Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Smoot.. I just verified it still exists in that document as well.. (Very cool document though!)

So I have gone ahead to edit and rewrite portions of Produce Flame/Cold.

Produce Flame/Cold
D 2
Range: self (and special)
Duration: 1 minute / level

Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment. Alternatively, a bluish, cold aura may be produced (also produces light bright as torch-light).

In addition to providing illumination, the flames or cold aura can be hurled or used in melee against enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee attack (ignoring any armor or similar protection except for the actual pluses of magical forms of protection), dealing fire or cold damage respectively equal to 1d6 +1 point per caster level (maximum +10). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames or cold aura up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged attack (with no range penalty and likewise ignoring all armor or similar protections), dealing the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames or cold aura, the effect reappears upon your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.

Neither variation of the spell functions underwater.

----------------------------------------------------
Basically, translated the "touch" effect into its respective description. I also tweaked the damage maximum up a bit. That can be brought back to max 1d6+5 if anyone thinks it is out of line. I am unsure of it personally.

My question is do we have any other spell or effect that ignores armor when hitting?

dymondy2k wrote:My question is do we have any other spell or effect that ignores armor when hitting?

Not sure, but of 3e-isms, the idea of Touch Attacks is actually a pretty good idea... makes pretty good sense to me (I know... blasphemy!!).

Other spells might be appropriate to include such language. For instance, Cause (various) Wounds could work similarly, and would probably be how I approach the situation.

Hmmm... that is blasphemy I just think touch attacks might over complicate the does the roll+bonus beat the AC.. plus calculating that for monsters might be tough to figure out...

You could be right. I have thought about touch attacks in general and how one might simplify the idea. I am thinking the idea of a touch attack is just to make some contact with the subject, not necessarily hard or precise like one needs for weapon strike..

So how about something like "an attack made with the intention of simply making contact with a substantial part of another in order to deliver a spell or similar special effect, and not to strike for damage (from the strike itself), makes the attack roll at +4 to hit.

I like that train of thought.. just apply it to the bonus and not try to recalculate the AC..

Edit: I REALLY like that idea the more I think about it..

So to avoid having someone make contact, I should wear heavy armor?

I think this is one of the things that savings throws, or maybe an ability roll, do a better job of covering.

Joe the Rat wrote:So to avoid having someone make contact, I should wear heavy armor?

I think this is one of the things that savings throws, or maybe an ability roll, do a better job of covering.

I think big bulky armor could play a bit of a role... one might make contact, but not such that "gets through" the armor, so to say. There are always different thoughts on how such could be accomplished, just looking for an option that is both easy to resolve, and incorporates the idea that it is easier to make such contact than a standard attack (where the damage comes from the strike itself). Check out how I have this 'rule' written out in the General Thread about my "houserule combat section".

I'm with Smoot.. The armor still makes some sort of effect, to me the +4 to hit just signifies that it would be easier than normal for that attack to do damage.