[3.5] Can "Touching" mean by any body part?

[ShadeBlade0]

As part of the Dragon Shaman from PHB2, it says that Touch of Vitality can "heal the wounds of living creatures by touch." Since my character will be wielding two shields, does this touch have to be with her hands? Could I use this to gently kick someone back to life?


Edit: "Woot, kicking people back to life ftw! Thanks mates."

[Nifft]

1 - Wearing a shield doesn't prevent you from touching someone. Just put a shield arm "around" the person, or extend your arm such that the shield is facing towards your back, and then use your hand (possibly while still gripping the shield).

2 - Yeah, you can use any body part. Grab a tentacle symbiote or a tail graft for extra options.

[flappeercraft]

By definition touch is "To come in contact with"
So by Definition: Yes
By RAI: Probable Yes
By RAW: No rule on it so by default go to definition and therefore yes

[Ashtagon]

Wielding a weapon doesn't actually prevent touching with a hand in any case, although it may make a hand-touch more awkward, as you'd have to turn your hand and arm so that the shield was facing away from both you and the other person.

In other news, there is also no requirement that skin contact be involved, as touch spells still work if either character is wearing a full body-encompassing suit of armour.

My (probably house rule) take on "touch spell" is that it must involve either skin or "clothing/armour worn over skin". So you couldn't normally deliver such a spell with your quarterstaff or by touching their shield, but your gauntleted hand could touch their back while they are wearing plate mail armour.

[Anxe]

It's a gray area. "A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else." Does that mean you can't use touch attacks? Does it mean you can deliver touch spells to allies, but not use touch attacks? Does it just mean you can't hold anything in the hand that's holding the shield?

[Ashtagon]

According to the book that WotC changed the OGL to retroactively ban (it had erotic in the title), a touch spell doesn't actually have to be delivered by hand anyway.

[NontheistCleric]

According to the book that WotC changed the OGL to retroactively ban (it had erotic in the title), a touch spell doesn't actually have to be delivered by hand anyway.

Of course, if it is banned, retroactively or not, its opinion on the matter shouldn't really count. That aside, though, if the ability only specifies touch, there's no good reason it couldn't be used with a body part apart from the hands.

[weckar]

As Always my sources fail me, but I recall an example (in I think one of the Completes) of a grappled wizard reaching out with her foot to touch an ally and teleport both of them away.

[Wraith]

Were this my game, I'd argue that you wouldn't necessarily have to touch the target with your hand, BUT you would still need to consider whether or not the spell had a somatic component. Unless you were a race that was specifically stated to have some kind of dextrous limbs other than your hands - ape-like feet, for example - I would be asking questions as to whether or not the bigger issue would be how you're casting with your hands full of shields.

Are you going to Still Spell everything? If so, fair enough. Head-butting people in the face and calling it Inflict Critical Wounds sounds like a lot of fun, and that's what counts in the end. :smallbiggrin:

[Ashtagon]

Of course, if it is banned, retroactively or not, its opinion on the matter shouldn't really count. That aside, though, if the ability only specifies touch, there's no good reason it couldn't be used with a body part apart from the hands.

iirc by RAW, the charge is "held" in a designated hand, and the wizard needs to be careful not to touch anything with that hand, lest they accidentally discharge the spell onto the touched thing. That interpretation isn't compatible with the "any part of the body" interpretation.

[Mordaedil]

Note that D&D considers this sufficient physical proximity to count as a "touch attack".

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/ToMagic_Gallery/96090.jpg

Clearly you don't have to be physically in touch with the subject, just close enough to be. I find this image helpful for imagining how things like healing spells and the like also looks.

[Ashtagon]

Note that D&D considers this sufficient physical proximity to count as a "touch attack".

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/ToMagic_Gallery/96090.jpg

Clearly you don't have to be physically in touch with the subject, just close enough to be. I find this image helpful for imagining how things like healing spells and the like also looks.

For context, that picture is from Tome of Magic (p153), illustrating the umbral touch spell, and captioned "Umbral touch turns Eveneth’s hand into a deadly weapon". The spell is indeed a touch attack spell in the description.

However, there's nothing anywhere that says artwork has any bearing on rules interpretation.

[Mordaedil]

For context, that picture is from Tome of Magic (p153), illustrating the umbral touch spell, and captioned "Umbral touch turns Eveneth’s hand into a deadly weapon". The spell is indeed a touch attack spell in the description.

However, there's nothing anywhere that says artwork has any bearing on rules interpretation.

To be sure, it has no game application, it's pure fluff.

But it's helpful visual fluff as I've always prior to that image, imagined every touch spell as a really awkward grab of the other person. Now I can imagine shocking grasp as the emperors lightning instead, just a short range burst of lightning from the hand.

[NontheistCleric]

iirc by RAW, the charge is "held" in a designated hand, and the wizard needs to be careful not to touch anything with that hand, lest they accidentally discharge the spell onto the touched thing. That interpretation isn't compatible with the "any part of the body" interpretation.

I read the SRD on holding the charge for a touch spell. As far as I could see nothing specified that it had to be held in a hand, and in fact, the example given of using a natural weapon to deliver the spell supports the theory that a hand is not needed as not all natural weapons are hands.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

According to the Spell Flower spell you hold the charge in your hands.


