So let's say a druid casts flame blade and then wildshapes?
-I am guessing weapon enchantments have their enchantments shifted to available natural attacks as an absorbed magic item with a constant effect.
-Flame blade creates a wielded magic item with properties.
*If those are true, you have a natural attack that acts kind of like the flame blade spell in some ways.
*Otherwise, the flame blade is ineffectively absorbed.
*Or, you now have a flame blade wielding badger.
So let's say a druid casts flame blade and then wildshapes?
-I am guessing weapon enchantments have their enchantments shifted to available natural attacks as an absorbed magic item with a constant effect.
-Flame blade creates a wielded magic item with properties.
*If those are true, you have a natural attack that acts kind of like the flame blade spell in some ways.
*Otherwise, the flame blade is ineffectively absorbed.
*Or, you now have a flame blade wielding badger.
I do not think weapon enchantments are shifted to your natural attacks when you wildshape. That's what Amulets of Mighty Fists are for.
So i would say the flame blade is absorbed but still active for the spell's duration. If you shift back you still have it.
Or you could use produce flame to obtain a similar effect that could be used in wild shape.
If your animal form had opposable thumbs though... flame blade is wielded as a scimitar. Maybe some DM's would allow a flame blade wielding monkey...
-I am guessing weapon enchantments have their enchantments shifted to available natural attacksThat isn't RAW and isn't RAI.
Okay after reading the section on use activated items all weapons are in fact considered use activated.
So let's say a druid casts flame blade and then wildshapes?
-I am guessing weapon enchantments have their enchantments shifted to available natural attacks as an absorbed magic item with a constant effect.
-Flame blade creates a wielded magic item with properties.
*If those are true, you have a natural attack that acts kind of like the flame blade spell in some ways.
*Otherwise, the flame blade is ineffectively absorbed.
*Or, you now have a flame blade wielding badger.
I do not think weapon enchantments are shifted to your natural attacks when you wildshape. That's what Amulets of Mighty Fists are for.
So i would say the flame blade is absorbed but still active for the spell's duration. If you shift back you still have it.
Or you could use produce flame to obtain a similar effect that could be used in wild shape.
If your animal form had opposable thumbs though... flame blade is wielded as a scimitar. Maybe some DM's would allow a flame blade wielding monkey...
+.75
The flame blade is not held in the hand, but is a flame-like beam that extends from the hand. you could attack with either the flame blade and one natural attack that didn't use the hand wielding the blade at -5 or your natural attacks. That's how I interpret it anyways. Note that the weapon damage does not change with your size so it may be beneficial to use a small or tiny creature with a flame blade and a larger creature with spells like shillelagh.
+.75The flame blade is not held in the hand, but is a flame-like beam that extends from the hand. you could attack with either the flame blade and one natural attack that didn't use the hand wielding the blade at -5 or your natural attacks. That's how I interpret it anyways. Note that the weapon damage does not change with your size so it may be beneficial to use a small or tiny creature with a flame blade and a larger creature with spells like shillelagh.
Agreed.
On a side note;
Green, small, hairless, energy blade wielding, kicking ass monkey... ring any bells?
“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."
There is the rule under Touch Spells in Combat: - Holding the Charge: where
“ ….Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. … If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. ...“
The only problem is that unlike Shocking Graps or Chill Touch, is that Flame Blade and produce flame are not Touch spells, but 0 range effect spells. But... it seems reasonable if the hand (or appendage) with the flame hits a target with a normal attack (which is usally harder) the target would also be affected by the flame attack effect.
While Items may be absorbed when wildshape changing, I don't know of any rule that said spells are absorbed. If that was they case then why not also lose other buff spells, protections spells and such?
That isn't RAW and isn't RAI.
This is slightly off topic but what does RAW and RAI mean? i keep seeing it but i find no PFRPG dictionary link anywhere :P
That isn't RAW and isn't RAI.This is slightly off topic but what does RAW and RAI mean? i keep seeing it but i find no PFRPG dictionary link anywhere :P
I think they mean.
RAW - Rules as Written
RAI - Rules as Intended?
|
I think they mean.
RAW - Rules as Written
RAI - Rules as Intended?
Yes
To the OP : get the Natural Spell feat and cast Flame Blade after wildshaping. It is still a blade of fire springing forth from your body and you can still wield it since you are still proficient with scimitar. Since it is an immaterial blade-like beam, being unable to actually hold or attack with a real scimitar in your new shape is irrelevant.
