Bag of flame and a monk [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bag of flame and a monk [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
curan69
02-18-08, 09:09 PM I'm pretty sure that you can deliver a touch spell with a regular melee attack as well as a melee touch attack.

We are trying to find a way to give our Gnome monk a little more punch (pardon the pun) She chose a gnome for flavour and its a great character but she only does 1d6 damage at 7th level.

I saw the Bag of flame in the MIC and wanted to make sure that it would work. It says it is like the "produce flame" spell.

Anyone see any problems?
jaelis
02-18-08, 09:36 PM Technically, this doesn't work because you're not really delivering a touch spell. (Produce flame isn't a touch spell in the first place, and the bag of flames states that it gives you a touch attack, which isn't exactly the same thing.) There aren't general rules for delivering a touch attack with an unarmed strike, so the strategy wouldn't work.

But that is a pretty fine distinction, I think a lot of people wouldn't fuss about it.
Nephlite
02-18-08, 09:58 PM I'm pretty sure that you can deliver a touch spell with a regular melee attack as well as a melee touch attack.

We are trying to find a way to give our Gnome monk a little more punch (pardon the pun) She chose a gnome for flavour and its a great character but she only does 1d6 damage at 7th level.

I saw the Bag of flame in the MIC and wanted to make sure that it would work. It says it is like the "produce flame" spell.

Anyone see any problems?

The wording is you can deliver a touch spell with a melee attack. You have to hit their normal AC (not touch AC), but if hit: you deal unarmed damage + spell effect.
If you miss, keep trying till you hit or duration runs out.

Yes, if it works like Produce flame you could.
RavenDrake
02-18-08, 10:11 PM It works just like Produce Flames, so yes, you can discharge any touch attack spell or effect as part of a successful unarmed strike.

Keep in mind, though, that doing this means that the spell becomes "extra dice" of damage to the unarmed strike, on a critical hit it will not be multiplied, though your unarmed strike damage will(if applicable to the foe).
jaelis
02-18-08, 10:13 PM I'll just say again, technically produce flame is not a touch spell. (It has a range of 0 ft, not of "touch".)
RavenDrake
02-18-08, 10:32 PM The spell has a range of 0ft.

It does, however, GRANT YOU a touch attack:

In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack.

And you can add the effect of a touch attack to any unarmed strike whether it's the touch attack granted by Produce Flame's effect or by a touch range spell such Chill Touch.
jaelis
02-18-08, 10:40 PM And you can add the effect of a touch attack to any unarmed strike whether it's the touch attack granted by Produce Flame's effect or by a touch range spell such Chill Touch.

I believe the rules say otherwise. You can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but I don't think there's any provision to deliver arbitrary touch attacks with an unarmed strike.

For instance, I believe that a paladin could not use his lay on hands ability together with an unarmed strike when attacking an undead. I say this because the rule I know about for it (PHB 140-141) specifically applies to "touch spells," defined as spells with "a range of touch."

Another example of a difference is that you can deliver a touch spell in the round you cast it, but you can't attack with produce flame attack until the next round.

Perhaps you would argue that damage from the flame blade spell can also be delivered via an unarmed strike? Mechanically, it is identical to produce flame.
mplindustries
02-18-08, 11:19 PM I believe the rules say otherwise. You can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but I don't think there's any provision to deliver arbitrary touch attacks with an unarmed strike.

For instance, I believe that a paladin could not use his lay on hands ability together with an unarmed strike when attacking an undead. I say this because the rule I know about for it (PHB 140-141) specifically applies to "touch spells," defined as spells with "a range of touch."

Another example of a difference is that you can deliver a touch spell in the round you cast it, but you can't attack with produce flame attack until the next round.

/agree

Produce Flame is a spell that gives you a touch attack, not a touch spell. That is RAW. You can't argue its not RAW, you can only argue that it would be ok to ignore RAW in this situation.

And that is just what I will do. I don't think that it would be a balance problem to give your gnome monk some fire damage on his unarmed strikes.

