touch attacks with your hands full

[odigity]

A friend of mine is playing a Beguiler with rapier in one hand and whip in the other. He has a wand in a wand chamber in the rapier.

We've been trying to figure this out for hours, and can't get a definitive answer. If he casts a touch spell (himself or with the wand), can he use one of his hands to deliver it? I know he can't deliver it *with* the weapon (he's not a Duskblade or Swordspell), but can he touch someone with a fist despite the fact that the fist also contains a rapier handle? Or does he need to drop a weapon just to make that touch attack?

(The reason he's got a whip is so he can be "in melee" at 15' and meet the RAW requirements to use feint. That mechanic is very strangely delineated.)

[Marnath]

Punching someone in the face during combat is a perfectly valid technique. That's part of the reason some swords have the basket around the handle, also for protection.

[Crake]

A friend of mine is playing a Beguiler with rapier in one hand and whip in the other. He has a wand in a wand chamber in the rapier.

We've been trying to figure this out for hours, and can't get a definitive answer. If he casts a touch spell (himself or with the wand), can he use one of his hands to deliver it? I know he can't deliver it *with* the weapon (he's not a Duskblade or Swordspell), but can he touch someone with a fist despite the fact that the fist also contains a rapier handle? Or does he need to drop a weapon just to make that touch attack?

(The reason he's got a whip is so he can be "in melee" at 15' and meet the RAW requirements to use feint. That mechanic is very strangely delineated.)

The rules seem to say you can hold a touch spell's charge indefinitely until you cast another spell. So if you can somehow cast your touch spell without the free hand required for the somatic component (or it doesn't have one) then I don't see any problem with making a touch attack with a hand with a weapon in it, despite that sounding really silly. The other option is a spell storing weapon, but that has a spell level limit I believe.

[Flickerdart]

Nothing in the rules about touch spells (at least on the SRD) says that you must use your hands. Deliver your next spell with a swift kick to the shins, headbutt, or inappropriately close pelvic thrust.

[LTwerewolf]

Nothing in the rules about touch spells (at least on the SRD) says that you must use your hands. Deliver your next spell with a swift kick to the shins, headbutt, or inappropriately close pelvic thrust.

Someone needs to make a monk/duskblade combo that delivers his touch spells through a full UAS with their...

[MesiDoomstalker]

I had a cleric who delivered her touch spells (to allies) with a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig smooch. She was buxomy broad and so fun to play.

[Namfuak]

Someone needs to make a monk/duskblade combo that delivers his touch spells through a full UAS with their...

Brother Phil the Inappropriate. I'm going to make this tomorrow.

[Duke of Urrel]

The only difficulty I see is in casting the spell in the first place. You need one hand free to cast any spell that has a somatic component, as most spells do. If you're holding a weapon in each hand, then you can't cast most spells, unless you use the Still Spell feat or its equivalent.

If you have one hand free and you use it to cast a touch spell, then you lose the spell as soon as you draw a weapon with this hand, because touching anything with a charged hand discharges the touch spell.

So the problem that you need to solve is how to cast a touch spell with your hands full. Once you've done that, I think it's okay to deliver your touch spell with a hand that holds a weapon, but not with the weapon itself.

I would be surprised if many DMs accepted the idea that a touch spell can be delivered with any part of the body the spellcaster chooses. Most parts of the body, apart from the arms and legs, have no reach. Head-butting is hard to execute outside of grappling, which requires the use of your hands. Making one of your feet the carrier of a magical charge is a bad idea, because it requires you to hop on one foot to avoid discharging your touch spell into the ground until you approach within kicking range of your opponent.

[Rubik]

Someone needs to make a monk/duskblade combo that delivers his touch spells through a full UAS with their...BAD TOUCH! BAD TOUCH!

[Mari01]

The only difficulty I see is in casting the spell in the first place. You need one hand free to cast any spell that has a somatic component, as most spells do. If you're holding a weapon in each hand, then you can't cast most spells, unless you use the Still Spell feat or its equivalent.

If you have one hand free and you use it to cast a touch spell, then you lose the spell as soon as you draw a weapon with this hand, because touching anything with a charged hand discharges the touch spell.

So the problem that you need to solve is how to cast a touch spell with your hands full. Once you've done that, I think it's okay to deliver your touch spell with a hand that holds a weapon, but not with the weapon itself.

