| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 8:27 AM |
| Magic fang is cast on a Dragon Disciple that has aquired his claw bite attacks. The Character is multiclassed in Sorcerer also and wants to cast a spell requiring a range touch attack. Does the enhancement bonus provided by the magic fang spell also contribute to the range touch attacks? I'm thinking yes. | | John
| |
| nyjastul69 Commander
 2710 Posts



 Rhode Island
 | | 03/21/2007 8:36 AM |
| | The spell enhances a 'natural weapon'. I'm inclined to think most spells aren't considered weapons. Unless a spell description says otherwise, I'd say no. | | You know, I keep thinking that after the new design team gets done with D&D 4e, D&D won't stand for Dungeons and Dragons anymore, because well, that's just not fun. It's old and stuffy. - Originally Posted by BabWryter on Kenzerco.com | |
| gss_000 Commander
 3204 Posts



 Baltimore, MD
 | | 03/21/2007 9:27 AM |
| I agree with what nyjastul69 says. While I think spells can be considered weapons for some things, since they can cause crits and can threaten when you have a charge on a hand, in this case the character is trying to benefit on range attacks that only applies to melee attacks. Now if the spell needed a melee touch, like a cause wounds or combust, that might be different since you are making an attack with the affected natural attack, in this case claws.
Think of it like magic weapon. Would a +1 bonus to a sword give you a +1 attack with a bow? Only attacks that directly use that weapon or natural attack can benefit from the spell. | | Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 10:14 AM |
| I suppose that makes sense. Magic fang gives enhancement on attack and damage rolls made with natural weapons. The way I was looking at it was that the hands of the caster are being used to target for the ranged touch attack in which case they are being used as a ranged weapon, simply that they are charged up with a ray of sorts as the ammunition. It doesn't say that magic fang has to be applied specifically to melee attacks so I thought it would work out this way.
Magic fang is exactly like adding a magic bonus to any other weapon, so don't you get the option of whether you use those natural weapons (in this case the hands) as either for melee or ranged attacks (cause they are capable of both provided there is ammunition handy, such as a spell, or a dagger). You'd get the bonus if you were to throw a dagger right, only you wouldn't get the full application of the magic fangs benefits. The dagger would not become magic damage from the magic fang nor would it do the extra +1 damage but at least you'd have the bonus to the attack roll right, cause the magic fang doesn't restrict you to melee attacks alone... it just says attack and damage rolls.
I'm thinking of the caster as the weapon and the spell as the ammunition. | | John
| |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 10:38 AM |
| I guess what it really boils down to is if you use your natural weapon (a hand) to throw or target with a ranged attack... does that fall under the category of "other natural weapon" as described by the Magic Fang spell. Is the hand the weapon sending forth the ammunition or is the spell the weapon? The fact that a ranged touch attack is required using the casters modified base attack bonus for some spells implies to me that the caster is the weapon that either hits with the ammo or not. | | John
| |
| nyjastul69 Commander
 2710 Posts



 Rhode Island
 | | 03/21/2007 11:13 AM |
| I think this particular question is answered in the official faq, I can't open the document from work though. I'm goung off memory here so take this with a grain of salt.
Compare this situation to a caster using a touch spell that also has a natural attack, a claw foe example. To my understanding the caster has 2 choices. He can attack with the 'claw' attack (and the touch spell active) against the creatures regular AC. In this instance, assuming a hit, both the claw probably damage) effect and the touch spell both go off. The caster could OTOH attack without using the 'claw' attack against the opponents touch AC. In this case a succesful hit delivers only the effect of the spell.
I know the above doesn't answer the question directly, but it illustrates a difference between types of attacks. This is the glossary definition of natural weapon.
natural weapon Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.
Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack -- generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.
When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature's remaining natural weapons are secondary.
The primary weapon is given in the creature's Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature's Full Attack entry. A creature's primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature's physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature's full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.
Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.
Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.
Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.
Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.
Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage. Source: PHB, MM, MM3
| | You know, I keep thinking that after the new design team gets done with D&D 4e, D&D won't stand for Dungeons and Dragons anymore, because well, that's just not fun. It's old and stuffy. - Originally Posted by BabWryter on Kenzerco.com | |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 11:37 AM |
| It's only a +1 to attack and generally touch attacks are relatively easy to make anyways so it's not a big deal one way or the other to me, I just think it's an interesting topic for discussion and it would be neat to find out that there is some sort of a synergy here. The only way I see it actually working is if the natural weapon (a claw) is actually used in the targeting of ranged touch attacks. And all it would add is a +1 to hit not to damage cause the weapon itself isn't actually making contact.
To me it seems only natural to point at something, but then there isn't much natural about a spell, so my question is where does the line get drawn in this instance. Is the ranged touch attack being used merely to point at a target as a condition of the spell hitting it's target or are the two part and parcel of each other making it a non natural attack to begin with?
I try looking for a previously answered FAQ somewhere. I'm assuming I would look on the wizard of the coast boards. | | John
| |
| nyjastul69 Commander
 2710 Posts