To the OP : get the Natural Spell feat and cast Flame Blade after wildshaping. It is still a blade of fire springing forth from your body and you can still wield it since you are still proficient with scimitar. Since it is an immaterial blade-like beam, being unable to actually hold or attack with a real scimitar in your new shape is irrelevant.
I'd be inclined to go with this, but would impose severe movement penalites if the druid was in a four footed form and didn't want to risk setting the floor on fire... which would probably be more relevant in some settings like than others. ( eg. leaf covered forest floor, wooden building, grassy plain etc.)
It's not common knowledge, but Smoky the Bear's public service announcements for the forest service were actually court mandated for his role in the Yellowstone fires a few years back. ;)
To the OP : get the Natural Spell feat and cast Flame Blade after wildshaping. It is still a blade of fire springing forth from your body and you can still wield it since you are still proficient with scimitar. Since it is an immaterial blade-like beam, being unable to actually hold or attack with a real scimitar in your new shape is irrelevant.
I must disagree. From the spell description:
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.
No hand, no flameblade.
By RAW, regardless of martial proficiency (scimitar).
There is the rule under Touch Spells in Combat: - Holding the Charge: where
“ ….Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. … If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. ...“The only problem is that unlike Shocking Graps or Chill Touch, is that Flame Blade and produce flame are not Touch spells, but 0 range effect spells. But... it seems reasonable if the hand (or appendage) with the flame hits a target with a normal attack (which is usally harder) the target would also be affected by the flame attack effect.
As you say, neither Flame Blade nor Produce Flame are touch spells so the "holding the charge" rule would not apply.
I'd agree to allow it with Produce Flame and not Flame Blade but that's my opinion.
While Items may be absorbed when wildshape changing, I don't know of any rule that said spells are absorbed. If that was they case then why not also lose other buff spells, protections spells and such?
There's no such rule. The spells are active through all their duration. I assume flame blade to be an exception to this because the spell effect is wielded as a scimitar. Again; no hand, no spell effect.
A similar case:
Magic Vestment is cast on our druid's armor an then it wildshapes, would you transfer the armor enhancement bonus to the wildshaped form?
I'd say no, the armor(enhancement carrier) melds into the new form as does the hand wielding the flame blade.
To the OP : get the Natural Spell feat and cast Flame Blade after wildshaping. It is still a blade of fire springing forth from your body and you can still wield it since you are still proficient with scimitar. Since it is an immaterial blade-like beam, being unable to actually hold or attack with a real scimitar in your new shape is irrelevant.
I would have to say you are stretching it, the spell says specifically your hand. This is a druid class only spell, for a class that is based around shapeshifting it still says "hand." Not limb, not appendage, but hand. If you are in a form that doesn't have a hand the spell would fizzle. If the spell were cast already and the target went away, it would fail (stop) or go away (technically it is a weapon even if it is a spell) until you regained your hand (shaped back to normal lets say) if the spell lasted that long, depending on how nice of a DM you have.
It also says you wield this effect like a scimitar, could the form you are in use a scimitar normally, if it weren't a druid in disguise? No? Well then the logistical problems are still there when the druid changes form, so the answer would still be “no”. Not to mention swinging a sword in one form isn’t the same as swinging it in another so in theory it isn’t even the same proficiency at that point.
Saying it is irrelevant because the blade is immaterial, is rather silly. An immaterial blade can’t be sundered, it doesn’t have a force behind it (no STR bonus), it still needs to be held and maneuvered somehow. Using your reasoning you can’t even move the weapon to make an attack with as you can’t grasp it because it is immaterial.
Meh... Nidho beat me to it.
|
|
Interesting comments about needing a hand.
You just nerfed the Natural Spell feat quite a bit with this :
- No Flame Blade
- No Produce Flame
- No Cure Light Wounds, nor Moderate and Serious
What about casting Barkskin on an insect ? It has no skin ("Barkskin toughens a creature's skin").
I guess no Flame Blade (or even Cure Light Wounds) is possible for a Druid who had his hands chopped off either.
I feel that basing a spell's mechanical effects or restrictions on which exact words are used to describe it is not appropriate. It does give Rules As Written a totally new meaning.
BTW, it is not a blade, but a blade-like beam. And if being immaterial (which is clearly written in the spell's description) prevents a Druid from wielding it (your interpretation Skylancer4, not mine) and basically making the spell useless, then there is a problem with the description.