I would be surprised if many DMs accepted the idea that a touch spell can be delivered with any part of the body the spellcaster chooses. Most parts of the body, apart from the arms and legs, have no reach. Head-butting is hard to execute outside of grappling, which requires the use of your hands. Making one of your feet the carrier of a magical charge is a bad idea, because it requires you to hop on one foot to avoid discharging your touch spell into the ground until you approach within kicking range of your opponent.

Did you read at all? He said the guy used a wand chamber.

[Duke of Urrel]

Okay, granted: I didn't read very well.

But the problem still remains. You can't discharge magic from a wand chamber. You have to discharge it from the wand itself. In order to do that, you have to take the wand out of the chamber, don't you? Just as you have to take a dagger out of its sheath before you can fight with it.

[Flickerdart]

A wand chamber isn't just a hole you stick your wand into. It's a specific item modification that allows the use of a wand while it's inside.

[Yuki Akuma]

Okay, granted: I didn't read very well.

But the problem still remains. You can't discharge magic from a wand chamber. You have to discharge it from the wand itself. In order to do that, you have to take the wand out of the chamber, don't you? Just as you have to take a dagger out of its sheath before you can fight with it.

A wand chamber is a special modification to a weapon that lets you use the weapon like a wand, essentially. They're explicitly for situations like this, where you want to use a wand and don't have a free hand.

[Duke of Urrel]

I suppose I should thank you all for introducing me to wand chambers! But even if they exist and your dungeon master allows them, there's one more problem.

You're expecting to be able to bestow a touch spell upon yourself through a rapier. This involves taking a standard action to point this very sharp mêlée weapon at yourself. That has to provoke attacks of opportunity, or your dungeon master has fallen asleep, I think.

Conceivably, in a world in which you can discharge spells from wands through mêlée weapons, it's an added feature that the wand simply bestows touch spells on the weapon itself, so that you can discharge the spell simply by attacking with the weapon. That goes two steps beyond anything that I would allow, but hey, that's just me.

[mishka_shaw]

I suppose I should thank you all for introducing me to wand chambers! But even if they exist and your dungeon master allows them, there's one more problem.

You're expecting to be able to bestow a touch spell upon yourself through a rapier. This involves taking a standard action to point this very sharp mêlée weapon at yourself. That has to provoke attacks of opportunity, or your dungeon master has fallen asleep, I think.

Conceivably, in a world in which you can discharge spells from wands through mêlée weapons, it's an added feature that the wand simply bestows touch spells on the weapon itself, so that you can discharge the spell simply by attacking with the weapon. That goes two steps beyond anything that I would allow, but hey, that's just me.

The wand chamber just allows you to skip your attack to use a wand, it doesn't require a logical dismantling of its purpose. Also you can't attack and wand at the same time unless you have some sort of swift action wand thingy.

[odigity]

So if you can somehow cast your touch spell without the free hand required for the somatic component (or it doesn't have one) then I don't see any problem with making a touch attack with a hand with a weapon in it, despite that sounding really silly.

Don't need somatic components if using the wand to cast the spell, so that works.


Nothing in the rules about touch spells (at least on the SRD) says that you must use your hands. Deliver your next spell with a swift kick to the shins, headbutt, or inappropriately close pelvic thrust.

So when it comes to touch spells, everyone's a monk? :) That's convenient.


The wand chamber just allows you to skip your attack to use a wand, it doesn't require a logical dismantling of its purpose. Also you can't attack and wand at the same time unless you have some sort of swift action wand thingy.

Wand activation takes the same amount of time as it would to cast the wand's spell yourself. So, if you get wands of swift action spells (like Wraithstrike), then it's a swift action to activate the wand. Only thing the wand chamber contributes is being able to act is if you had the wand in hand, despite also having your weapon in hand.

(For those interested, there's also a crossbow with two built-in wand chambers in the 3.0 Arms & Equipment Guide. And a Rod of Many Wands in the Magic Item Compendium.)

As for Duke of Urrel, I'd reply to your posts if I could make sense of any of them. :) Still, glad I can clue you into wand chambers. You can find the details on page 34 of the Dungeonscape book.

[Slipperychicken]

I cast my vote for headbutt.

[Ashtagon]

Are there any touch spells that don't have a somatic component? iirc, one of the requirements for somatic components is that you must have a free hand, which isn't the case if you have a weapon in each hand.

