Charging w/Touch Spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Charging w/Touch Spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bjorntfh
11-22-04, 06:45 PM Would it be unbalancing to allow someone to use a charge action with a touch spell as they cast it? Provided the casting time is 1 standard action, does it unbalance the caster to be allowed to cast the spell as he's running at someone?

Since, according to the rules, it's allowable to cast the spell, walk up and tag someone with it (since the touch attack is considered part of the spell) I felt that it wouldn't be unbalancing to let a caster use a charging cast instead of a standard cast and walk up option.

Anyone else's opinions?
Admiral Yi Sun Shin
11-22-04, 07:59 PM I would say it should because the rules strictly say that you can "make a single melee attack" and I believe a touch attack qualifies for a melee attack because its a hand-to-hand engagement. Of course, if a touch attack isn't melee then you won't be able to do so. However, I'd definitely house rule it because you are using your "momentum" to strike the opponent.
Seeker95
11-22-04, 08:06 PM As long as you cast the spell in the previous round (or earlier) and have not touched anyone else since. A charge allows an attack. A touch spell is an attack. Use them together for efficiency.
Starmage21
11-22-04, 08:16 PM I wouldnt allow the extra +2 damage from the charge, since essentially what youre doing is a run-by-smack.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin
11-22-04, 08:26 PM You don't get +2 damage when you charge, just +2 to attack. Unless thats your houserule Starmage21.

Pretty much, you'd get a +2 to your touch attack, in the following round you'd get a -2 penalty to your AC. Hopefully your touch spell kills him before your lowered AC can be used against you.
Starmage21
11-22-04, 08:33 PM did 3.0 have a damage modifier for charging? If so,its a rule we carried over to 3.5 only because we didnt know it was changed. If its not in 3.0 either, must be a houserule i never knew was a houserule :D
Admiral Yi Sun Shin
11-22-04, 08:56 PM It wasn't in 3.0, it'd just be a houserule for your group...but whatever floats your boat. =)

You can either inform your group and change the way to use charge or keep it the way you've had it, either way doesn't bother me. =P
bjorntfh
11-22-04, 09:58 PM Yeah, I know you can hold the charge, I was just looking for balance issues on cinematically casting a touch spell and running at someone with it. Melee fighters get to do that with their sword so, aside from the stupidity of a charging mage, does it overbalance the charge action to let you use a standard action touch spell instead of a single physical attack?

Note: I'm saying in the same round, I know you can cast and hold it, I was thinking as one action (charge) running at them and casting the spell as part of the charge. Yes, I'd say an AoO would be apropriate if you don't cast defensively while doing it, but I was looking for cinematics there.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin
11-22-04, 10:32 PM No, I don't think its unbalanced at all. A charge is a full round action where you are making a double move action followed by a standard action attack. So whether you are a fighter moving 60ft then taking a hack at your sword or a mage moving 60ft then touching someone (casting a spell is a standard action) then its fine. Plus, the -2 to AC the following round will be killer for the mage, so I don't think that'll happen all to often, I see it as more of a coup de grace, a shocking grasp to an orc with 3 hp left or something like that, extra 10% chance to hit. =)

Flavor-wise, the fighter would be charging at it with his sword whirling over his head as he slaming the blade into the enemies chest. While the mage runs toward the target with his fist crackling with energy as he slams in into the targets chest cause the spell to discharge into him.
bjorntfh
11-22-04, 10:47 PM My image exactly actually. I was considering it for a psywarrior who used touch powers to open combat, then quickdrew another weapon.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin
11-22-04, 10:51 PM What can I say, it pays to be a 17th lvl telepath... =P

Anyways, thats how it should work, I personally think its all balanced, of course the final word would be with your DM but you can tell him to check this thread out. The action itself is completely legal, no rule breaking or bending at all.

In fact, that idea is really good. So I'm assuming, u'll have a high enough AC to bear with the 1rd of -2 AC. Good luck with that. =)
bjorntfh
11-22-04, 11:14 PM Actually, the point is more that it's done with overchannel and dissipating touch. It doesn't really matter what my AC is since I use vigor thus I've got the temp HP to take a few blows. I hope.
isaac anthony
11-22-04, 11:44 PM along these lines, check the new feat i drew up...

new feat: magic touch weapon

benefit: allows you to use your weapon to make a "touch attack" with a touch spell without drawing an attack of opportunity. you must roll a normal attack to hit with your weapon rather than a touch attack. your weapon damage stacks with any damage your spell may do. note: the act of casting the spell still draws attacks of opportunity as normal.

similar to "arcane strike" from CW, but spells instead of +X / +Xd4
Nom
11-23-04, 02:23 AM Actually, the rules already all but allow you to charge with a touch spell. Casting a spell is a standard action, so you're left with only a move action. However, the touch spell rules (PH chapter 8) explicitly allow you cast-move-touch in a single round. So it's totally legal to cast the spell, take a standard move, and touch the target.