 Rhode Island
 | | 03/21/2007 11:53 AM |
| | I don't think it's a game breaker either way. I'm inclined to say a ranged touch attack, is not a touch attack, is not a natural, so no it won't add in. | | You know, I keep thinking that after the new design team gets done with D&D 4e, D&D won't stand for Dungeons and Dragons anymore, because well, that's just not fun. It's old and stuffy. - Originally Posted by BabWryter on Kenzerco.com | |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 12:19 PM |
| Here is the FAQ entry I think you are referring to nyjastul: Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike to deliver a spell with touch range? If so, how do you resolve the attack? Yes, you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell. Since casting a spell is a standard action, you usually have to wait until your next turn to make the unarmed attack. Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the same way you resolve any other unarmed strike. The attacker has to beat the defender’s Armor Class with all adjustments, including armor and shield, added in. (The attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch the opponent.) If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity. (Striking for damage exposes the attacker to more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a spell.) If the attack is a hit, the attacker deals unarmed damage and discharges the spell. If the attack is a miss, the attacker is still holding the charge.
This still doesn't answer the question of magic fang on a ranged touch attack, but unless I'm mistaken it allows for your bonuses to hit to be used on the touch attack for the spell being made through a touch. Would it not also allow for any bonuses on attack rolls to be used during a range touch attack also?
From what I can tell there isn't an FAQ that specifically deals with the Magic Fang spell in this manner.
I might have to just cut to the chase on this one and pop the question on the WOTC boards.
I find it funny how in the FAQ above the answer contains this entry "If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity." especially since casters weilding touch spells are to be considered armed and don't provoke attacks of opportunity anyways.
| | John
| |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 12:29 PM |
| Posted By nyjastul69 on 03/21/2007 11:53 AM I don't think it's a game breaker either way. I'm inclined to say a ranged touch attack, is not a touch attack, is not a natural, so no it won't add in.
I see your point and though I've made several points to try and show favor towards the bonus being allowed, I do tend to want to agree with you.
Somehow I don't think the Magic Fang spell was intended to be used in this manner. IÂ think it would be a good thing for there to be an official ruling somewhere on this one though. Usually it's real easy for me to agree with how something in the game should work once I've heard a few other perspectives on the topic, this one still seems a little too unclear for my liking though. | | John
| |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 12:33 PM |
| The character in question can't cast the magic fang spell anyways, but is considering taking a permanency spell as a new spell at his next level. At that time the magic fang might be considered to be cast permanently on himself once he can track one down. For the most part this caster uses ray attacks and I was just wondering how beneficial if at all the magic fang would in fact be in this case. Anyways... that's what sparked this one up, in case you guys were wondering. | | John
| |
| gss_000 Commander
 3204 Posts