[Marnath]

Are there any touch spells that don't have a somatic component? iirc, one of the requirements for somatic components is that you must have a free hand, which isn't the case if you have a weapon in each hand.

Wand chambers.:smallsigh:
You're the second person to skip right by that. :smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Wand chambers.:smallsigh:
You're the second person to skip right by that. :smalltongue:

I didn't skip right by that. Normally you need to be holding the wand, and wand chambers allow the wand to be mounted inside the weapon/shield instead. But nothing about the wand chamber removes the need for a somatic component where such a component would normally exists without the wand's item limitations.

[Flickerdart]

"Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed..."

Nope.

[Duke of Urrel]

I sympathize with you, Ashtagon. Neither one of us seems to know how to use a wand in a wand chamber. I promise to educate myself on the matter before I issue another blanket judgement either for or against the whole idea of wand chambers.

I never assumed that activating a wand generally required an elaborate hand motion. If this were the case, then the act of activating a wand would probably provoke attacks of opportunity, just as casting a spell does. (One of my peculiarities is my refusal to refer to the act of activating a wand or discharging a spell from it as "casting." Using a wand and casting a spell are not the same action at all.)

However, I believe that at a minimum, discharging a spell from a wand means pointing the wand in the general direction of its target. This is why I still have a problem with the notion that you can store a wand in a wand chamber and then use that wand to discharge a spell upon yourself – for example a touch spell that bestows a magical charge upon some extremity of your body (preferably a hand) that you release by touching some target with this extremity. This would mean turning the entire wand chamber, weapon and all, 180° around, toward yourself. Doing that with a rapier must be a risky move to execute in combat, so I propose that it provokes attacks of opportunity. Doing that with a crossbow would be equally clumsy – and possibly dangerous if the crossbow is loaded.

[navar100]

Nothing in the rules about touch spells (at least on the SRD) says that you must use your hands. Deliver your next spell with a swift kick to the shins, headbutt, or inappropriately close pelvic thrust.

That would really drive you insane.

[Duke of Urrel]

"Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed..."

Correct.

But surely you must point a wand in the general direction of its target in order to activate it?

Otherwise, there would be no need for a wand chamber in anything, because anybody with the ability to activate wands would be able to do so simply by touching one. It wouldn't even be necessary to draw the wand first. You could have a cloak made with rows of deep, narrow pockets, and in each pocket you could store a wand with its butt end sticking out. You could activate any one of these wands simply by touching it and uttering the spell trigger word (which is presumably how you activate a wand that is stored in a wand chamber). You could even touch a pocketed wand with a hand that already held a weapon – and do so without having to point the sharp end of the weapon at yourself. So why waste your money on a wand chamber?

[odigity]

But surely you must point a wand in the general direction of its target in order to activate it?

I've never seen anything in the rules about that -- and I looked, because I have the same question.


Otherwise, there would be no need for a wand chamber in anything, because anybody with the ability to activate wands would be able to do so simply by touching one. It wouldn't even be necessary to draw the wand first. You could have a cloak made with rows of deep, narrow pockets, and in each pocket you could store a wand with its butt end sticking out. You could activate any one of these wands simply by touching it and uttering the spell trigger word (which is presumably how you activate a wand that is stored in a wand chamber). You could even touch a pocketed wand with a hand that already held a weapon – and do so without having to point the sharp end of the weapon at yourself. So why waste your money on a wand chamber?

Sometimes a mechanic is there for game balance instead of realism. I think they want you to have to pay the action cost of drawing a wand in order to benefit from it, or 100gp for a wand chamber in lieu of that, but only for one or two wands at time.

[odigity]

Using a wand and casting a spell are not the same action at all.

That reminds me of another question -- if you use one of your spell slots to power a runestaff to cast a spell you don't know or have prepared, is that like casting it? For example, if I don't know Shield, but I use a slot with a Runestaff of Abjuration to cast Shield, do I get the benefits of the Abjurant Armor class ability from the Abjurant Champion PrC?

[nyjastul69]

I've never seen anything in the rules about that -- and I looked, because I have the same question. It's in the SRD under the general descriptions of wands. Unfortunately I can't link from my phone.

[Debihuman]

From Dungeonscape page. 34 regarding wand chambers: "When a wand is loaded in the chamber, it is considered ready and can be activated without having to drop the shield or weapon."

Did you forget this: "Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity." See Wands.

If he is casting the spell from his wand he doesn't have to drop his weapon. If he is casting a touch spell not using the wand, then he has to drop his weapon.

