Are there any feats out there that allow you to channel a touch spell through your weapon? You see, I'm playing a favored soul right now, and sheating/drawing my axe every time I want to heal my party is getting tiresome. I need to find a way to heal my party while both of my hands are full. I'm taking the somatic weaponry feat from PH2, but that only allows me to cast the heal spell, not deliver it. Help.
I'm only aware of the Duskblade class feature that lets them do just that, but they don't use healing spells.
I personally would see no problem using a weapon to channel a touch spell. As a matter of fact, I believe the Complete Arcane even mentions it, allowing you to, for instance, use shocking grasp through a weapon. The difference against a foe is that you have to hit their normal AC instead of their touch AC.
I personally would see no problem using a weapon to channel a touch spell. As a matter of fact, I believe the Complete Arcane even mentions it, allowing you to, for instance, use shocking grasp through a weapon. The difference against a foe is that you have to hit their normal AC instead of their touch AC.
Where in Complete Arcane does it talk about this?
"Aww, I can't heal my party and axe a monster in the face at the same time, waaaa..."
Suck it up, sir. That's my advice. Because the first time you ask me if you can heal someone by hitting them with your axe, I'm throwing you to the wolves.
-your friendly neighborhood DM
The Spellsword class has the same ability; storing a spell in a weapon and then channeling it.
And if it's a Class ability, I kinda doubt you'll be able to do it without it.
There are other ways; however. If you have a Light shield, you can hold you Axe in your shield-hand to free one up. You might even be able to use your shield-hand to heal, but I'm not 100% on that one.
You could also use a two-handed axe, and then hold it in one hand whilst you heal. Shouldn't be to hard to do.
"Aww, I can't heal my party and axe a monster in the face at the same time, waaaa..."
Suck it up, sir. That's my advice. Because the first time you ask me if you can heal someone by hitting them with your axe, I'm throwing you to the wolves.
-your friendly neighborhood DM
I find it funny how people recoil at this idea but are just fine with spell storing arrows that heal people. :-P You can heal them by shooting them in the neck. No problem. But healing by lightly touching them on the shoulder with your axe head is crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrazay!
It's a moot point anyways. I was just looking over the rules and realized that you can loose a shield as a move action without dropping it. You just lose the AC bonus until you ready it again (also a move). I can deal with that.
What about Quick Draw. Sure the axe is put away when it is not your turn, but that really only affects attacks of opportunity. (picking up a dropped shield/axe is a move action).
Unnarmed Strike would allow you to use a shoulder or foot (let me give ye the healing heal of my boot!) to make a (touch) attack.
To hit with subdual damage is a -4 to the attack so handling the weapon in such way as to not cut the target could be similar minus. Personally I would also add spell chance failure % for such a casting, but that is me.
"Aww, I can't heal my party and axe a monster in the face at the same time, waaaa..."
?
Of course not. That's not what he was asking. He's asking if you can heal someone (or provide any other beneficial effect by TOUCHING them with your weapon. I believe the answer is yes, and I will now provide examples of why I think so.
If you hit someone with your fists, you are using an unarmed strike. An unarmed strike is a weapon listed in the table of weapons. You do not have to deal 1d3+Str damage when you touch someone, only if you do so in an aggressive manner.
Page 73 of the Complete Arcane mentions making use of Improved Unarmed Strike to add the damage of your unarmed strike to the damage of a touch spell by delivering the spell as a regular melee attack instead of a melee touch attack (and thus against the target's full AC bonus rather than just their touch AC). The other caveat as written to this is: If the attack scores a critical hit, the spell damage is not multiplied as usual for a critical hit with a touch spell. The unarmed strike damage is.
Touching willing targets with your hand or a melee weapon does not require an attack roll. Otherwise clerics would be pretty screwed (and by extension, their party members).
Finally... is it really that game breaking for a cleric to be able to heal someone without disarming themselves? Should clerics have to provoke attacks of opportunity every other round when they pick their weapons back up? Does that even make sense?
TK
But if a cleric needs a free hand to cast anyway, why would you touch someone with the hand with a weapon in it instead of the free hand that you had to have to cast?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But if a cleric needs a free hand to cast anyway, why would you touch someone with the hand with a weapon in it instead of the free hand that you had to have to cast?
Check the first post, he is taking a feat to let him cast with weapons in hand:
I'm taking the somatic weaponry feat from PH2, but that only allows me to cast the heal spell, not deliver it.
Of course not. That's not what he was asking. He's asking if you can heal someone (or provide any other beneficial effect by TOUCHING them with your weapon. I believe the answer is yes, and I will now provide examples of why I think so.
Easy, tiger. I was kidding. You know, humor? It happens on the internet, sometimes.
Oh, for the record, I'm also not ok with healing arrows.
But if a cleric needs a free hand to cast anyway, why would you touch someone with the hand with a weapon in it instead of the free hand that you had to have to cast?Check the first post, he is taking a feat to let him cast with weapons in hand:
I'm taking the somatic weaponry feat from PH2, but that only allows me to cast the heal spell, not deliver it.
Sorry about that . . . I lost my train of thought by the time I got to that point in the thread.