Unlike a true charge, you can't do a double-move and attack, and you don't get +2 on the attack roll and suffer a -2 to AC. There's no way I'd allow a double-move and attack anyway, since that manoeuvre is explictly for a single melee attack, not a standard action of your choice, and as to 'casting while hustling', you do not want to go there. If you allow someone to cast a spell while simultaneously taking a move action, then you basically have to allow a free move action while taking any standard action, since spellcasting is about as complex a standard action as it gets.

As for the +2/-2, your AC for a touch attack is (or should be) low enough anyway that giving up two points of AC for a +2 to hit is a bad idea.
Dracspero
11-23-04, 07:17 AM Perhaps a Concentration check to cast a spell while running as a full round action?

How about DC 20 + Spell Level + (Distance/10)?
dantedarkstar
11-23-04, 08:35 AM I would disallow it. Either you run at enemy and charge, OR start making calm, elaborate gestures and words.

Of course if the spell was quickened, it's totally fine by RAW (free actions can be made at any point during round). You start moving, cast the spell with just a quick gesture and word along the way, while speeding up and finally clash with the enemy, slamming his chest with a ball of crackling black energy of Vampiric Touch. The enemy wents pale, while you are quite sure you can take a hit he has in store for you.
Ilium
11-23-04, 09:17 AM If you're concerned about balance, you could require a Concentration check similar to the one required to cast while riding a running horse. Too lazy to look up the DC. :)

RAW don't allow it, but I think it's fine even without the Concentration check.
Harliquinn
11-23-04, 11:06 AM I would not allow this in one round:

1) Cast Touch spell and hold the 'charge'
2) Use the Charge Action to deliver the Touch Attack with a +2 to hit/-2 AC

You could however, take 2 rounds:

Round 1
1) Cast Touch spell and hold the 'charge'
2) Move into position for a charge

