View Full Version : Still Touch Spell

2008-03-07, 04:28 PM
I'm looking at the possibility of a cleric with the Still Spell feat--this should permit him to cast in combat and yet be as heavily armoured and armed (and shielded) as I envision him.

But a thought comes up. How do touch spells work when stilled? Is a free hand still necessary for the 'touch' of a spell with no somatic components? Can he use his shield/mace/booted foot to make the touch instead of holding the spell by hand? Or would it be fair to simply assume a 5' range to the spell?

How would you adjudicate this situation? Is there a clarification somewhere outside the PHB?

Human Paragon 3
2008-03-07, 04:31 PM
I would say he needs an open hand to touch his opponent, as it is pretty clear that the spell is transmited via touch. He could have a shield that's strapped to his arm so he can touch without dropping either impliment. Similarly, if he's an npc and you're the DM, you can say that he has the abillity to channel his touch spells through his mace. Why not make a Duskblade, whose main abillity is just that?

2008-03-07, 04:33 PM
Well, it's not an optimal situation, but Quick Draw would let you grip/store your weapon as a free action, allowing you to cast somatic components in armor, and deliver touch spells...

I haven't asked myself this question yet, and that bothers me a bit... It should have occured to me.

IIRC, by RAW, you probably would need to physically touch them (not using a weapon...), but this might be something good to ask your DM. I'd say that I would have no problem with the Cleric delivering Stilled touch spells with his shield/mace/foot, as long as he doesn't combine it with regular attacks... I might impose a small penalty to the touch attack... I'm not sure.

2008-03-07, 04:36 PM
Touching someone to complete the casting of a spell is not a somatic component. You must still touch the target even if the spell is Stilled. (If you don't, then you are considered to be holding the charge.)

That being said, Clerics do not suffer from arcane spell failure (since their spells are, in fact, divine), but I guess the issue is that you want to use a weapon and a shield at once and still want to be able to cast spells? Still Spell would help there, I guess, but I believe you still need a free hand to touch somebody with.

Hmm.. after a quick look at my PHB, it doesn't specifically say you need a free hand to cast touch spells with, just that you have to touch the target or targets. I dunno, you'll have to ask your DM on that one.

Edit: Ninja'd! :smalleek:

2008-03-07, 04:39 PM
If you use a 2-handed weapon, you can grab and drop it with one hand as a free action.

2008-03-07, 04:58 PM
Consider that you can have spells with no somatic component which nonetheless have "Range: Touch". Removing the somatic component from a spell would therefore still leave it as touch-range. Whether you would need to actually touch the target with an empty hand, I don't know. It seems reasonable to me that you could deliver the touch through a held implement so long as it doesn't apply any additional effect (i.e., you could touch them with a weapon but couldn't deal weapon damage in doing so) or extend your reach (no channeling touch spells through ten-foot poles!), or that you could deliver the touch with your hand, while holding a weapon, so long as you didn't use the weapon in that turn.