Personally, I would rule in the same way as the OP, depending on the wording of the ability.

Although a melee touch attack is certainly a melee attack, I would rule that the melee attack does not do any damage at all. It simply acts as a trigger for the release of the spell.

As the Retaliation ability (presumably) does not trigger from spell damage, it would not trigger from a touch spell.
goawayugh
10-18-07, 08:06 AM That's iffy. Can you give us an exact quote of the 'melee attack' part of it?
eamon
10-18-07, 10:50 AM I'd also say that it's an attack that deal damage - it does so by spell effect, but nonetheless...

However, an exact quote might clarify things.
Colmarr
10-19-07, 03:32 AM Can you give us an exact quote of the 'melee attack' part of it?

I assume that's directed at the OP, not me?
goawayugh
10-19-07, 07:10 AM I assume that's directed at the OP, not me?

Yes, sorry if that was unclear. If I'm talking to someone other than the OP, I usually quote them first (like I just did here).
SALDAR
10-19-07, 02:58 PM This didn't make sense to me however, and I ruled against it, because the spell's damage is not melee damage. There is just a melee touch attack to activate it, but the melee attack didn't deal the damage.
A melee attack with a sword doesn't do melee damage either, it does weapon damage. Yes, you are making a melee attack but the damage is done by what the attacker is wielding, in the case you have outlined the attacker is wielding a spell instead of a melee weapon. If the feat you are describing specifies melee attack then any melee attack qualifies, whether it is made with a melee weapon or spell. If the feat specifies melee weapon then only melee weapons (i.e. those listed as such in the weapons section of a book) qualify.
Timori
10-20-07, 01:35 AM Personally, I would rule in the same way as the OP, depending on the wording of the ability.

Although a melee touch attack is certainly a melee attack, I would rule that the melee attack does not do any damage at all. It simply acts as a trigger for the release of the spell.

As the Retaliation ability (presumably) does not trigger from spell damage, it would not trigger from a touch spell.

By that logic, touch attacks shouldn't be able to score critical hits but they can. I'd definately rule that Retaliation should work.
1 ton ghost
10-26-07, 02:50 PM all good points to consider.
i would (IMO) rule no. firstly game balance, then physics

-mage's d4 HD isn't going to stand up long to this guy's armor backlash, dagger/staff aren't an option, and there's only so many magic missles. they often have to find out the hard way anyway, it's not like the enemy had foreknowledge of the armor's ability. when that happens, you change your mode of attack which often hamstrings you, but keeps you safer then. *** for tat.

-a touch to me, is just the delivery system for said attack. it's not a "melee attack" it's a "touch attack". the spell is doing the damage, not the touch.
it's really your only option as a mage in melee and they get so few options in that sphere of influence. True Strike your dagger, yeah, it'll trigger, but...

-the crit argument (nj Timori) is a good observation. i just figure it as optimal placement of spell energy, etc. you're not physically driving your finger or ray home into a real good nook or cranny necessarilly. maybe you are, but it's spell damage, not weapon or natural weapon damage.

that's the arguement for Damage Resistance anyway, weapon or natural weapon
Marcus Majarra
10-26-07, 07:13 PM Except that the armor's effect doesn't apply to weapon damage. It applies to melee damage, which includes damage from touch spells. As it is, attacking with a touch spell is an armed melee attack.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Double Eagle 10-16-07, 01:40 PM	One of my players recently bought a magic item with the "Retaliation" effect. From what I remember, any melee attack which does over 10 damage to him, deals 1d6 (i think) damage back to the attacker. The question came up of a damage-dealing spell with a range of "touch". He felt that this counted as melee damage, because a melee touch attack is involved. This didn't make sense to me however, and I ruled against it, because the spell's damage is not melee damage. There is just a melee touch attack to activate it, but the melee attack didn't deal the damage. Was this correct?
Salla 10-16-07, 01:49 PM	A melee touch attack is still a melee attack, so it would activate if the damage is sufficient. It would be different if the Retaliation property said 'weapon damage' or something like that.
Eightbitmage 10-16-07, 02:00 PM	The spell is melee damage, just not melee weapon damage. Check the wording of the effect.
Colmarr 10-18-07, 03:24 AM	Personally, I would rule in the same way as the OP, depending on the wording of the ability. Although a melee touch attack is certainly a melee attack, I would rule that the melee attack does not do any damage at all. It simply acts as a trigger for the release of the spell. As the Retaliation ability (presumably) does not trigger from spell damage, it would not trigger from a touch spell.
goawayugh 10-18-07, 08:06 AM	That's iffy. Can you give us an exact quote of the 'melee attack' part of it?
eamon 10-18-07, 10:50 AM	I'd also say that it's an attack that deal damage - it does so by spell effect, but nonetheless... However, an exact quote might clarify things.
Colmarr 10-19-07, 03:32 AM	Can you give us an exact quote of the 'melee attack' part of it? I assume that's directed at the OP, not me?
goawayugh 10-19-07, 07:10 AM	I assume that's directed at the OP, not me? Yes, sorry if that was unclear. If I'm talking to someone other than the OP, I usually quote them first (like I just did here).
SALDAR 10-19-07, 02:58 PM	This didn't make sense to me however, and I ruled against it, because the spell's damage is not melee damage. There is just a melee touch attack to activate it, but the melee attack didn't deal the damage. A melee attack with a sword doesn't do melee damage either, it does weapon damage. Yes, you are making a melee attack but the damage is done by what the attacker is wielding, in the case you have outlined the attacker is wielding a spell instead of a melee weapon. If the feat you are describing specifies melee attack then any melee attack qualifies, whether it is made with a melee weapon or spell. If the feat specifies melee weapon then only melee weapons (i.e. those listed as such in the weapons section of a book) qualify.
Timori 10-20-07, 01:35 AM	Personally, I would rule in the same way as the OP, depending on the wording of the ability. Although a melee touch attack is certainly a melee attack, I would rule that the melee attack does not do any damage at all. It simply acts as a trigger for the release of the spell. As the Retaliation ability (presumably) does not trigger from spell damage, it would not trigger from a touch spell. By that logic, touch attacks shouldn't be able to score critical hits but they can. I'd definately rule that Retaliation should work.
1 ton ghost 10-26-07, 02:50 PM	all good points to consider. i would (IMO) rule no. firstly game balance, then physics -mage's d4 HD isn't going to stand up long to this guy's armor backlash, dagger/staff aren't an option, and there's only so many magic missles. they often have to find out the hard way anyway, it's not like the enemy had foreknowledge of the armor's ability. when that happens, you change your mode of attack which often hamstrings you, but keeps you safer then. *** for tat. -a touch to me, is just the delivery system for said attack. it's not a "melee attack" it's a "touch attack". the spell is doing the damage, not the touch. it's really your only option as a mage in melee and they get so few options in that sphere of influence. True Strike your dagger, yeah, it'll trigger, but... -the crit argument (nj Timori) is a good observation. i just figure it as optimal placement of spell energy, etc. you're not physically driving your finger or ray home into a real good nook or cranny necessarilly. maybe you are, but it's spell damage, not weapon or natural weapon damage. that's the arguement for Damage Resistance anyway, weapon or natural weapon
Marcus Majarra 10-26-07, 07:13 PM	Except that the armor's effect doesn't apply to weapon damage. It applies to melee damage, which includes damage from touch spells. As it is, attacking with a touch spell is an armed melee attack.