Or we can agree that the description of a spell is not always 100% perfect in its wording.
Interesting comments about needing a hand.
You just nerfed the Natural Spell feat quite a bit with this :
- No Flame Blade
- No Produce Flame
- No Cure Light Wounds, nor Moderate and SeriousWhat about casting Barkskin on an insect ? It has no skin ("Barkskin toughens a creature's skin").
I guess no Flame Blade (or even Cure Light Wounds) is possible for a Druid who had his hands chopped off either.
I feel that basing a spell's mechanical effects or restrictions on which exact words are used to describe it is not appropriate. It does give Rules As Written a totally new meaning.
BTW, it is not a blade, but a blade-like beam. And if being immaterial (which is clearly written in the spell's description) prevents a Druid from wielding it (your interpretation Skylancer4, not mine) and basically making the spell useless, then there is a problem with the description.
Or we can agree that the description of a spell is not always 100% perfect in its wording.
Naughty, naughty, naughty. :)
So now I should argue that the description of the barkskin spell must not be taken literally. That "skin" in this context must be understood as the outermost tissue covering the creature's body. Being it skin, fur, exosketeton or whatever... therefore turning my own argument against me.
If skin could mean exoskeleton (the insect case), hand could also mean claw, paw or tentacle. You're right.
So the only way to wriggle out of this reductio ad absurdum trap would be to refer to the part on the spell description that states that this blade-like beam is wielded like a scimitar. Which is not the case with produce flame nor cure spells. Hence the need for a hand(humanoid, with opposable thumbs) for this specific spell.
As i said in post #3. I think using produce flame in wildshape is perfecly legal. As would be any cure spell or even spiderskin(it also mentions use of hands in the description)
And yes I also agree that spell wordings are sometimes flawed and open to misinterpretion.
But that's the point of this thread, isn't it? To clarify these misunderstandings.
|
|
Thank you for your constructive attitude :-)
So the only way to wriggle out of this reductio ad absurdum trap would be to refer to the part on the spell description that states that this blade-like beam is wielded like a scimitar. Which is not the case with produce flame nor cure spells. Hence the need for a hand(humanoid, with opposable thumbs) for this specific spell.
And here we disagree, since I believe that as a blade-like beam extending from your body, Flame Blade would not require a hand per se.
But I agree that the result is quite counter-intuitive and hackles-raising.
Thank you for your constructive attitude :-)
You're welcome.
And here we disagree, since I believe that as a blade-like beam extending from your body, Flame Blade would not require a hand per se.
But I agree that the result is quite counter-intuitive and hackles-raising.
Indeed.
Edit: BTW in my last post I meant spiderclimb, not spiderskin.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Since it is an immaterial blade-like beam, being unable to actually hold or attack with a real scimitar in your new shape is irrelevant.
I don't agree with that assertion.
Again, I don't believe this is RAW or RAI. I don't believe you can wield the Flame Blade if you can't wield a Scimitar as I see the RAW is that you have a flaming scimitar you are now wielding.
Since it is an immaterial blade-like beam, being unable to actually hold or attack with a real scimitar in your new shape is irrelevant.I don't agree with that assertion.
Again, I don't believe this is RAW or RAI. I don't believe you can wield the Flame Blade if you can't wield a Scimitar as I see the RAW is that you have a flaming scimitar you are now wielding.
I disagree with that interpretation, however I understand where you're coming from with it. I also think that the best forms to use flame blade in would be forms that could use it, primates, elementals, etc. You get the same bonuses if you want to be a primate or a shark, but if you'r a primate you can use flame blade, hold a shield, and bite, if your a shark, you can.. boil yourself?
Since it's a magic beam coming from your hand, I wouldn't have a problem with other shapes using it, but I wouldn't have a problem playing as only able to use it in forms with a literal hand. For all we know flame blade could extend from the index finger, and the 18-20 crit range is because it's so hot it tends to burn in permanent wounds and sever limbs, not because it's sharp like a scimitar.
No reason produce flame, cause wounds etc does not work with wild shape. Flame Blade is specified to ACT AS A SCIMITAR despite other flavour text to the extent the designers have stated in the vital strike threads that it CANNOT apply to spells but can apply to flame blade. Its a scimitar now definitely so no more 3.0 edition double length reach beams of flame blade being wielded by owls imbued with spell ability on the AC 45 party unfortunately !!
