Touch Attacks (do you include armor)?

[AxeMental]

From the thread concerning cause fear:

I rule the To Hit Roll is against AC 9 or AC 10. All you've got to do is touch them.

But even with that, it's not that great a spell.

I have always understood that in the case of touch attack you must role against the targets full AC (which includes armor). The idea being that the armor is not simply clothing but a serious barrier to the person inside. Is this your read as well? Does the DMG addresss this anywhere? In other words, if a fighter has a 2 AC with plate and shield, the spell caster attempting a touch attack would need to hit against AC 2 (rather then a AC 10). I would envinsion this as the caster reaching and grabbing on to the person in plate in such a way that he's close enough to skin to work (so perhaps a joint area, face, head, etc.)

The only touch attack spell I can think of off the top of my head that wouldn't require including metal armor would be shocking grasp (because iron metal conducts) so the MU would have to role against AC 10 rather then AC 2 in the above example.

[T. Foster]

"Touch" attacks are always made against the target's full AC unless the spell/effect description specifically says otherwise (as it does in the case of Shocking Grasp).

[Juju EyeBall]

If you have the helmet rule in effect you might get lucky.

[Lilaxe]

AD&D makes no difference (unless noted) as Foster noted.

Later editions differentiate Touch AC from Full Armor AC, by saying Touch AC is AC10 - Dex bonus. its not a bad house rule and gives MUs another leg up (if you think they need one)

[Guy Fullerton]

I have always understood that in the case of touch attack you must role against the targets full AC (which includes armor). The idea being that the armor is not simply clothing but a serious barrier to the person inside. Is this your read as well?

Yes.

[Flambeaux]

Yep. That's how it works btb.
I make no reps or warrants as to running a btb game.

[EOTB]

Yes, although the practical effect of it is something I mitigate with the AC10 - Dex house rule for AD&D. Otherwise, a M-U has somewhere between 5-20% chance for most of his adventuring life of getting a touch spell off against anyone in good armor (which most characters will have after level 3 at the latest). Why would any sane M-U bother to waste a spell slot on them?

[AxeMental]

Yep. That's how it works btb.
I make no reps or warrants as to running a btb game.

Ah, I was wondering if I miss-understood that.

This is still a great spell to use against a hostile MU. I can imagine using a jump spell to get in range for a touch attack and then jumping back out.

Plus guys, don't forget elf and half elf multi-class fighters, who get to use their fighting table to hit with a touch attack (at least thats my read). Suddenly makes alot more sense to use this spell.

[T. Foster]

...except that it's a Cleric spell

[deathsdj]

Posted this in the Cleric cause fear thread but it seems at home here as well.

I go with regular AC for all touch attacks. They have to find an opening just like a weapon does. I also don't let shocking grasp ignore metal armor because nobody wears metal armor directly on their skin. There is padding and clothing beneath.

Keeps it simple too although i won't say for certain it is btb. Not sure if there is a definitive btb answer for this.

Cheers!

MJW

[AxeMental]

...except that it's a Cleric spell

Ahha, better be a triple class then.

[vikingv]

I would be inclined to rule that the hit would be against AC type

Otherwise, there comes up the situation where an unarmored person (imagine a M/U with bracers AC 4, ring of protection +2 and cloak +2) is very difficult to hit despite not wearing any armor.

[Matthew]

Yes, I include armour.

[ThirstyStirge]

Touch AC is AC10 - Dex bonus

That's the way...I like it...uh-huh, uh-huh.

[Quinzel]

I also use touch attacks against full AC.
But I don't use Magic Resistance. If I did, I would probably go with touch attacks against a higher AC.