Personally, I'd go a step further. I'm in favor of allowing unarmed strikes to get enchanted as per normal magical weapon rules. Choose some body slot (I'd suggest a robe type item or maybe a necklace) and buy it as if it were a weapon (ie Bonus squared x 2). Simple and elegant. Monks who don't go crazy with Fist of the Forest silliness and Greater Mighty Wallop need some help anyway.
RavenDrake
02-19-08, 01:49 AM Using Lay on Hands is a misleading argument, as it's a standard action to lay on hands, thus it couldn't be combined with an attack anyway.

While I certainly agree Produce Flame is NOT a touch spell, I feel that, being a spell which is employed with a touch attack(I get the feeling the only reason the spell ISN'T listed as a touch spell is because it can also be used as a ranged touch attack), it should benefit from the same rules as other touch spells.

Other than that, though, yes, the rules ONLY spell out this benefit specifically for spells with a range of Touch.
curan69
02-19-08, 08:10 AM I read it again and no where does it say that the spell must have a range of touch, in fact it doesnt mention the range of the spell at all. It does state that the spell must require a touch attack, and produce flame does.
jaelis
02-19-08, 08:46 AM The rules in the combat section that discuss delivering spells with unarmed strikes do specifically reference the range of touch. The discussion of touch spells in the magic overview section is also framed in terms of touch range. But you're right that the glossary doesn't, so I suppose you could choose to give that priority. (Though there are a few things in the glossary that can cause trouble if you do that.)

In that case, though, you would indeed allow flame blade damage to be delivered with an unarmed strike? And both spells could be delivered by arcane channeling?

Ravendrake, you're right about lay on hands. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone argued that a paladin could activate the ability and then hold the charge to a later round.
RavenDrake
02-19-08, 06:16 PM You can only hold the charge for a touch spell, not Lay on Hands. This dosen't apply to Produce Flame and Flame Blade, both of which have durations, not a set number of discharges.

And neither of which can be channeled because they're not touch spells. A touch spell is a spell with touch listed as its range. I'm not saying that either one is a touch spell, I'm saying that since they grant a touch attack, extending the touch spell rules to include thier touch attack effect when making an unarmed strike seems a reasonable houserule because they engage similar mechanics.

(ps, even if you DID allow a duskblade to channel them, they would only get a single attack with the effect[or one full attack at 13th level and higher] before the spell is exhausted.)
curan69
02-19-08, 07:44 PM A touch spell is a spell with touch listed as its range.

Just point me to where you found that definition because I cant find it.
jaelis
02-19-08, 09:03 PM Just point me to where you found that definition because I cant find it.

I think that the combat section makes it pretty clear.

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.

This is reinforced by the discussion of spell ranges in the magic overview.

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.

....

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.

But if you will only be satisfied with a statement of the form "A touch spell is defined to be a spell with a range of touch" then I don't think I can help you.

I'm not saying that either one is a touch spell, I'm saying that since they grant a touch attack, extending the touch spell rules to include thier touch attack effect when making an unarmed strike seems a reasonable houserule because they engage similar mechanics.

That sounds very sensible. Though what makes a reasonable houserule is, of course, particular to a given DM.
curan69
02-19-08, 10:03 PM So if by RAW Produce flame isnt a touch spell then what kind is it?

And if its not a touch spell then by RAW would you be subject to an AOO for trying to touch someone with it?

I cant remember for sure but I believe that it says touch spells are a credible threat and do not provoke AOO.
jaelis
02-19-08, 10:12 PM So if by RAW Produce flame isnt a touch spell then what kind is it?
What kind of answer do you want? It's a spell that gives you a touch attack.

And if its not a touch spell then by RAW would you be subject to an AOO for trying to touch someone with it?

