Touch Attacks (do you include armor)?

[sepulchre]

EOTB:

Yes, although the practical effect of it is something I mitigate with the AC10 - Dex house rule for AD&D.

Touch is exactly just that. Does the magic user have to touch the face/head of a fighter wearing a suit of mail? Helmet rule indeed. How far does this line of reasoning extend? Clothes are technically a barrier, does a cleric have to penetrate clothing and touch the skin for bless or curse to take effect? A roll 'to hit' AC 10 with a hand (lethal or non-lethal combat) implies nothing about the penetration of clothing. Roll to hit AC 10 - dexterity modifier.

[ken-do-nim]

I decided that if there isn't an additional saving throw after the successful to hit, it goes against the full ac. If the defender gets a save as well, it goes against the armor-ignoring ac.

[Matthew]

Touch is exactly just that. Does the magic user have to touch the face/head of a fighter wearing a suit of mail? Helmet rule indeed. How far does this line of reasoning extend? Clothes are technically a barrier, does a cleric have to penetrate clothing and touch the skin for bless or curse to take effect? A roll 'to hit' AC 10 with a hand (lethal or non-lethal combat) implies nothing about the penetration of clothing. Roll to hit AC 10 - dexterity modifier.

So... are you advocating including armour or not? I am a little unclear!

[sepulchre]

Thanks Matt. Yes, advocating no armor. Whether one is considering a spell caster or monster's mode of similar attack (see seizing ability of an octopus, most undead attacks ) touch to me implies the figure itself. Moreover, the 'telling blow' does not mean anything itself; it is described in terms of the lethal/non-lethal attack used, as is the damage. AC 10 is the most accessible ground for approaching a 'telling blow' [A “to hit” dice roll must be made to touch an unwilling recipient/Range: touch/'Remove Fear' (44 PHB)]. Thus, a telling blow in this case is not to land a fist or sword strike but to simply 'touch'. The 'damage' is the spell effect, this would follow with a tentacle or undead attack as well. I noticed you chose to include armor do you still feel that way?

[Mudguard]

Whether one is considering a spell caster or monster's mode of similar attack (see seizing ability of an octopus, most undead attacks ) touch to me implies the figure itself.

But those monster attacks are still vs. a character's full armor class eh?

[sepulchre]

mudguard wrote:

But those monster attacks are still vs. a character's full armor class eh?

Possibly. Take a ghost who is semi-material (AC 0), his very essence and material aspect are so subtle he is the equivalent of full plate and shield in melee. A monster with such an aspect would slip through the 'barriers' of armor without any consideration. I would recognize adjustments due to spells or enchanted/cursed armor and rings, however.

Corporeal undead are more ambiguous I suspect. The ghoul 'attacks by clawing with their filthy nails and fangs'...Their touch causes...to become rigid (paralysis), unless a saving throw vs. paralyzation is successful' (44 MM). Since loss of hit points does not necessarily mean actual physical damage it is hard to know specifically what 'touch' here means. This could mean the 'telling blow' was deadly enough to have taken the life of a normal human but not that of hero for example, nonetheless a save vs. paralyzation is necessitated because the undead and especially ghouls are particularly terrifying. However, one might rule that 'touch' need not have any connection to laying on a possibly lethal wound, touch is just touch, AC 10 (+/- dexterity and enchantments/curses), the fear of the ghoul being graver than possible physical damage.

The example of the octopus is less ambiguous but I believe rather counter-intuitive. The expert set (Gygax, Arneson, Cook & Marsh) offers some clarity: 'once a tentacle hits in combat, it will constrict and automatically do 1-3 points of damage each round' (x37). Thus if an Octopus dices a 'telling blow', btb damage is done by constriction and one is considered in the grasp of the creature. Moreover, if struck by a tenatacle (75 MM) there is a 25%/upper limbs pinned (no attack) 25%/upper limbs are free (-1 'to hit'), otherwise one limb is pinned (-3 'to hit'). So if one is 'struck' by a tentacle damage is done, and here it makes sense to recognize armor when calculating AC. Additionally, 'if' struck by a tentacle one may be impaired in some way. Could not a figure be grasped and possibly impaired by a tentacle attack and yet because of one's armor not take damage? Conversely and absurdly, allow a figure to avoid being grasped altogether because of it's armor? I would suggest these should be two separate rolls, one to hit AC 10 and the other to determine if any damage is done. Otherwise strike 'if' from the consideration and allow the octopus to automatically grasp a foe and then roll for a 'telling blow' to determine constriction damage if any, though I imagine though that players would rightly object this.

[Matthew]

Thanks Matt. Yes, advocating no armor. Whether one is considering a spell caster or monster's mode of similar attack (see seizing ability of an octopus, most undead attacks ) touch to me implies the figure itself. Moreover, the 'telling blow' does not mean anything itself it is described in terms of the lethal/non-lethal attack used, as is the damage. AC 10 is the most accessible ground for approaching a 'telling blow' (a ceiling too as you cannot exceed its limit). Thus, a telling blow in this case is not to land a fist or sword strike but to simply 'touch'. The 'damage' is the spell effect, this would follow with a tentacle or undead attack as well. I noticed you chose to include armor do you still feel that way?

I used to favour that interpretation, but not so much any more. Trying to "touch" somebody is a heck of a lot different from trying to deliver a "telling" or "mortal" blow, so even using AC 10 does not really satisfy if armour is being discounted. I suspect that level of "realism" was never really intended for a game as abstract as D&D, but I would not be surprised to find that it came up often as a point of contention.