Round 2
1) Use the Charge Action to deliver the Touch Attack with +2 to hit/-2 AC
hymdohl
11-23-04, 06:28 PM Yes, but would this touch attack cause an AOO (after the first attack) if you do not have Imporved unarmed strike? (Just curious)
bjorntfh
11-23-04, 06:31 PM After the first, yes, because you'd have discharged the spell. The touch attack with the spell is considered armed.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bjorntfh 11-22-04, 06:45 PM	Would it be unbalancing to allow someone to use a charge action with a touch spell as they cast it? Provided the casting time is 1 standard action, does it unbalance the caster to be allowed to cast the spell as he's running at someone? Since, according to the rules, it's allowable to cast the spell, walk up and tag someone with it (since the touch attack is considered part of the spell) I felt that it wouldn't be unbalancing to let a caster use a charging cast instead of a standard cast and walk up option. Anyone else's opinions?
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 07:59 PM	I would say it should because the rules strictly say that you can "make a single melee attack" and I believe a touch attack qualifies for a melee attack because its a hand-to-hand engagement. Of course, if a touch attack isn't melee then you won't be able to do so. However, I'd definitely house rule it because you are using your "momentum" to strike the opponent.
Seeker95 11-22-04, 08:06 PM	As long as you cast the spell in the previous round (or earlier) and have not touched anyone else since. A charge allows an attack. A touch spell is an attack. Use them together for efficiency.
Starmage21 11-22-04, 08:16 PM	I wouldnt allow the extra +2 damage from the charge, since essentially what youre doing is a run-by-smack.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 08:26 PM	You don't get +2 damage when you charge, just +2 to attack. Unless thats your houserule Starmage21. Pretty much, you'd get a +2 to your touch attack, in the following round you'd get a -2 penalty to your AC. Hopefully your touch spell kills him before your lowered AC can be used against you.
Starmage21 11-22-04, 08:33 PM	did 3.0 have a damage modifier for charging? If so,its a rule we carried over to 3.5 only because we didnt know it was changed. If its not in 3.0 either, must be a houserule i never knew was a houserule :D
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 08:56 PM	It wasn't in 3.0, it'd just be a houserule for your group...but whatever floats your boat. =) You can either inform your group and change the way to use charge or keep it the way you've had it, either way doesn't bother me. =P
bjorntfh 11-22-04, 09:58 PM	Yeah, I know you can hold the charge, I was just looking for balance issues on cinematically casting a touch spell and running at someone with it. Melee fighters get to do that with their sword so, aside from the stupidity of a charging mage, does it overbalance the charge action to let you use a standard action touch spell instead of a single physical attack? Note: I'm saying in the same round, I know you can cast and hold it, I was thinking as one action (charge) running at them and casting the spell as part of the charge. Yes, I'd say an AoO would be apropriate if you don't cast defensively while doing it, but I was looking for cinematics there.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 10:32 PM	No, I don't think its unbalanced at all. A charge is a full round action where you are making a double move action followed by a standard action attack. So whether you are a fighter moving 60ft then taking a hack at your sword or a mage moving 60ft then touching someone (casting a spell is a standard action) then its fine. Plus, the -2 to AC the following round will be killer for the mage, so I don't think that'll happen all to often, I see it as more of a coup de grace, a shocking grasp to an orc with 3 hp left or something like that, extra 10% chance to hit. =) Flavor-wise, the fighter would be charging at it with his sword whirling over his head as he slaming the blade into the enemies chest. While the mage runs toward the target with his fist crackling with energy as he slams in into the targets chest cause the spell to discharge into him.
bjorntfh 11-22-04, 10:47 PM	My image exactly actually. I was considering it for a psywarrior who used touch powers to open combat, then quickdrew another weapon.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 10:51 PM	What can I say, it pays to be a 17th lvl telepath... =P Anyways, thats how it should work, I personally think its all balanced, of course the final word would be with your DM but you can tell him to check this thread out. The action itself is completely legal, no rule breaking or bending at all. In fact, that idea is really good. So I'm assuming, u'll have a high enough AC to bear with the 1rd of -2 AC. Good luck with that. =)
bjorntfh 11-22-04, 11:14 PM	Actually, the point is more that it's done with overchannel and dissipating touch. It doesn't really matter what my AC is since I use vigor thus I've got the temp HP to take a few blows. I hope.
isaac anthony 11-22-04, 11:44 PM	along these lines, check the new feat i drew up... new feat: magic touch weapon benefit: allows you to use your weapon to make a "touch attack" with a touch spell without drawing an attack of opportunity. you must roll a normal attack to hit with your weapon rather than a touch attack. your weapon damage stacks with any damage your spell may do. note: the act of casting the spell still draws attacks of opportunity as normal. similar to "arcane strike" from CW, but spells instead of +X / +Xd4
Nom 11-23-04, 02:23 AM	Actually, the rules already all but allow you to charge with a touch spell. Casting a spell is a standard action, so you're left with only a move action. However, the touch spell rules (PH chapter 8) explicitly allow you cast-move-touch in a single round. So it's totally legal to cast the spell, take a standard move, and touch the target. Unlike a true charge, you can't do a double-move and attack, and you don't get +2 on the attack roll and suffer a -2 to AC. There's no way I'd allow a double-move and attack anyway, since that manoeuvre is explictly for a single melee attack, not a standard action of your choice, and as to 'casting while hustling', you do not want to go there. If you allow someone to cast a spell while simultaneously taking a move action, then you basically have to allow a free move action while taking any standard action, since spellcasting is about as complex a standard action as it gets. As for the +2/-2, your AC for a touch attack is (or should be) low enough anyway that giving up two points of AC for a +2 to hit is a bad idea.
Dracspero 11-23-04, 07:17 AM	Perhaps a Concentration check to cast a spell while running as a full round action? How about DC 20 + Spell Level + (Distance/10)?
dantedarkstar 11-23-04, 08:35 AM	I would disallow it. Either you run at enemy and charge, OR start making calm, elaborate gestures and words. Of course if the spell was quickened, it's totally fine by RAW (free actions can be made at any point during round). You start moving, cast the spell with just a quick gesture and word along the way, while speeding up and finally clash with the enemy, slamming his chest with a ball of crackling black energy of Vampiric Touch. The enemy wents pale, while you are quite sure you can take a hit he has in store for you.
Ilium 11-23-04, 09:17 AM	If you're concerned about balance, you could require a Concentration check similar to the one required to cast while riding a running horse. Too lazy to look up the DC. :) RAW don't allow it, but I think it's fine even without the Concentration check.
Harliquinn 11-23-04, 11:06 AM	I would not allow this in one round: 1) Cast Touch spell and hold the 'charge' 2) Use the Charge Action to deliver the Touch Attack with a +2 to hit/-2 AC You could however, take 2 rounds: Round 1 1) Cast Touch spell and hold the 'charge' 2) Move into position for a charge Round 2 1) Use the Charge Action to deliver the Touch Attack with +2 to hit/-2 AC
hymdohl 11-23-04, 06:28 PM	Yes, but would this touch attack cause an AOO (after the first attack) if you do not have Imporved unarmed strike? (Just curious)
bjorntfh 11-23-04, 06:31 PM	After the first, yes, because you'd have discharged the spell. The touch attack with the spell is considered armed.