Why would you provoke an AoO? There's no rule that says touch attacks generally provoke. I suppose you could worry that an attack with the flame might be an unarmed attack, but don't you think it's sufficient to realize that you are in fact armed with the flame?
RavenDrake
02-19-08, 11:14 PM The reason that touch spells do not provoke(but the touch attack for trip, and grapple, for example, DO provoke) is that they are credible threats: you can see or otherwise understand that whatever is involved in that hand approaching you is dangerous or harmful. If someone comes at you, arm outstretched, to grab you in a grapple, you might consider taking a freeshot at him. If a mage calls down a bolt of lighting that encircles his hand in a crackling aura and tries to smack you with it, you would be considerably less likely to contemplate that.

It's not a matter of 'touch spells don't provoke, but it doesn't say touch attacks don't', its "Touch spells don't provoke because they involve a touch attack, and touch attacks don't usually provoke".
curan69
02-20-08, 10:16 AM But Touch attacks usually DO provoke. Unless you are a monk or have improved unarmed strike or improved grapple, trip, etc. or you are using a touch SPELL.

I think you need to re-read, it specifically says touch SPELLS are a credible threat and dont provoke.

I would rather rule that Produce flame is a touch spell based on the definition.
jaelis
02-20-08, 10:56 AM I think you are mixing up the notions of "touch attack" and "unarmed attacks". They aren't at all the same thing... monks pretty much have nothing to do with touch attacks.
curan69
02-20-08, 11:10 AM My mistake, I should have left out the monk and unarmed strike part.
sakuradm
02-22-08, 01:22 PM give her some weapons then, say a bo staff, nunchaku,shuriken,kamas,nunchaku,kunai,e scrima sticks, or the like :P ask the martial artist here :P monks in the d&d world= martial artists...me=martial artist... now according to certain books, monks can't use the big swords and all the fun stuff, but give her weapons as mentioned above, a bo staff is about as tall as she is and gives a little more reach, its free-5 gp...escrima sticks are about a foot and a half long, and a half-an inch thick, free-2 gp for a pair, kunai are 4 inch long throwing knives we students of ninjitsu like to use, they cost 2gp each, shuriken are the famous "ninja throwing stars" and cost 2 gpeach, kamas are basically escrima sticks with slightly curved blades on the top almost like a hand held sythe but not that curved...cost of 5 gp, nunchaku are "nunchucks" and cost 3gp...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
curan69 02-18-08, 09:09 PM	I'm pretty sure that you can deliver a touch spell with a regular melee attack as well as a melee touch attack. We are trying to find a way to give our Gnome monk a little more punch (pardon the pun) She chose a gnome for flavour and its a great character but she only does 1d6 damage at 7th level. I saw the Bag of flame in the MIC and wanted to make sure that it would work. It says it is like the "produce flame" spell. Anyone see any problems?
jaelis 02-18-08, 09:36 PM	Technically, this doesn't work because you're not really delivering a touch spell. (Produce flame isn't a touch spell in the first place, and the bag of flames states that it gives you a touch attack, which isn't exactly the same thing.) There aren't general rules for delivering a touch attack with an unarmed strike, so the strategy wouldn't work. But that is a pretty fine distinction, I think a lot of people wouldn't fuss about it.
Nephlite 02-18-08, 09:58 PM	I'm pretty sure that you can deliver a touch spell with a regular melee attack as well as a melee touch attack. We are trying to find a way to give our Gnome monk a little more punch (pardon the pun) She chose a gnome for flavour and its a great character but she only does 1d6 damage at 7th level. I saw the Bag of flame in the MIC and wanted to make sure that it would work. It says it is like the "produce flame" spell. Anyone see any problems? The wording is you can deliver a touch spell with a melee attack. You have to hit their normal AC (not touch AC), but if hit: you deal unarmed damage + spell effect. If you miss, keep trying till you hit or duration runs out. Yes, if it works like Produce flame you could.
RavenDrake 02-18-08, 10:11 PM	It works just like Produce Flames, so yes, you can discharge any touch attack spell or effect as part of a successful unarmed strike. Keep in mind, though, that doing this means that the spell becomes "extra dice" of damage to the unarmed strike, on a critical hit it will not be multiplied, though your unarmed strike damage will(if applicable to the foe).