[ScottyG]

By the book, as Trent stated back thread.
But I like the concept that certain touch attacks can disregard certain types of protection. Especially non-corporeal beings.They can pass through walls/floors, etc. A metal plate should not offer any protection.
I've experimented with different 'touch attack' house rules. Non-corporeal, level draining undead can become insanely deadly, depending on how you handle them.
Currently, I am playing by the book, but I used a varient in the past that I was happy with; any mundane physical protection could be disregarded, but any sort of enchantment would cause the armor/shield/etc. to provide full defensive value.

[sepulchre]

Matthew wrote:

I suspect that level of "realism" was never really intended for a game as abstract as D&D,

I imagine you are spot on, though I believe the question must have arisen given the attention to 'detail' in the Weapon V.S Armor Table.

but I would not be surprised to find that it came up often as a point of contention.

I think so, weapons like the lasso or whip certainly beg the question.

ScottyG wrote:

Non-corporeal, level draining undead can become insanely deadly, depending on how you handle them.

Indeed.

I used a varient in the past that I was happy with; any mundane physical protection could be disregarded, but any sort of enchantment would cause the armor/shield/etc. to provide full defensive value

.
I was initially just counting the magical adjustment, but that is a nice interpretation, will borrow, thanks Scotty

[Werral]

but I would not be surprised to find that it came up often as a point of contention.

I think so, weapons like the lasso or whip certainly beg the question.
[/quote]

Armour would certainly stop a lasso from constricting and causing pain, I can imagine it would be easier to break free from a lasso round your waist if the rope wasn't digging into your skin or restricting your breathing. It would be the same with overbearing

On the other hand the AC 10 interpretation has the one advantage of making shields a little more useful - since I'd imagine you'd allow the +1 AC regardless of which rule you used.

[EOTB]

As I'm going through and compiling info for the Kellri's netbook project, I found an interesting passing in MM2 for the Mud-Man entry that may be applicable:

"Mud-Men attack by hurling mud at their opponents, who are considered as armor class 10 (modified by dexterity) for the purposes of determining hits."

I think spell attacks correlate here, given that armor is not typically protective against the spell effect, just as it is not useful against the mud effect.

Not conclusive perhaps, but another data point to consider.

[sepulchre]

EOTB wrote:

...given that armor is not typically protective against the spell effect, just as it is not useful against the mud effect. Not conclusive perhaps, but another data point to consider.

Nice find EOTB, certainly speaks to the spirit of the thread. One might also consider the Giant slug whose corrosive spittle delivers a 'telling blow' with a 3in6 chance (88 MM). I think all this means is that subject was considered and officially remained ambiguous depending one's meter for realism.

Matthew wrote:

Trying to "touch" somebody is a heck of a lot different from trying to deliver a "telling" or "mortal" blow, so even using AC 10 does not really satisfy if armour is being discounted.

I would imagine a 'telling blow' to mean 'hits' given the adoption of the alternative combat system. If the mudman or giant slug were making house calls in Chainmail/OD&D I imagine one would still rule a mortal wound for the slug and a 'hit"/round following a PCs movement rate being reduced to 0".

Werral wrote:

Armour would certainly stop a lasso from constricting and causing pain, I can imagine it would be easier to break free from a lasso round your waist if the rope wasn't digging into your skin or restricting your breathing. It would be the same with overbearing.

A good point. However, given that the 'to hit' roll is really a requirement for 'entangling' I imagine armor would not help the victim (armor type modifiers in U.A). This, 'constriction' vs. 'entangling' is also the difference between the two lasso entries on the weapons vs. armor type chart (26-27 U.A). The Huns and possibly the Mongols used the lasso effectively for this very purpose.


In short, however, if armor class is consulted, whatever the AC may be, then I would consider using the lasso weapon vs. armor type modifiers for 'entangling' attacks, even those of monsters - tentacle attacks for instance.

[deathsdj]

As I'm going through and compiling info for the Kellri's netbook project, I found an interesting passing in MM2 for the Mud-Man entry that may be applicable:

"Mud-Men attack by hurling mud at their opponents, who are considered as armor class 10 (modified by dexterity) for the purposes of determining hits."

I think spell attacks correlate here, given that armor is not typically protective against the spell effect, just as it is not useful against the mud effect.

Not conclusive perhaps, but another data point to consider.

There is also the text of the Enlarge spell in the DMG where it states that the DM can opt to require an actual touch as opposed to touching the clothing so I guess it could go either way.

Cheers!

MJW

[Matthew]

I would imagine a 'telling blow' to mean 'hits' given the adoption of the alternative combat system. If the mudman or giant slug were making house calls in Chainmail/OD&D I imagine one would still rule a mortal wound for the slug and a 'hit"/round following a PCs movement rate being reduced to 0".

Right, but delivering a telling blow with a long sword and "touching" an enemy are very different things. Two fighters going at it with daggers may touch each other many times in a round, but never deliver a "telling blow".

[AxeMental]

By the book, as Trent stated back thread.
But I like the concept that certain touch attacks can disregard certain types of protection. Especially non-corporeal beings.They can pass through walls/floors, etc. A metal plate should not offer any protection.
I've experimented with different 'touch attack' house rules. Non-corporeal, level draining undead can become insanely deadly, depending on how you handle them.
Currently, I am playing by the book, but I used a varient in the past that I was happy with; any mundane physical protection could be disregarded, but any sort of enchantment would cause the armor/shield/etc. to provide full defensive value.

Hard to believe this isn't covered someplace. A vampire I'd def. allow armor, not sure about ghosts. I'd probably allow it (if the ghost can hit the PC the PC can hit the ghost. The PC is getting cutting damage from his sword so its hitting something (ectoplasma perhaps).

[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... PYV-lQ/img]