Spell Flower

(Spell Compendium, p. 198)

Transmutation
Level: Cleric 1, Sorcerer 1, Wizard 1, Spellthief 1,
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level

Joining mysterious phrases with the simple motion of flexing your fingers, you imbue your hands with receptive magical energy that crackles and glows a soft orange.
You are able to hold the charge for one touch spell per arm of your body as long as you don't use a changed limb to cast another spell or touch anything with it. Each touch spell you cast resides in a different forelimb. For the duration of this spell, any touch spells you cast are discharged only if you cast another spell with that forelimb or touch something with that forelimb.
For example, a human sorcerer casts this spell, then casts chill touch and holds the charge in his left hand, then casts shocking grasp and holds the charge in his right hand. Because of the spell flower, he can hold the charge on both of these spells at the same time. If he casts another spell with a somatic component (which requires the use of one of his hands), he immediately loses one of his held touch spells (his choice), but if the spell he casts is also a touch spell, he can immediately hold the charge in the available hand. If he chooses to attack with a touch spell, it works normally. Since he has multiple limbs that are considered armed, he can make an off-hand attack with the other touch spell in the same round, with the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons (PH 160).
A marilith spellcaster could do the same as the sorcerer in the previous example, except that she could hold the charge on up to six touch spells. She could also use any of her spell-like or supernatural bilities, since those do not interfere with holding a charge.
If the spell flower effect ends, the most recent touch spell cast remains as a held charge and all other held spells dissipate.

[Nifft]

RAW you can deliver a touch spell with an Unarmed Strike.

RAW an Unarmed Strike is any part of your body.

RAW you can deliver a touch spell with any part of your body. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

[NontheistCleric]

According to the Spell Flower spell you hold the charge in your hands.


Spell Flower

(Spell Compendium, p. 198)

Transmutation
Level: Cleric 1, Sorcerer 1, Wizard 1, Spellthief 1,
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level

Joining mysterious phrases with the simple motion of flexing your fingers, you imbue your hands with receptive magical energy that crackles and glows a soft orange.
You are able to hold the charge for one touch spell per arm of your body as long as you don't use a changed limb to cast another spell or touch anything with it. Each touch spell you cast resides in a different forelimb. For the duration of this spell, any touch spells you cast are discharged only if you cast another spell with that forelimb or touch something with that forelimb.
For example, a human sorcerer casts this spell, then casts chill touch and holds the charge in his left hand, then casts shocking grasp and holds the charge in his right hand. Because of the spell flower, he can hold the charge on both of these spells at the same time. If he casts another spell with a somatic component (which requires the use of one of his hands), he immediately loses one of his held touch spells (his choice), but if the spell he casts is also a touch spell, he can immediately hold the charge in the available hand. If he chooses to attack with a touch spell, it works normally. Since he has multiple limbs that are considered armed, he can make an off-hand attack with the other touch spell in the same round, with the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons (PH 160).
A marilith spellcaster could do the same as the sorcerer in the previous example, except that she could hold the charge on up to six touch spells. She could also use any of her spell-like or supernatural bilities, since those do not interfere with holding a charge.
If the spell flower effect ends, the most recent touch spell cast remains as a held charge and all other held spells dissipate.

The spell changes the mechanics of charge-holding to something that involves hands. That doesn't prove anything about touch spells in general or how their charges are usually held.


RAW you can deliver a touch spell with an Unarmed Strike.

RAW an Unarmed Strike is any part of your body.

RAW you can deliver a touch spell with any part of your body. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Ashtagon already made that joke many posts ago.

[Nifft]

Ashtagon already made that joke many posts ago.

"Nudge nudge, wink wink" is actually a reference to a Monty Python sketch, in which the same innuendo is made repeatedly.

But that's not particularly important. The important thing is the RAW discussion.

[Pleh]

The spell changes the mechanics of charge-holding to something that involves hands. That doesn't prove anything about touch spells in general or how their charges are usually held.

Actually, it could rather reasonably be argued that because this spell makes an exception to limit the touch delivery method that this implies the default is specifically not specified.

[NontheistCleric]

Actually, it could rather reasonably be argued that because this spell makes an exception to limit the touch delivery method that this implies the default is specifically not specified.

I don't see how this is an argument with my statement. In fact, it seems as if we are arguing similar points. So I'm a little confused at why you quoted me.

[Pleh]

Is the forum so combatitive and antagonistic that we can't quote each other to agree or build upon each other's points? That was my intention.

It seemed easier to quote your words than to write a bunch of sentences to declare that I wanted to expound upon your point.

[Nifft]

Is the forum so combatitive and antagonistic that we can't quote each other to agree or build upon each other's points? That was my intention.

It seemed easier to quote your words than to write a bunch of sentences to declare that I wanted to expound upon your point.

It may be the word "actually" -- it's frequently used as a form of contradiction.

If you kick off a post with "Actually, ..." or "Except ..." then you're setting a tone that's both one of contradiction, and a bit confrontational.

You can avoid this if you preface your support with an unambiguous agreement.

Stuff like:
- "Indeed, and actually ___"
- "Yes, and additionally ___"
- "Agree, and furthermore ___"
- "Quite true, and moreover ___"

[NontheistCleric]

Is the forum so combatitive and antagonistic that we can't quote each other to agree or build upon each other's points? That was my intention.

It seemed easier to quote your words than to write a bunch of sentences to declare that I wanted to expound upon your point.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's just that when you quote someone and then start of with 'Actually, it could rather reasonably be argued', it comes off like the start of an argument. Which you then followed up by agreeing with me, so I was confused.

[JNAProductions]

As part of the Dragon Shaman from PHB2, it says that Touch of Vitality can "heal the wounds of living creatures by touch." Since my character will be wielding two shields, does this touch have to be with her hands? Could I use this to gently kick someone back to life?

RAW and RAI, I believe yes.

I'd certainly allow it at my table, though of course, your mileage may vary. Ask your DM.