Vampiric Touch and Grappling

[JNAProductions]

Two things: 1) your touch, and 2) the Melee Spell Attack. Not one thing, but two things.

Again, the alternative is “your touch cannot siphon life force from others to heal your wounds” which isn’t what the RAW states.

And what are the mechanical effects of siphoning life force to heal your wounds?

[RSP]

No I haven't. There are no numbers in that sentence.

You have if you’ve taken that first sentence out of the RAW.

If I’m grabbing someone with my hand, and the touch of that hand can siphon life force from others to heal my wounds, then that hand should very much be siphoning life to heal my wounds, as I’m clearly touching the person I’m grabbing.

Again, look at the alternative.

Player: “my left hand is the VT hand right?

DM: “yeah, we determined your other hand is holding your shield”

Player: “okay and I’m grappling the Orc?”

DM: “yup”

Player: “okay I use VT”

DM: “you’ll have to let go of the Orc with your left hand, to see if you can touch the orc with your left hand.”


That doesn’t make sense.

And what are the mechanical effects of siphoning life force to heal your wounds?

3d6 necrotic, heal half, I’d say.

[JNAProductions]

You have if you’ve taken that first sentence out of the RAW.

If I’m grabbing someone with my hand, and the touch of that hand can siphon life force from others to heal my wounds, then that hand should very much be siphoning life to heal my wounds, as I’m clearly touching the person I’m grabbing.

Again, look at the alternative.

Player: “my left hand is the VT hand right?

DM: “yeah, we determined your other hand is holding your shield”

Player: “okay and I’m grappling the Orc?”

DM: “yup”

Player: “okay I use VT”

DM: “you’ll have to let go of the Orc with your left hand, to see if you can touch the orc with your left hand.”


That doesn’t make sense.

"You have to strike the Orc's central chakra to drain anything more than a fleeting amount. You have him grabbed by the upper arm-you could maintain the grapple and try for it, but you'd be rolling at a disadvantage."

3d6 necrotic, heal half, I’d say.

And the rules for that are what again? I see nothing about that unless you hit with a melee spell attack.

[Keltest]

You have if you’ve taken that first sentence out of the RAW.

If I’m grabbing someone with my hand, and the touch of that hand can siphon life force from others to heal my wounds, then that hand should very much be siphoning life to heal my wounds, as I’m clearly touching the person I’m grabbing.

Again, look at the alternative.

Player: “my left hand is the VT hand right?

DM: “yeah, we determined your other hand is holding your shield”

Player: “okay and I’m grappling the Orc?”

DM: “yup”

Player: “okay I use VT”

DM: “you’ll have to let go of the Orc with your left hand, to see if you can touch the orc with your left hand.”


That doesn’t make sense.

I haven't taken it out of the raw, it just doesn't do anything by itself. That is in fact the purpose of the following sentences.

[RSP]

"You have to strike the Orc's central chakra to drain anything more than a fleeting amount. You have him grabbed by the upper arm-you could maintain the grapple and try for it, but you'd be rolling at a disadvantage."

So if my Spell Attack is successful, but it touches the Orc’s upper-arm, it doesn’t do the Necrotic damage?

Where’s that in the RAW?

[Keltest]

So if my Spell Attack is successful, but it touches the Orc’s upper-arm, it doesn’t do the Necrotic damage?

Where’s that in the RAW?

The part where it describes missing an attack. How do you think armor protects people?

[JNAProductions]

So if my Spell Attack is successful, but it touches the Orc’s upper-arm, it doesn’t do the Necrotic damage?

Where’s that in the RAW?

That is called a miss.

Just like an AC 18 Full Plate wearing PC doesn't have to literally avoid getting hit by a sword that rolls a 14 to-hit, since it can simply be the sword hitting without enough force to do any real damage.

[RSP]

That is called a miss.

Just like an AC 18 Full Plate wearing PC doesn't have to literally avoid getting hit by a sword that rolls a 14 to-hit, since it can simply be the sword hitting without enough force to do any real damage.

So…not what I stated. You’re conflating describing an attack on game, with the RAW of a touch having an effect.

How you describe a hit or miss of an attack, has nothing to do with the RAW of VT. Again, dealing with how a hit or miss is described is a much bigger conversation than what this thread is about. Saying you hit the target with your SWH when the target is in full plate, works both ways: is it a successful attack, because you touched the target; or an unsuccessful attack because you only touched the target’s armor?

Arguing one of the other is moot, as any given DM can use one or the other at whim; and the 5e ruleset doesn’t care about that description.

[JNAProductions]

So…not what I stated. You’re conflating describing an attack on game, with the RAW of a touch having an effect.

How you describe a hit or miss of an attack, has nothing to do with the RAW of VT.

The touch can siphon. Not must, not automatically, but can.

And sure, you touch the orc's shoulder-you drain a smidgen of life energy, enough to make a bruise from earlier slightly less worse. It's not powerful enough to actually cause HP damage (you need a spell attack for that) but it makes him a little more tired, and your bruise a bit better. Assuming the orc survives, he'll want to go to bed early tonight, since you drained a smidge of life energy.

