If I'm not a magus, and I wield a weapon, what happen if I cast a touch spell when I'm holding the charge? The wielded wepon doesn't discharge the spell (else a cleric can't even cast a clw), and that's ok. But what if I'm holding the charge and instead of attempt to discharge the spell on the targe I attack with the weapon I wield? Do I still holding the charge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're already holding a charge and cast another touch spell, the held charge dissipates.
If you're already holding a charge and wield a weapon, so long as the charge is held in some other limb, you can wield the weapon just fine, but getting a hit with it will not discharge the held spell.
If you're not a Magus, you can deliver your held charge with a touch attack or with a natural weapon or with an unarmed attack. An example would be a White-Haired Witch using her hair attack to deliver a held touch spell.
You must have some special ability to discharge a held touch spell through a weapon to a target.
There is no such thing a 'holding a charge in a limb' the charge is held by the spell caster, not any particular part of their body.
That said, it is indeed pretty clear that holding a weapon and casting a spell doesn't discharge the spell.
It is fairly obvious that the spell won't discharge into the target (otherwise spell strike wouldn't be a thing) so the choices are that the spell either dissipates harmlessly or remains held.
Under touch spells it lists what you can do to discharge the spell (normal touch, unarmed or natural attack) and what will cause the spell to dissipate (casting a spell) so presumably anything that isn't specifically mentioned there doesn't have any effect on the spell.
Which certainly makes it seem like an attack with a weapon would have no effect on a held spell.
There is no such thing a 'holding a charge in a limb' the charge is held by the spell caster, not any particular part of their body.
I think that there might be such a thing.
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
So you can cast a touch spell in round 1, and then hold the charge without using up any of your "hands"? Then in round 2, you can use a manufactured, Two-handed weapon to full attack, while still continuing to hold the charge?
I always thought the hand that you needed free to cast the spell, needed to remain free until the spell was discharged...
Wait a second....
Holding the Charge:
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal
you must be holding the charge in a specific limb (the one used to cast the spell) - other wise it would go off instantly and you couldn't hold it in the first place - since it is unlikely your character is flying in the air in his birthday suit.
There is no such thing a 'holding a charge in a limb' the charge is held by the spell caster, not any particular part of their body.I think that there might be such a thing.
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
I think this is simply an issue of the conversational tone getting in the way of how it actually works mechanically. i.e, don't read to much into that wording of 'hand'. Because clearly the magus could also pick up a weapon with his "other" hand and still deliver his spell through that weapon with spellstrike.
The rules on held charges make no reference to specific limbs. The rules on spellstrike make no mention of specific limb holding a weapon. The rule while holding a charge is simply "make a touch attack, natural attack, or unarmed attack to deliver the charge".
Can I make a natural attack or unarmed attack and choose to not deliver the charge? Can I open a door with my "other" hand and not discharge into the door handle? I don't think so, as that would fall under the touching another creature/object while holding the charge (which has its own problems in the language, which I'll get to in a bit).
@Oddman90
What happens if I cast a spell and choose to store it in my left hand. Does it fry my glove on that hand? Okay, fine, store it in my head limb instead. Fries my headband of intellect? No matter what limb you "move" the charge to there is a good chance you are wearing something on that limb. So while not stated, the rules seem to allow that anything you are currently wearing, or holding, does not trigger the held charge. This makes sense given that your gear, for the purposes of many rules interactions, is a part of you. Likewise standing on the ground does not discharge your spell, even though it would be perfectly valid for a character to use a kick unarmed attack to deliver that same spell. And that unarmed kick could be done either barefooted or while wearing boots - and still deliver the charge to the target of your attack - and not discharge into either your boot or the ground you were standing on.
Now to the problematic part of held charges "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
The bolded part should probably just be excised from the text IMO. Otherwise we go back to frying things we are currently holding, the ground we are standing on, or my favorite, frying arrows we get shot with. If someone attacks me do I fry their sword? If they use an unarmed attack against me do they get zapped in return?
The intent seems to be when the holder of the charge is acting, then the charge can be delivered, but if someone else is acting on the holder then it cannot.
On either side you've got some problematic issues that don't fit with the actual rules text. In this case I feel the dropping of "even unintentionally" leaves us with fewer problems than inventing new rules about charges held in specific limbs does.
you must be holding the charge in a specific limb (the one used to cast the spell)
One extra note on this.
I think every magus character disagrees with this. Clearly the free hand required during spell combat is the one used to cast the spell. Yet clearly they use the weapon in their other hand to deliver it via spellstrike.
@bbangerter - The magus is clearly an exception. The entire class is about channeling touch spell into their hands and then through their weapons.
but the OP was asking about non-maguses. reformatting his questions you have the following:
1) If I'm not a magus, what happens if I cast a second touch spell while I'm holding the charge of a previously cast touch spell?
2) If I'm not a magus, and I am wielding a weapon while attempting to hold a charge of a touch spell? Does the fact that I am holding a weapon discharge the spell?
3) If I'm not a magus, and I'm holding the charge of a touch spell, and I attack someone with a wielded weapon, can I continue holding the charge?
4) If I'm not a magus, and I'm holding the charge of a touch spell, and I attack someone with a wielded weapon, can I simultaneously attempt to discharge the spell I am holding on the target?
My answers to these questions would be:
1) You lose the first touch spell - it just fizzles away. no damage is dealt to you or anyone else from that original spell
2) If it is a light or one handed weapon being wielded in one hand, nothing happens unless you put a second hand on the weapon (i.e., try to wield it with two hands). By placing a second hand on the weapon, you are touching it, and that causes the spell to discharge - which could result in damage to your weapon.
3) Yes. As long as the attack is made with a manufactured weapon that you were already wielding when you first cast the spell, you can continue holding the charge. If you draw a weapon while holding the charge, the spell will discharge upon making contact with the weapon (potentially damaging the weapon). Additionally, if you are holding the charge and attack with a natural attack or an unarmed strike, the spell would discharge on your target if you succeeded in your attack roll.
4) Typically - no (but there are some exceptions). This is an ability that is, for the most part unique to the magus. Making a touch attack is a standard action, and making a melee attack is typically also a standard action, and so the two cannot be done on the same turn. However, if you had iterative attacks, or were two weapon fighting, you could make your first attack with your wielded weapon, and then make a second attack as an unarmed strike against the target's full AC (which would deliver the touch spell upon success attack roll). If you had the tripping line of feats and vicious stomp, you could even make the weapon attack as an attack of opportunity, and use it to trip your target, hit them with the weapon attack gained form Greater trip, then deliver the free unarmed strike from vicious stomp, and thereby discharge the held touch spell into the target as well...
I agree with all of those answers to the questions. I was merely discussing the side tangent of a held charge being applied to a certain limb. The rules simply do not support the concept of a held charge is in a certain limb. So no the magus is not an exception. The magus held charges work just like other caster held charges - except in regards to spellstrike is the exception made to the general rules of held charges.
Because that does result in some problems with the "even unintentionally" aspect of held charges some players infer/make up rules that there must be a specific limb. That however contradicts with a much greater number of cases on held charges and their use though then the "even unintentionally" language causes.