Just my point.
I was trying to get that offical clarification here:
dervish and flame blade - official ruling sought
Can you link the thread where this is actually clarified so we can settle this issue?
Then we can all move on and continue squabbling about... ehm I mean politely debate ;) other rulings?
edit: I found it!
Check James Jacobs' posts. #8 and #17
|
|
No reason produce flame, cause wounds etc does not work with wild shape. Flame Blade is specified to ACT AS A SCIMITAR despite other flavour text to the extent the designers have stated in the vital strike threads that it CANNOT apply to spells but can apply to flame blade. Its a scimitar now definitely so no more 3.0 edition double length reach beams of flame blade being wielded by owls imbued with spell ability on the AC 45 party unfortunately !!Just my point.
I was trying to get that offical clarification here:
dervish and flame blade - official ruling sought
Can you link the thread where this is actually clarified so we can settle this issue?
Then we can all move on and continue squabbling about... ehm I mean politely debate ;) other rulings?edit: I found it!
Check James Jacobs' posts. #8 and #17
In fact, I checked it before all the squ.. debate ;-)
JJ does not ever state that it "acts as a scimitar" in the meaning that it follows each and every one of a scimitar's restrictions.
He just says that Flame Blade is one of the few spells that are "functionaly weapons", which I guess means that they just produce a specific kind of weapon, and then it is up to the caster/target to use it.
Otherwise, you could disarm or even sunder a Flame Blade just like a scimitar, which sounds pretty weird to me.
No reason produce flame, cause wounds etc does not work with wild shape. Flame Blade is specified to ACT AS A SCIMITAR despite other flavour text to the extent the designers have stated in the vital strike threads that it CANNOT apply to spells but can apply to flame blade. Its a scimitar now definitely so no more 3.0 edition double length reach beams of flame blade being wielded by owls imbued with spell ability on the AC 45 party unfortunately !!Just my point.
I was trying to get that offical clarification here:
dervish and flame blade - official ruling sought
Can you link the thread where this is actually clarified so we can settle this issue?
Then we can all move on and continue squabbling about... ehm I mean politely debate ;) other rulings?edit: I found it!
Check James Jacobs' posts. #8 and #17
In fact, I checked it before all the squ.. debate ;-)
JJ does not ever state that it "acts as a scimitar" in the meaning that it follows each and every one of a scimitar's restrictions.
He just says that Flame Blade is one of the few spells that are "functionaly weapons", which I guess means that they just produce a specific kind of weapon, and then it is up to the caster/target to use it.Otherwise, you could disarm or even sunder a Flame Blade just like a scimitar, which sounds pretty weird to me.
Except for the fact that the blade is inmaterial and therefore inmune to these two specific maneuvers. You could drop it though, effectively dismissing the spell.
To me, that usage by the caster clearly implies cutting thrusting or stabbing with it. Fencing is not only about having a pointy stick protruding from your body. So the caster still needs adequate limbs to do so.
Im sorry but the image of a swashbuckling porpoise is just too much of a stretch.
Im sorry but the image of a swashbuckling porpoise is just too much of a stretch.
That's because they're called narwhal's.
The flame blade spell produces a spell effect that you wield like a weapon -- a weapon-like spell effect. Thus, for all purposes, the flame blade spell effect is a weapon. This has been verified by James Jacobs.
Weapons you wield merge into your form when you wild shape.
Thus, the flame blade merges into your form when you wild shape. The duration still continues while it is merged into your form. If you end the wild shape and the flame blade's duration hasn't ended, you still have a flame blade to use.
If you were to use the flame blade spell *after* you wild shape (using Natural Spell), you've now entered a shaky place in the rules due to Natural Spell -- congratulations (: In this case, the DM does what he sees fit. I'd say the spell merges into your wild shaped form immediately. Once you wild shape out, the spell effect is still available for use.
|
|
Otherwise, you could disarm or even sunder a Flame Blade just like a scimitar, which sounds pretty weird to me.
Except for the fact that the blade is inmaterial and therefore inmune to these two specific maneuvers. You could drop it though, effectively dismissing the spell.
To me, that usage by the caster clearly implies cutting thrusting or stabbing with it. Fencing is not only about having a pointy stick...