 Baltimore, MD
 | | 03/21/2007 3:35 PM |
| Posted By MackeyJ on 03/21/2007 12:19 PM I find it funny how in the FAQ above the answer contains this entry "If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity." especially since casters weilding touch spells are to be considered armed and don't provoke attacks of opportunity anyways.
But here you are doing additional damage on top of the strike when you use an unarmed strike, compared to the normal touch attack. If you just wanted to deal the spell damage and nothing else, you need a touch. If you use an unarmed strike, it's now a full attack roll and does provoke as they say. So instead of just doing 1d8+1 (say a first level cleric casting cause
light wounds), you'd have 1d8+1 +1d3+Str. If the character was a
Sorc/Monk, you can have interesting damage and effects.
| | Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
| MackeyJ Underboss
 1414 Posts




 | | 03/21/2007 4:19 PM |
| Posted By gss_000 on 03/21/2007 3:35 PM Posted By MackeyJ on 03/21/2007 12:19 PM I find it funny how in the FAQ above the answer contains this entry "If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity." especially since casters weilding touch spells are to be considered armed and don't provoke attacks of opportunity anyways.
But here you are doing additional damage on top of the strike when you use an unarmed strike, compared to the normal touch attack. If you just wanted to deal the spell damage and nothing else, you need a touch. If you use an unarmed strike, it's now a full attack roll and does provoke as they say. So instead of just doing 1d8+1 (say a first level cleric casting cause light wounds), you'd have 1d8+1 +1d3+Str. If the character was a Sorc/Monk, you can have interesting damage and effects.
Even though the attacker has a touch spell already armed he would provoke an attack of opportunity in this case? That's weird!
Only the touch spell and a touch attempt (no AoO)? Touch spell combined with an unarmed attack (provokes AoO)?
| | John
| |
| gss_000 Commander
 3204 Posts



 Baltimore, MD
 | | 03/21/2007 9:56 PM |
| Only the touch spell and a touch attempt: no AoO
Touch spell with unarmed attack: Provokes (unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike) | | Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
| nyjastul69 Commander
 2710 Posts



 Rhode Island
 | | 03/22/2007 6:21 AM |
| Posted By MackeyJ on 03/21/2007 12:19 PM Here is the FAQ entry I think you are referring to nyjastul: Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike to deliver a spell with touch range? If so, how do you resolve the attack? Yes, you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell. Since casting a spell is a standard action, you usually have to wait until your next turn to make the unarmed attack. Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the same way you resolve any other unarmed strike. The attacker has to beat the defender’s Armor Class with all adjustments, including armor and shield, added in. (The attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch the opponent.) If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity. (Striking for damage exposes the attacker to more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a spell.) If the attack is a hit, the attacker deals unarmed damage and discharges the spell. If the attack is a miss, the attacker is still holding the charge.
This still doesn't answer the question of magic fang on a ranged touch attack, but unless I'm mistaken it allows for your bonuses to hit to be used on the touch attack for the spell being made through a touch. Would it not also allow for any bonuses on attack rolls to be used during a range touch attack also?
From what I can tell there isn't an FAQ that specifically deals with the Magic Fang spell in this manner.
I might have to just cut to the chase on this one and pop the question on the WOTC boards.
I find it funny how in the FAQ above the answer contains this entry "If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity." especially since casters weilding touch spells are to be considered armed and don't provoke attacks of opportunity anyways.
Thanks, I must have read about Magic Fang somewhere else. I can see your argument for including MF, but I'm still not convinced.  If you do e-mail WotC let us know what they said.  | | You know, I keep thinking that after the new design team gets done with D&D 4e, D&D won't stand for Dungeons and Dragons anymore, because well, that's just not fun. It's old and stuffy. - Originally Posted by BabWryter on Kenzerco.com | |
|  zenthrus Commander
 4592 Posts



 SLC, UT
 | | 03/22/2007 1:34 PM |
| Natural attacks are never ranged attacks. Body parts don't generally function very well once severed and thrown 
Besides, we're looking at two different mechanisms. Magic Fang gives a bonus to a natural weapon (i.e. NOT a spell). Casting a ranged touch spell is still casting a spell. The attack roll is based off of the spell, not a weapon. Although ranged touch spells sort of function as weapons (regarding how they relate to certain feats) they are not, in fact, weapons.
Following the logic of the argument presented in this thread you could cast Magic Weapon on a Ray of Frost (+1 (weapon) enhancement bonus applied to a a ranged touch attack).
| | Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie? Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers Knight of the Large Dire Chicken Have/Want List Trade References | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |