Lead blades range of personal a mistake?

[Ravingdork]

The spell, lead blades, has both a range of personal, and a target of touch. Which is it?

If it is meant to be a personal-only spell, then there is no need to have it list a target of touch. There's only ever one target.

If it is meant to work on other targets, then that range line has got to go.

[Knight who says Meh]

I think it's "you" touching your "weapons."

[Cavall]

It's not meant to work on other targets.

"Lead blades increases the momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe. All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are. For instance, a Medium longsword normally deals 1d8 points of damage, but it would instead deal 2d6 points of damage if benefiting from lead blades (see table below). Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size."

Your weapons. All weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast. Only you.

It's personal. And affects what you're carrying at the time.

Personal. Touch.

No change needed.

[Ravingdork]

Neither of those really follows. If the spell effects you, why is there a need to touch yourself?

If you need to touch your weapons, why isn't the target "weapon touched?"

[Knight who says Meh]

It's personal because only you can use it.
It's touch because it only affects the weapons currently in your possession.

Makes sense to me.

[Avoron]

I think the real problem with the spell's wording is that "touch" isn't a target at all. The target of the spell needs to be some sort of noun, the "thing" that you're casting the spell on. So if the target is "creature touched" or "object touched" it means you're targeting a creature or object, but listing the target as "touch" just doesn't make any sense.

[ArmchairDM]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

It's personal because only you can use it.

It's touch because it only affects the weapons currently in your possession.

Makes sense to me.

This sounds right to me. It affects you and whenever you wield a weapon, i.e. are touching it, the weapon does extra damage. So not only the weapons on you when you cast the spell but any weapon you might pick up, and are then touching, are also affected but the effect is on you.

[James Risner]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

It's personal because only you can use it.

It's touch because it only affects the weapons currently in your possession.

Makes sense to me.

+1

[Toblakai]

If you look at Gravity Bow it is Range: Personal, Target: you.

I suspect that lead blades just has a typo.

[_Ozy_]

Yup, the two spells should have identical spell blocks. Target: touch doesn't make sense for lead blades.

[Snowblind]

It would also lead to weird baggage like being able to hold the spell's charge. As a practical use of this, if you wanted to cast it without provoking, giving the enemy a chance to counterspell etc, you could just cast it earlier and hold the charge. I doubt that is intentional, but it is implicit in the touch line.

[James Risner]

Hmm. Looking at Lead Blades vs Gravity Bow, I think Lead Blades should be Target: You like Gravity Bow.

So I change my position.

[_Ozy_]

Are there any (other) personal spells that have a target other than 'you'?

[Ravingdork]

FAQing this.

[ArmchairDM]

Does this really impact anything? If it is a typo and the range should be "you" rather than "touch", which seems to be the case, is that really FAQ worthy? Just curious.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

ArmchairDM wrote:

Does this really impact anything? If it is a typo and the range should be "you" rather than "touch", which seems to be the case, is that really FAQ worthy? Just curious.

It is errata-worthy and there's no "errata" button to press, so hitting FAQ seems reasonable.

[James Risner]

There really are far more things that get people angry to discuss than this. I doubt this will do anything except get it out on a "when reprinted" list.

[Ravingdork]

James Risner wrote:

There really are far more things that get people angry to discuss than this. I doubt this will do anything except get it out on a "when reprinted" list.

Sounds fine to me.

[James Risner]

Well, I've FAQ it. Maybe it will bubble up enough that they see it.