If you cannot be disarmed, it means that you do not need to keep your grip on the weapon. Opposable thumbs in fact help you maintain such a grip. If such a grip is not required to use the weapon, then the thumbs are not required either.
BTW : the conclusion drawn in the spell description from the "immaterial" aspect is only that you do not apply your STR mod. It says nothing about being unable to Disarm or Sunder it.
The flame blade spell produces a spell effect that you wield like a weapon -- a weapon-like spell effect. Thus, for all purposes, the flame blade spell effect is a weapon. This has been verified by James Jacobs.
Weapons you wield merge into your form when you wild shape.
Thus, the flame blade merges into your form when you wild shape. The duration still continues while it is merged into your form. If you end the wild shape and the flame blade's duration hasn't ended, you still have a flame blade to use.
If you were to use the flame blade spell *after* you wild shape (using Natural Spell), you've now entered a shaky place in the rules due to Natural Spell -- congratulations (: In this case, the DM does what he sees fit. I'd say the spell merges into your wild shaped form immediately. Once you wild shape out, the spell effect is still available for use.
+1
...BTW; spell description states that "you" wield the spell as a scimitar, it's a fire beam to others. No one can wield it but you, no one can interact wit it but taking damage.
|
This problem came up when my druid would wildshape into a bat(the tiny one). At first my DM wouldn't allow me to use produce flame or flameblade. Then we reminded him that a bat's wing is a modified hand, and he let me use the spells. A bat does not have opposable thumbs.
This never came up when I wildshaped into anything other than a bat, dire bat, or elemental(except water, I won't even say it's fire), since if I wildshaped into anything else, it was for a) getting away b) crushing my enemy with 2-6 tons of wildshaped druid c) exploration of an otherwise unexplorable area.
If you cannot be disarmed, it means that you do not need to keep your grip on the weapon. Opposable thumbs in fact help you maintain such a grip. If such a grip is not required to use the weapon, then the thumbs are not required either.
Or that no appreciable amount of force can be brought to bear on the weapon to make it move from your hand, as the "blade" you are for all intents and purposes wielding is still used as if it were material from your perspective. A scimitar isn't some weapon that floats around the end of whatever limb you have and swings around by thought. It isn't some weapon you are moving around by your mind al a "hand of the acolyte" and requires no physical reaction from your body. It is a physical effort, it uses your strength to determine your chances to hit, and if it weren't immaterial, your damage as well. Your hand wraps around the hilt of the scimitar. You move your wrist, elbow and shoulder (if not your whole body) to use the weapon properly. The vast majority of the forms a druid can take are typically incapable of movement like that let alone grasping something the way a scimitar must be held to be used in the first place. Mentally knowing how to do something still leaves you dependent on physical capability.
BTW : the conclusion drawn in the spell description from the "immaterial" aspect is only that you do not apply your STR mod. It says nothing about being unable to Disarm or Sunder it.
If you say so, immaterial or incorporeal attacks usually have at least one of the following qualities:
1) They are touch attacks, they aren't as impeded as normal attacks because by their very nature they ignore them. The results may be different, like in the example of the flame blade it doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't inflict damage to certain materials like the brilliant magic weapon quality. So, when being used against an armored opponent it stands that the flame blade would in fact deal damage to the armor if the damage inflicted was higher than the armor hardness.
2) They typically don't get strength modifier added to the damage done. There is no physical force behind the attack to benefit the damage done. Usually you see this in an incorporeal creature.
3) There is no hit point damage or hardness for the item. As it is immaterial things pass through it. If things go through it they can't deal damage and in turn you cannot sunder said item.
As for the disarm, it doesn't say it can't and while some disarm techniques would cause you to lose grasp of an item by pressure in particular directions (which can't be applied to an immaterial item) some work by hitting or disabling the hand holding the item causing you to actually drop it. So yeah, I would say the flame blade could be disarmed technically. But I would also allow the caster to pick it back up if they wanted as it doesn't say anywhere that it disappears if the caster loses the weapon as some spells or effects do.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
We got an official ruling.
The only unanswered question is "can you continue to wield it after turning into a frog?"
The only unanswered question is "can you continue to wield it after turning into a frog?"
JJ confirmed that the caster treats the spell as a scimitar for all purposes. Which boils down to:
Can a frog(or any other animal) wield a scimitar?
Quick answer, no. Meabolex and Skylancer4 make good points about why.
On a second tought, DM's call. This is fantasy, after all.