Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Matthew wrote:

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".

Indeed. As I mentioned above the 'telling blow' does not appear to me to imply anything in itself; but is described in terms of the lethal/non-lethal combat. A telling blow to unhorse a man occurs when dicing to hit AC8, a lasso has an increased chance for a telling blow (entanglement) based on the armor type of the opponent. I realize this approach adds grandularity, but I cant figure a way to avoid it.

sepulchre wrote: Indeed. As I mentioned above the 'telling blow' does not appear to me to imply anything in itself; but is described in terms of the lethal/non-lethal combat. A telling blow to unhorse a man occurs when dicing to hit AC8, a lasso has an increased chance for a telling blow (entanglement) based on the armor type of the opponent. I realize this approach adds grandularity, but I cant figure a way to avoid it.

Sure, but I think the point here is that "touch attacks" have no general special rule associated with them, so there is no more reason to have them ignore armour than a blow from a vampire or the claws of an owl bear. Nor is there much necessity in their rationalisation, it seems to me, as a wide variety of explanations from either side can be brought to bear.

Matthew wrote:

the point here is that "touch attacks" have no general special rule associated with them, so there is no more reason to have them ignore armour than a blow from a vampire or the claws of an owl bear.

To be sure no ruling is spelled out.

Nor is there much necessity in their rationalisation,it seems to me, as a wide variety of explanations from either side can be brought to bear.

Certainly after exhausting this thread, ambiguity abounds.

Deathsdj wrote:

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.

Looked for this excerpt, but was unable to locate any reference to it...do you recall the page?

sepulchre wrote:Looked for this excerpt, but was unable to locate any reference to it...do you recall the page?

DMG page 44. Under spell explanation for Enlarge.

It's a spotty reference at best but it does imply that when casting a touch spell the actual target must be touched not their clothes or armor.

Cheers!

MJW

Interesting Thread. Its easy to see why in later editions they thought to break up and spell out touch attacks vs regular attacks.

Ive always ruled BTB for this. Using the monsters text for the monster in question and the spells text for the spell in question and not tried to get too wrapped up in the inconsistencies and variables....for that way lies 3E . As long as you are consistent in your rulings, the players will be happy. (they might disagree the first time, but will adjust)