|
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.
Partially, it is a matter of interpretation of the "flavor" text, but the blade is "immaterial" and "springs forth from your hand". You aren't gripping it.
At the same time, anything that is in that hand would be subject to the fire damage.My interpretation is that you can move the hand (as an example, to perform the somatic component of a spell) and even pick up or manipulate items, if they can withstand the damage, but generally doing that will "use up" the hand, negating your ability to attack.
As the blade is wielded, the hand doesn't count as free for abilities that require a free hand if you use the blade in the same round.
Knowing what you want to do would help you get a more extensive reply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.
It is wielded as if it were a scimitar. Is your hand free while wielding a scimitar? No. So it's not free while wielding the flame blade.
That means no somatic components with this hand, no wielding of other weapons and no benefit of anything requiring this hand to be free.
And you can't drop or sheathe the flame blade to temporarily free up the hand, like you could with a normal blade, but you get to attack touch AC with it.
I image it like you cast the spell and the flame blade springs from your hand. Then you have "to wield it like a scimitar" to keep the blade manifested.
However since the spell is not (D) dismissable and has a fixed duration RAW it would stay regardless of what you do with the hand. That would support Diego's point.
If I were the DM I would propably rule that as long as the Spell persists, that hand is occupied.
As it specifically mentions wielded as if it were a scimitar one could argue if things like weapon focus (scimitar) would apply, but that would be a different topic.
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.It is wielded as if it were a scimitar. Is your hand free while wielding a scimitar? No. So it's not free while wielding the flame blade.
That means no somatic components with this hand, no wielding of other weapons and no benefit of anything requiring this hand to be free.
And you can't drop or sheathe the flame blade to temporarily free up the hand, like you could with a normal blade, but you get to attack touch AC with it.
I image it like you cast the spell and the flame blade springs from your hand. Then you have "to wield it like a scimitar" to keep the blade manifested.
However since the spell is not (D) dismissable and has a fixed duration RAW it would stay regardless of what you do with the hand. That would support Diego's point.
If I were the DM I would propably rule that as long as the Spell persists, that hand is occupied.
As it specifically mentions wielded as if it were a scimitar one could argue if things like weapon focus (scimitar) would apply, but that would be a different topic.
Carrying on the "Wielded as a scimitar". I would rule that just like a scimitar it can be put down, but would end as it is no longer in your possession. As it's duration can be quite long, I am sure many players would want to be rid of it after combat, and this seems like a fair method.
Personally, I would consider this as falling under the holding a charge rules. Those rules state that if you touch anything else while holding a charge the spell dissipates. Flame Blade is a touch spell but has a set duration so cannot be held indefinably, but other than that should follow the rules on touch spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest thing to do is to say "Yes your hand is occupied." Otherwise - because the player has fire in their hand you have to make ruling after ruling depending on what the player is trying to do.
1) "I want to read a scroll." Hmmm. The flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment.
2) "I want to cast a spell." Hmmm. Would it ignite your component pouch when you dipped your hand inside? What happens if your somatic gesture happens to include pointing toward yourself?
3) "I want to pick up my unconscious ally." Hmmm. Fire damage?
|
|
The simplest thing to do is to say "Yes your hand is occupied." Otherwise - because the player has fire in their hand you have to make ruling after ruling depending on what the player is trying to do.
1) "I want to read a scroll." Hmmm. The flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment.
2) "I want to cast a spell." Hmmm. Would it ignite your component pouch when you dipped your hand inside? What happens if your somatic gesture happens to include pointing toward yourself?
3) "I want to pick up my unconscious ally." Hmmm. Fire damage?
This is a very valid counterargument. For once, I was willing to be lenient in favour of the player, but mostly because my group could handle that kind of consequence.
|
|
the casting requirements are rather basic (it should say "personal" rather than 0).
No, zero is the right range.
Zero-range spells are a bit of a hack. They are spells that are intended to appear where the caster is but because they can go on to damage, affect, or be used by other people or objects they don't fit into the personal range category. Because the overall "personal" descriptor says "The spell only affects you." And because most of them create something - even if the school is not conjuration - then touch is not the right range either (since there's nothing to touch until you cast the spell).