Debby

[odigity]

It's in the SRD under the general descriptions of wands. Unfortunately I can't link from my phone.

Ah, of course:


To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm

No problem. If it's an offensive spell, load the wand into the chamber pointing forward. If it's a personal buff, load it pointing backwards.

[odigity]

If he is casting a touch spell not using the wand, then he has to drop his weapon.

Of course, but that was not the original question. The question is not about spellcasting, it's about the mechanic for delivering a touch spell cast from a wand in a wand chamber. Because it's the hand that holds the charge, not the weapon, you still need to make a touch attack with your hand. So the question was, can you make a touch attack with a hand containing a weapon, like swiping at someone with your fist, even though your fist contains a sword hilt.

Concensus seems to be: No problem, go ahead.

[Debihuman]

Okay. if the spell is cast through the wand it doesn't matter because it's always a spell trigger from the wand. If you have a wand of shocking grasp, the wand casts it as a spell trigger.

You either are casting a spell normally via touch or using the wand. That's the advantage of using a wand.

Debby

[Yuki Akuma]

Okay. if the spell is cast through the wand it doesn't matter because it's always a spell trigger from the wand. If you have a wand of shocking grasp, the wand casts it as a spell trigger.

You either are casting a spell normally via touch or using the wand. That's the advantage of using a wand.

Debby

What?

A spell trigger item that casts a touch spell still requires you to touch the target.

[Ashtagon]

What?

A spell trigger item that casts a touch spell still requires you to touch the target.

Makes sense.

The wand chamber means you can be holding your weapon/shield instead of wand (which sits inside the chamber).

As a spell trigger item (wand), "casting" the spell is a standard action with no somatic component that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

As a touch spell, "discharging" the spell is a standard action if you aren't discharging the spell in the same action you cast the spell, or part of the casting action if you attempt to touch the target in the same action as you cast the spell.

SRD and Rules Compendium are both silent as to whether an implement can be used to deliver a touch attack (although an unarmed strike or natural weapon will deliver a touch attack spell).

So....

Interpretation (a): You need to make an unarmed strike as you activate the wand (elbow jab? swift kick? pelvic thrust?), or you could hold the spell and deliver an unarmed strike later. But you can't use your weapon or shield to deliver the spell.

Interpretation (b): You can deliver the touch spell with any implement you happen to be holding, dealing the weapon's damage as appropriate.

[Duke of Urrel]

No problem. If it's an offensive spell, load the wand into the chamber pointing forward. If it's a personal buff, load it pointing backwards.

Excellent! It's because of clever solutions like this that I read these threads.

Of course, another reason is that I learn (often by accident) about items such as wand chambers that are found only in non-core rulebooks, none of which I own.

[Yuki Akuma]

Interpretation (b): You can deliver the touch spell with any implement you happen to be holding, dealing the weapon's damage as appropriate.

Considering Duskblades get a class feature explicitly allowing them to deliver touch spells with weapons, I'm pretty sure this is a no-go.

[Flickerdart]

Interpretation (a): You need to make an unarmed strike as you activate the wand (elbow jab? swift kick? pelvic thrust?), or you could hold the spell and deliver an unarmed strike later. But you can't use your weapon or shield to deliver the spell.
There's rules for this. If you're not holding the charge, you must make a melee or ranged touch attack (limb not specified). If you are holding the charge, you may either make a touch attack as normal, or use a melee attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon (no restrictions on kind) to deliver it. So you can cast a spell and then deliver it with a tail slap for all the rules care.

[Ashtagon]

There's rules for this. If you're not holding the charge, you must make a melee or ranged touch attack (limb not specified). If you are holding the charge, you may either make a touch attack as normal, or use a melee attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon (no restrictions on kind) to deliver it. So you can cast a spell and then deliver it with a tail slap for all the rules care.

Well, yeah, that's what i said, except I assumed the character was human -- or at least, one of the core playable races, so no natural attacks.

RAW says you can discharge a spell with a touch attack, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon. Manufactured weapons aren't specifically noted either way, although as another person noted, it would step on the duskblade's toes if manufactured weapons could also deliver the touch spell.

[Debihuman]

A spell trigger item that casts a touch spell still requires you to touch the target.

I think you are wrong about that.


Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Debby

[Duke of Urrel]

I think you are wrong about that.

