i just wanna hear other opinions and arguments on this but, I firmly believe a player should be able to attack with an unarmed strike while casting a touch-range spell such as shocking grasp. You've already gotta touch them for the spell to work, why not hit them too?
EDIT: this is my interpretation. shocking grasp has a somatic component, but you have to perform that before touching the target anyway. I see it as the cast charges your hands like a defibrillator, then you have to very quickly touch the target. you're already close enough to touch them, why not touch them really fast with an open hand to deal an extra point of damage or two? could save your life.
A reminder: this is the Rules and Game Mechanics section of the forum. As I have been painfully reminded several times, this section of the forum is not so much about how the game should be, but what the game is. 'Should be' has no meaning for munchkins and rules lawyers, and the only means of declawing them is Rule 0.
In response to the idea of Shocking Fistpunch: generally, spellcasting is considered to have a requirement for intricate gestures that must be completed a specific way (i.e. somatic components). Touch-range spells could theoretically be considered to include a specific contact gesture as part of the spell, precluding a fistpunch. I could get into the various RAW reasons why it doesn't work, but you doubtless know those given the way you phrased the post.
Realistically? It just seems weird. You're focusing on a powerful manipulation of the arcane; do you also have room in your brain to observe proper punching form? How many combat spellcasters do you know with a Strength score worth punching with? The idea of quibbling over the two or three fistpunch damage you'll do with a witchslap when your Inflict Wounds is rolling 6d10 strikes me as being annoying. I understand the brain caltrop, but again - you're not a monk, so why care?
There are many ways to be touched, some with force, some with finesse. A punch isn't a tickle or a massage or a tattoo or a scratch, there's plenty of room within spellcasting to require that the target be touched in a specific way which is wholly unlike the manner in which it is stricken by an unarmed strike.
There aren't really that many touch attack spells in the game, Shocking Grasp is a cantrip and Inflict Wounds a 1st level spell, there's maybe one or two other mid-level spells I think... But allowing a monk or a grappler to pick up +1d8/2d8/3d8/4d8 damage per strike for the cost of a single level class level or a feat is overpowered, and there's no good reason to start down this slippery slope. If you want to hit something and cause extra magical damage, cast Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade like everyone else.
No, because touching someone is easier than actually hitting them and the act of casting the spell would also give your opponent a really big, obvious tell.
i just wanna hear other opinions and arguments on this but, I firmly believe a player should be able to attack with an unarmed strike while casting a touch-range spell such as shocking grasp. You've already gotta touch them for the spell to work, why not hit them too?
EDIT: this is my interpretation. shocking grasp has a somatic component, but you have to perform that before touching the target anyway. I see it as the cast charges your hands like a defibrillator, then you have to very quickly touch the target. you're already close enough to touch them, why not touch them really fast with an open hand to deal an extra point of damage or two? could save your life.
A reminder: this is the Rules and Game Mechanics section of the forum. As I have been painfully reminded several times, this section of the forum is not so much about how the game should be, but what the game is. 'Should be' has no meaning for munchkins and rules lawyers, and the only means of declawing them is Rule 0.
In response to the idea of Shocking Fistpunch: generally, spellcasting is considered to have a requirement for intricate gestures that must be completed a specific way (i.e. somatic components). Touch-range spells could theoretically be considered to include a specific contact gesture as part of the spell, precluding a fistpunch. I could get into the various RAW reasons why it doesn't work, but you doubtless know those given the way you phrased the post.
Realistically? It just seems weird. You're focusing on a powerful manipulation of the arcane; do you also have room in your brain to observe proper punching form? How many combat spellcasters do you know with a Strength score worth punching with? The idea of quibbling over the two or three fistpunch damage you'll do with a witchslap when your Inflict Wounds is rolling 6d10 strikes me as being annoying. I understand the brain caltrop, but again - you're not a monk, so why care?
Please do not contact or message me.
There are many ways to be touched, some with force, some with finesse. A punch isn't a tickle or a massage or a tattoo or a scratch, there's plenty of room within spellcasting to require that the target be touched in a specific way which is wholly unlike the manner in which it is stricken by an unarmed strike.
There aren't really that many touch attack spells in the game, Shocking Grasp is a cantrip and Inflict Wounds a 1st level spell, there's maybe one or two other mid-level spells I think... But allowing a monk or a grappler to pick up +1d8/2d8/3d8/4d8 damage per strike for the cost of a single level class level or a feat is overpowered, and there's no good reason to start down this slippery slope. If you want to hit something and cause extra magical damage, cast Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade like everyone else.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, because magic. Also rules and balance and game mechanics.
The Forum Infestation (TM)