Holding a charge and concentrating

[deadlytofu]

While holding a touch spell charge (because you missed, or get multiple touches), are you considered concentrating on the spell?

Say a wizard cast shocking grasp, moves into melee, and misses the touch attack roll. He still has the charge and can make another attack next round. What happens if some one attacks him and deals damage during this time? Does the wizard need to make a concentration check to keep the charge?

What about spells that grant multiple touch attacks like chill touch?

[Takamonk]

If you cast a separate spell while holding a charge, the charge is lost.

Otherwise, what's to stop you from holding 100 charges?

[Auspician]

My understanding is that until a charge spell is discharged, it remains. In the case of Shocking Grasp, it wouldn't activate by being attacked by someone else, but a concentration check wouldn't be required either. The spell has already been cast - it requires no more 'concentration' than preparing to hit someone with a weapon requires concentration.

Spells with multiple touch attacks would work the same way. You would only need to roll a concentration check (situation requiring) while you're casting the spell - not while you're making use of its benefits.

To Takamonk's point, most "charged" spells are lost if you cast another spell, which prevents "spell-stacking". So no casting Shocking Grasp AND Vampiric Touch before trying to grab hold of your target. :P

[deadlytofu]

Thanks for the reply. I would agree that no concentration check would be needed if you take damage, but is this stated somewhere? If not, how would you infer this from what is stated about touch spells?

[Mynameisjake]

deadlytofu wrote:

Thanks for the reply. I would agree that no concentration check would be needed if you take damage, but is this stated somewhere? If not, how would you infer this from what is stated about touch spells?

You'll never find a list of things that don't apply in each and every situation. There's nothing under concentration checks about holding a charge, it's not mentioned under 'holding a charge,' and there's nothing in the spell description about it. In this case, absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence.