Spell Use: Flames of the Faithful

[halig feax]

For context, our inquisitor was wanting to cast this spell on our paladin's weapon.

My party came across an interesting section of wording in this spell which seems to contradict itself:

"With a touch, you cause a glowing rune to appear on a single weapon, granting that weapon the flaming property (and allowing it to cause an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit). If you are using the judgment class feature, your weapon gains the flaming burst property instead. The spell functions only for weapons that you wield. If the weapon leaves your hand for any reason, the spell effect ends. The effects of this spell do not stack with any existing flaming or flaming burst weapon property that the target weapon may already possess."

However, the spell has a range of touch and a target of weapon touched.

By the text of the spell, does this mean that the spell is actually personal only?

Thanks for reading, and for any insight.

[Valandil Ancalime]

halig feax wrote:

By the text of the spell, does this mean that the spell is actually personal only?

No, it is not "Personal" as the target is a weapon. But it does what is says it does and it only works on weapons you wield. That is not a contradiction, that's just how the spell works. Can you cast it on the paladins weapon, yes. But then the spell would end immediately because it is not in your possession.

Hmm, could you cast it on a siege weapon and as long as the caster was touching the weapon could someone else fire it?

[halig feax]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

Hmm, could you cast it on a siege weapon and as long as the caster was touching the weapon could someone else fire it?

Makes sense, and the verbiage agrees with the mechanics. Just seems a bit odd to make the spell that susceptible to misinterpretation.

That's a good question! If the inquisitor is using the weapon, and since there isn't a size limitation in the spell's wording, it seems like something that could be done.