Tell me more ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 5 down vote favorite

If I increase the threat of my natural weapon (improved crit) (19-20) does this affect my touch spell cast through it?

Pg 213: A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical on a 20 and deals double damage.... pg 186:.... Alternatively, you can make a normal unarmed attack (or attack with a natural weapon)while hold the charge.....If the attack hits you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.

What does "score a critical hit just as a weapon can" mean? does this and "If the attack hits you deal normal damage" mean that the crit threat is changed?

share|improve this question

1 Answer

up vote 8 down vote

No.

For that, you would want to take Improved Critical specifically for your melee touch spells.

share|improve this answer
Might want to mention that, while you can (by holding the charge) deliver touch spells with an unarmed strike/natural attack, in such cases the damage from the spell isn't doubled on crits. – starwed Feb 12 at 19:11
1  
@KRyan You can deliver them as per Holding the Charge here. The spell triggers but as an additional consequence of the attack, so it wouldn't benefit from any crit. (It's now "extra damage" rather than the base weapon.) – starwed Feb 12 at 19:37
1  
@KRyan Reading it more closely, the spell isn't damage added to the weapon roll, it's a second effect triggered by the successful attack. Since you never actually make an attack with the spell, it cannot crit. – starwed Feb 12 at 22:52
2  
@KRyan Oh, after typing all that out, I thought to look in Complete Arcane, and it states this explicitly on p73, so there's a direct citation. – starwed Feb 12 at 22:53
3  
@starwed At this point, I think you should make your own answer, including that citation (which is really about the actual answer to the question and not your initial comment). Anyway, I see your argument and agree you could see things that way; I'm just not entirely convinced since it does require interpreting a combination of rules. Since there is no explicit rule, it's easily as good as any other interpretation, and better than many. – KRyan Feb 12 at 23:24
show 5 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.