Quote from: One Horse Town;734717Sure, there are ramifications, but if you really want to touch someone, you should be able to do so IMO.

Words to live by, especially around closing time at the local club.

Quote from: One Horse Town;734717Sure, there are ramifications, but if you really want to touch someone, you should be able to do so IMO.

Well yes. I can have my Cleric run himself through on the orc warlords sword so I can guarantee touch him. But wouldnt that kinda, you know, count as spell disruption?

D&D technically has lots of touch based attacks. Animal types oft have claw and/or bite.

That and one assumes that by touch they mean, lay at least one hand/finger on long enough for the effect to trigger.

Laying a solid touch on someone to discharge a spell should require a to-hit roll, save, whatever.

But if someone wants to forgoe a to-hit roll for an auto-hit. Then let them take an auto hit from the target in return. (But no spell disruption then.)

Quote from: Werekoala;734903Words to live by, especially around closing time at the local club.

Ha!

Proof, if it's needed, that context is everything.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734629All I have ever played with is boffer weapons, but trying to touch someone armed with sword and shield always seemed to me like a good way to die.

I have done a fair bit of boffer fighting as well and I'd say no way you could touch people in battle without taking a weapon or shield to the face unless you were really good at it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;734625This one has always baffled me, to be honest.

If you want to touch something in battle, do so. I see no reason for an attack roll or a special action or even a special 'Touch' armour class.

Because all "touch" means is that it doesn't matter whether the guy is wearing armor or not.  You still have to try to get him, he can still try to evade; but since you're not trying to do physical damage the ordinary way, his armor's stopping power doesn't figure into his defensive capability.

RPGPundit

I really hate touch attacks in PF, fwiw.

I'm sorry, but a shield or shirt made out of steel links really should block against a ray of frost or whatever. It's really weird for spellcasters to generally have a vastly easier time hitting a target with their attacks than the guys with swords will ever have.

All those "touch" attacks should have just had a +4 to hit or whatever (instead of the effective +10 or so it is now), I see no more "realism" in having a separate AC for touch attacks than I do in a flat bonus.

Quote from: One Horse Town;734717Sure, there are ramifications, but if you really want to touch someone, you should be able to do so IMO.

And if an NPC really wants to touch you then he should be able to do so?

I don't really think that Touch Attacks should be treated any differently from other attacks in that they should use exactly the same attack mechanism.

In RQ/BRP-style games, it would be a successful attack that is not parried or dodged. In D20-style games, things are a bit more complicated, do you need to take AC into account? Someone touching a warrior armed with plate is the same as someone touching an unarmed person. I am not sure how this would work.