jaelis 02-18-08, 10:13 PM	I'll just say again, technically produce flame is not a touch spell. (It has a range of 0 ft, not of "touch".)
RavenDrake 02-18-08, 10:32 PM	The spell has a range of 0ft. It does, however, GRANT YOU a touch attack: In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. And you can add the effect of a touch attack to any unarmed strike whether it's the touch attack granted by Produce Flame's effect or by a touch range spell such Chill Touch.
jaelis 02-18-08, 10:40 PM	And you can add the effect of a touch attack to any unarmed strike whether it's the touch attack granted by Produce Flame's effect or by a touch range spell such Chill Touch. I believe the rules say otherwise. You can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but I don't think there's any provision to deliver arbitrary touch attacks with an unarmed strike. For instance, I believe that a paladin could not use his lay on hands ability together with an unarmed strike when attacking an undead. I say this because the rule I know about for it (PHB 140-141) specifically applies to "touch spells," defined as spells with "a range of touch." Another example of a difference is that you can deliver a touch spell in the round you cast it, but you can't attack with produce flame attack until the next round. Perhaps you would argue that damage from the flame blade spell can also be delivered via an unarmed strike? Mechanically, it is identical to produce flame.
mplindustries 02-18-08, 11:19 PM	I believe the rules say otherwise. You can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike, but I don't think there's any provision to deliver arbitrary touch attacks with an unarmed strike. For instance, I believe that a paladin could not use his lay on hands ability together with an unarmed strike when attacking an undead. I say this because the rule I know about for it (PHB 140-141) specifically applies to "touch spells," defined as spells with "a range of touch." Another example of a difference is that you can deliver a touch spell in the round you cast it, but you can't attack with produce flame attack until the next round. /agree Produce Flame is a spell that gives you a touch attack, not a touch spell. That is RAW. You can't argue its not RAW, you can only argue that it would be ok to ignore RAW in this situation. And that is just what I will do. I don't think that it would be a balance problem to give your gnome monk some fire damage on his unarmed strikes. Personally, I'd go a step further. I'm in favor of allowing unarmed strikes to get enchanted as per normal magical weapon rules. Choose some body slot (I'd suggest a robe type item or maybe a necklace) and buy it as if it were a weapon (ie Bonus squared x 2). Simple and elegant. Monks who don't go crazy with Fist of the Forest silliness and Greater Mighty Wallop need some help anyway.
RavenDrake 02-19-08, 01:49 AM	Using Lay on Hands is a misleading argument, as it's a standard action to lay on hands, thus it couldn't be combined with an attack anyway. While I certainly agree Produce Flame is NOT a touch spell, I feel that, being a spell which is employed with a touch attack(I get the feeling the only reason the spell ISN'T listed as a touch spell is because it can also be used as a ranged touch attack), it should benefit from the same rules as other touch spells. Other than that, though, yes, the rules ONLY spell out this benefit specifically for spells with a range of Touch.
curan69 02-19-08, 08:10 AM	I read it again and no where does it say that the spell must have a range of touch, in fact it doesnt mention the range of the spell at all. It does state that the spell must require a touch attack, and produce flame does.
jaelis 02-19-08, 08:46 AM	The rules in the combat section that discuss delivering spells with unarmed strikes do specifically reference the range of touch. The discussion of touch spells in the magic overview section is also framed in terms of touch range. But you're right that the glossary doesn't, so I suppose you could choose to give that priority. (Though there are a few things in the glossary that can cause trouble if you do that.) In that case, though, you would indeed allow flame blade damage to be delivered with an unarmed strike? And both spells could be delivered by arcane channeling? Ravendrake, you're right about lay on hands. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone argued that a paladin could activate the ability and then hold the charge to a later round.
RavenDrake 02-19-08, 06:16 PM	You can only hold the charge for a touch spell, not Lay on Hands. This dosen't apply to Produce Flame and Flame Blade, both of which have durations, not a set number of discharges. And neither of which can be channeled because they're not touch spells. A touch spell is a spell with touch listed as its range. I'm not saying that either one is a touch spell, I'm saying that since they grant a touch attack, extending the touch spell rules to include thier touch attack effect when making an unarmed strike seems a reasonable houserule because they engage similar mechanics. (ps, even if you DID allow a duskblade to channel them, they would only get a single attack with the effect[or one full attack at 13th level and higher] before the spell is exhausted.)
curan69 02-19-08, 07:44 PM	A touch spell is a spell with touch listed as its range. Just point me to where you found that definition because I cant find it.
jaelis 02-19-08, 09:03 PM	Just point me to where you found that definition because I cant find it. I think that the combat section makes it pretty clear. 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. This is reinforced by the discussion of spell ranges in the magic overview. 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. .... 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. But if you will only be satisfied with a statement of the form "A touch spell is defined to be a spell with a range of touch" then I don't think I can help you. I'm not saying that either one is a touch spell, I'm saying that since they grant a touch attack, extending the touch spell rules to include thier touch attack effect when making an unarmed strike seems a reasonable houserule because they engage similar mechanics. That sounds very sensible. Though what makes a reasonable houserule is, of course, particular to a given DM.
curan69 02-19-08, 10:03 PM	So if by RAW Produce flame isnt a touch spell then what kind is it? And if its not a touch spell then by RAW would you be subject to an AOO for trying to touch someone with it? I cant remember for sure but I believe that it says touch spells are a credible threat and do not provoke AOO.
jaelis 02-19-08, 10:12 PM	So if by RAW Produce flame isnt a touch spell then what kind is it? What kind of answer do you want? It's a spell that gives you a touch attack. And if its not a touch spell then by RAW would you be subject to an AOO for trying to touch someone with it? Why would you provoke an AoO? There's no rule that says touch attacks generally provoke. I suppose you could worry that an attack with the flame might be an unarmed attack, but don't you think it's sufficient to realize that you are in fact armed with the flame?
RavenDrake 02-19-08, 11:14 PM	The reason that touch spells do not provoke(but the touch attack for trip, and grapple, for example, DO provoke) is that they are credible threats: you can see or otherwise understand that whatever is involved in that hand approaching you is dangerous or harmful. If someone comes at you, arm outstretched, to grab you in a grapple, you might consider taking a freeshot at him. If a mage calls down a bolt of lighting that encircles his hand in a crackling aura and tries to smack you with it, you would be considerably less likely to contemplate that. It's not a matter of 'touch spells don't provoke, but it doesn't say touch attacks don't', its "Touch spells don't provoke because they involve a touch attack, and touch attacks don't usually provoke".
curan69 02-20-08, 10:16 AM	But Touch attacks usually DO provoke. Unless you are a monk or have improved unarmed strike or improved grapple, trip, etc. or you are using a touch SPELL. I think you need to re-read, it specifically says touch SPELLS are a credible threat and dont provoke. I would rather rule that Produce flame is a touch spell based on the definition.
jaelis 02-20-08, 10:56 AM	I think you are mixing up the notions of "touch attack" and "unarmed attacks". They aren't at all the same thing... monks pretty much have nothing to do with touch attacks.
curan69 02-20-08, 11:10 AM	My mistake, I should have left out the monk and unarmed strike part.
sakuradm 02-22-08, 01:22 PM	give her some weapons then, say a bo staff, nunchaku,shuriken,kamas,nunchaku,kunai,e scrima sticks, or the like :P ask the martial artist here :P monks in the d&d world= martial artists...me=martial artist... now according to certain books, monks can't use the big swords and all the fun stuff, but give her weapons as mentioned above, a bo staff is about as tall as she is and gives a little more reach, its free-5 gp...escrima sticks are about a foot and a half long, and a half-an inch thick, free-2 gp for a pair, kunai are 4 inch long throwing knives we students of ninjitsu like to use, they cost 2gp each, shuriken are the famous "ninja throwing stars" and cost 2 gpeach, kamas are basically escrima sticks with slightly curved blades on the top almost like a hand held sythe but not that curved...cost of 5 gp, nunchaku are "nunchucks" and cost 3gp...