I'll echo the earlier question-if you already have your answer and aren't going to listen to any arguments to the contrary, why even post the thread?

[RSP]

The touch can siphon. Not must, not automatically, but can.

And sure, you touch the orc's shoulder-you drain a smidgen of life energy, enough to make a bruise from earlier slightly less worse. It's not powerful enough to actually cause HP damage (you need a spell attack for that) but it makes him a little more tired, and your bruise a bit better. Assuming the orc survives, he'll want to go to bed early tonight, since you drained a smidge of life energy.

I'll echo the earlier question-if you already have your answer and aren't going to listen to any arguments to the contrary, why even post the thread?

It’s not unwilling to listen to alternatives, but rather the alternative of “ignore what the spell says” isn’t particularly intriguing.

In my OP I stated my position. If you don’t like my view (the RAW), fine, but don’t tell me I shouldn’t make posts here about rules interactions.

Another interaction with the SWH could be a party member grabbing it to intentionally heal the caster. You discount this by houseruling the first line away.

I’m sure there are other interactions as well, though I don’t pretend to be able to think of them all.

[JNAProductions]

It’s not unwilling to listen to alternatives, but rather the alternative of “ignore what the spell says” isn’t particularly intriguing.

In my OP I stated my position. If you don’t like my view (the RAW), fine, but don’t tell me I shouldn’t make posts here about rules interactions.

Except you're conflating your position of "Any touching of the shadowhand automatically deals the full damage (and associated healing) of the spell," with the RAW.

The RAW is that a melee spell attack does 3d6 necrotic damage on a hit, also healing you for half the damage dealt.
The RAW is also that a hand is wreathed in shadow and can siphon life energy.

But, "wreathed in shadow" and "siphon life energy" aren't mechanical terms. Their impact in game could be, while within the RAW, "Anyone you touch with the shadowy hand has their entire life siphoned, killing them instantly and restoring the caster to their prime youth." It could also be "Anyone touching the hand feels an unpleasant and tiring sensation, while the caster feels invigorated."
Neither contradicts the RAW, but I guarantee you you'll be finding more DMs that feel the latter is appropriate over the former.

Edit: Have you considered tweeting Sage Advice? See what the designers think?

[Brookshw]

RAW says the touch does the effect: “The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds.”

Emphasis added. You're reading it wrong, the word is "can", not "does", this means the touch has the capacity. Actualizing that capacity is further described as you read the spell, i.e., the attack, which is subject to all applicable rules. Same way that my car 'can drive 60 mph' doesn't mean it 'does drive 60 mph' everytime I turn it on, that would require me to do something extra, i.e., make at attack give it sufficient gas.

[RSP]

Emphasis added. You're reading it wrong, the word is "can", not "does", this means the touch has the capacity. Actualizing that capacity is further described as you read the spell, i.e., the attack, which is subject to all applicable rules. Same way that my car 'can drive 60 mph' doesn't mean it 'does drive 60 mph' everytime I turn it on, that would require me to do something extra, i.e., make at attack give it sufficient gas.

I’m not, though. Red blood cells can deliver oxygen throughout my body tissue. I can bold the word “can” there as well, it doesn’t change anything though.

If anything, the designers have stated “can” indicates a choice by the caster (such as with GFB), so it would then imply it’s the caster’s choice if it works or not.

[JNAProductions]

I’m not, though. Red blood cells can deliver oxygen throughout my body tissue. I can bold the word “can” there as well, it doesn’t change anything though.

If anything, the designers have stated “can” indicates a choice by the caster (such as with GFB), so it would then imply it’s the caster’s choice if it works or not.

So, tweet Sage Advice. See what they think.

[RSP]

"Anyone touching the hand feels an unpleasant and tiring sensation, while the caster feels invigorated."

This isn’t RAW compatible, though, despite your claim.

From the RAW:
“When a creature receives healing of any kind, hit points regained are added to its current hit points.”

So, the sentence “The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds”, cannot be compatible with RAW if the healing isn’t restoring HP.

[Brookshw]

I’m not, though. Red blood cells can deliver oxygen throughout my body tissue. I can bold the word “can” there as well, it doesn’t change anything though.

If anything, the designers have stated “can” indicates a choice by the caster (such as with GFB), so it would then imply it’s the caster’s choice if it works or not.

When you donate blood it's in a bag, not delivering oxygen throughout your body, it has the capacity to do so, but will not until a subsequent condition is met (via a transfusion). "Can" is not the same thing as "does", it only speaks to a capacity. For further example, if you ask someone "can you do X", the question is an inquiry if they have an ability, if you want them to actually do X then you need a different word, e.g., "will you do X".

[JNAProductions]

This isn’t RAW compatible, though, despite your claim.

From the RAW:
“When a creature receives healing of any kind, hit points regained are added to its current hit points.”

