|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the rules for somatic casting on pg. 196 and then emblazon weapon on pg. 122 got me thinking about action economy.
If I strike a foe with a weapon that has the emblazon weapon effect on it, does this fulfill the somatic component of a touch spell, such as harm? If so then could it then be cast as part of the melee attack without consuming an action? It would need a separate attack using spell attack to hit I imagine.
I'm not sure if this combo is intended or not, or if I have missed another rule to prevent a 0 action spell cast.
I would rule that they do not as the "Strike" action is distinct and separate from the actions used to cast a spell. Think of the difference in stabbing someone versus waggling your fingers like every spellcaster does in popular media.
What the Emblazon Spell is doing is making an object (in this case a weapon) into a focus for spellcasting so that you do not need another focus or a component pouch (and thus would not need a free hand). Its also giving you a small status bonus buff.
Unless specifically stated generally you cannot double dip into the action economy to make any type of defined physical action (like a Strike) into a somatic spell action.
I agree with Goldryno.
In terms of narrative it might be a sword slash + harm spell, but mechanically these things are taking up two separate actions in the character's turn. As far as I know P2e has gotten rid of the "hold a charge" thing from 1e, so delivering a touch spell is part of the action to cast it, however that might look in the game world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially asking to use Channel Smite without having to take Channel Smite? That's pretty obviously not intended. I also don't think that a strike fulfills the requirements of a somatic component, because a providing a somatic component is a manipulate action and a strike is not. Making them openly interchangeable would not play well with grappling rules.
Also, what does Emblazon Weapon have to do with this? Nothing about emblazon weapon indicates the weapon replaces somatic components. The weapon becomes a divine focus and a divine focus replaces MATERIAL components.
If you’re a cleric Casting a Spell from the divine tradition
while holding a divine focus (such as a religious symbol or
text), you can replace any material component the spell
requires by using the divine focus as a focus component
instead.
Emblazon weapon saves you from having to switch items around or drop your weapon if your second hand is unable to present your focus or provide material components, like if you've got a shield strapped on it.
|
|
So a different or additional motion with the weapon is required for the component, then touch the foe?
I apologize for the misuse of "deliver", I didn't mean to imply that the harm spell was stored. The intention was to fulfill the somatic component of harm by hitting a foe with the weapon as the first action in the round, effectively hitting with the sword and casting at the same time.
I suppose by action mechanics the spell casting action and the striking action would still be separate actions. The spell can't become a 0-cost action, right?
Correct. There would need to be an additional action (if you need to visualize something think of when an anime character holds his sword to the sky to power it up or channel energy through it) and then he would have to touch the enemy. There is no way I can think of to make this spell cost 0 actions (and that is probably intentional from the design team).
The number of actions to cast a spell is the number of actions to cast a spell.
The number of actions to cast a spell is not the number of components to cast a spell. The 2 numbers often match, but removing one component does not remove one action.
The idea that you could get a free action discount on your spell by attacking is completely wrong.