Everything you quoted is correct, Debihuman, but after you trigger a spell with a magic wand, the spell behaves exactly as it would if you cast it without a wand. Whether you cast a touch spell or use a magic item to activate it, it's still a touch spell. It still imbues your hand (or some other body party) with magic, and you still can discharge this magic only by touching your target.

[The Random NPC]

I'd like to chime in and say that technically you only start holding a charge on the rounds subsequent to casting the spell. So all the rules that apply to holding a charge technically can't be used during the round you cast.
Pro: Holding a weapon doesn't discharge your spell.
Con: You can't use an attack with the spell.

[Duke of Urrel]

RAW says you can discharge a spell with a touch attack, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon. Manufactured weapons aren't specifically noted either way, although as another person noted, it would step on the duskblade's toes if manufactured weapons could also deliver the touch spell.

I appreciate that you have analyzed our problem so clearly, Ashtagon!

Since the wand chamber created this problem, I think it fitting that the wand chamber should solve it. There's a mediating position here that we can make possible with a little house-ruling. Suppose you can install, for a somewhat higher price (to be negotiated later), a deluxe wand chamber that enables you to discharge touch spells through the weapon, duskblade-style.

By fixing the price of this wand-chamber upgrade, we can determine the market price of the duskblade's special ability. (Well, not exactly – because the deluxe wand chamber doesn't confer the touch-spell-weapon power on any weapon besides itself – but almost.)

If a wand-chamber upgrade comes too late to solve this problem for our rapier-wielding beguiler, then maybe he can deliver his touch spell simply by fist-bumping with the hand that holds the rapier.

[The Redwolf]

I think something that good would probably require a weapon enchantment rather than just a higher cost, especially since it does something that's normally specific to a class.

[Duke of Urrel]

I'd like to chime in and say that technically you only start holding a charge on the rounds subsequent to casting the spell. So all the rules that apply to holding a charge technically can't be used during the round you cast.
Pro: Holding a weapon doesn't discharge your spell.
Con: You can't use an attack with the spell.

I agree with you insofar as you never discharge a touch spell upon a weapon that you were already holding in your hand at the time you imbue this hand with a magical charge. If you could never hold a touch spell unless your charged hand touched nothing at all, you wouldn't even be able to cast a touch spell wearing gloves; the gloves would absorb the charge every time.

I would quibble only that there is no other time to start holding a touch spell than immediately after you cast it. The only alternative to holding the spell immediately after you cast it would be releasing it immediately after you cast it. But the rulebooks don't bother to call it "holding the charge" unless you hold it beyond the end of your turn, because it's only at this point that releasing the charge by touching someone starts to count as a separate action, rather than merely as a component of the same standard action as you used to cast the spell.

[Marnath]

Would making the weapon spell storing work? Activate the wand chamber and make the sword your target? Can wands even be used for that, or must it be an actual spell slot?

[Flickerdart]

Spell-storing only requires two things - that a spell must be put into it, and that the person doing the putting-in must be a spellcaster. By RAW, it doesn't require the spell to be cast in order to be inserted.

[Duke of Urrel]

Spell-storing only requires two things - that a spell must be put into it, and that the person doing the putting-in must be a spellcaster. By RAW, it doesn't require the spell to be cast in order to be inserted.

All correct, but there's still a problem: A spell-storing weapon doesn't hold a charge; it stores a spell. Moreover, the spell that the weapon stores can be cast (not discharged) only upon the creature that it hits, if the weapon wielder wishes it, not upon the weapon itself. Presumably our beguiler with the wand-chamber rapier doesn't want to imbue the first enemy he hits with the power to retaliate with a Shocking Grasp.

Here's the relevant text: "Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires." It says "on that creature," not on the weapon itself.

(Here's a case where my preference for saying that magic items "discharge" rather than "cast" spells creates more confusion than it clears up. I suppose we can still say that a spell-storing weapon "activates" a stored spell without confusing this action either with magic-item-free spellcasting or with discharging a touch spell.)

[Yuki Akuma]

I think something that good would probably require a weapon enchantment rather than just a higher cost, especially since it does something that's normally specific to a class.

Why?

Upgrading the wand chamber and upgrading the weapon it's in are not very different. You're still upgrading the weapon, in the end - why does it have to be a weapon enhancement, rather than a wand chamber enhancement?

You could even say it counts towards the maximum number of enhancements the weapon can have, if you want, although there are certainly weapon enhancements that don't.