So, the sentence “The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds”, cannot be compatible with RAW if the healing isn’t restoring HP.

What if you're already at max HP? It cannot add to your current HP, but does it count as healing? For a time it might matter...

Glaive. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d10 + 3) slashing damage. If the target is a creature other than an undead or a construct, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (1d10) hit points at the start of each of its turns due to an infernal wound. Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (1d10). Any creature can take an action to stanch the wound with a successful DC 12 Wisdom (Medicine) check. The wound also closes if the target receives magical healing.

HAM War Cleric (or anyone with HAM and resistance to slashing damage) has resistance to the damage from the Glaive's main attack, and reduces it by 3 as well.
A bad roll can deal no damage, while still inflicting the Infernal Wound.
If an ally of the Cleric uses Healing Word, Cure Wounds, or similar on them, does the Infernal Wound get healed, even though no HP was regained?

Edit: Do you plan to use this in a character build?

Because if yes, ask your DM to rule on this. That's more important than anyone else's opinions.

[JackPhoenix]

3d6 necrotic, heal half, I’d say.

That's the mechanical effect for hitting with the spell attack. The spell's description is rather specific in stating that's what happens "on a hit", not "on a hit or when grappling the enemy or when the enemy shakes your hand" or "when you touch the enemy".

It's not like you can grapple using your "shadow wreathed hand" in the first place, grappling requires FREE hand.

I’m not, though. Red blood cells can deliver oxygen throughout my body tissue. I can bold the word “can” there as well, it doesn’t change anything though.

You're right, it doesn't. Just like red blood cells can deliver oxygen throughout your body tissues, but don't do so 100% of the time, so can the Vampiric Touch siphon the life force of others, but doesn't always do so; the rest of the spell's description describes when that happens.

[RSP]

What if you're already at max HP? It cannot add to your current HP, but does it count as healing? For a time it might matter...

The RAW:

“When a creature receives healing of any kind, hit points regained are added to its current hit points. A creature’s hit points can’t exceed its hit point maximum, so any hit points regained in excess of this number are lost.”

You arguing stuff like this and BH, doesn’t change that the RAW of VT says what it says.

By RAW, the touch of the SWH “can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds.” Heal, in this case, means “add lost HPs” not your previous suggestion.

Edit: Do you plan to use this in a character build?

Because if yes, ask your DM to rule on this. That's more important than anyone else's opinions.

I’m aware that DM’s rule on things, including such things as this.

VT isn’t a heavily used spell, due to it being rather underpowered. I see no reason why exploring its uses (within RAW in this case) is a bad thing. Even on a build made to use this interaction, I can only imagine it’s a less-than-good build (you’d need to go Str to help the Athletics roll, so either Warlock, Sorc or Wizard with a Fighter 1 dip. So at 6th level you can cast VT and Grapple (either using Quicken or Subtle, or do each over two rounds) twice a day, doing ~10.5 damage to one target and heal yourself for ~5, each round, while you maintain Conc. Pretty much any 3rd level spell (and some lower level ones) are more effective. With your d6 HD, youre probably getting closer to death being in melee range with each round you’re grappling, even with the +5/rd. You can’t double up on VT, as that would require ending the grapple. By and large, a caster will have a better Spell Attack roll than a Grapple check, and creating a build that is otherwise is not going to be horribly effective using VT anyway.

I’m not sure why you seem to be suggesting this isn’t the place to discuss such rules interactions: as I understand it, these boards are exactly for that.

[Keltest]

I’m not sure why you seem to be suggesting this isn’t the place to discuss such rules interactions: as I understand it, these boards are exactly for that.

Well frankly, this isnt a rules interaction, this is just you not following the rules. Want to prove me wrong? Show me where the spell says you deal damage with the hand whenever you touch somebody outside the context of the spell attack. Spells only do what they say they do, not what they dont say they do, so if its actually RAW like you keep claiming, you should be able to point to the actual text that says what happens.

[RSP]

Well frankly, this isnt a rules interaction, this is just you not following the rules. Want to prove me wrong? Show me where the spell says you deal damage with the hand whenever you touch somebody outside the context of the spell attack. Spells only do what they say they do, not what they dont say they do, so if its actually RAW like you keep claiming, you should be able to point to the actual text that says what happens.

I have repeatedly pointed it out. Ignoring that first sentence doesn’t mean it’s not there.

And it is a rules interaction, with grappling or any other time the hand gets touched, like the aforementioned fellow PC intentionally grabbing the SWH to heal the caster.

I’ve seen threads where posters stated they allow PC’s to grab caster’s hands. That seems like a time when VT can have an effect: when someone else intentionally touches your hand.

Again, alternatively, the caster can no longer use VT, because their hand is grabbed. That sounds like it’s not “The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds.”

[PhantomSoul]

Again, alternatively, the caster can no longer use VT, because their hand is grabbed. That sounds like it’s not “The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds.”

Agreed; it sounds like

“The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage, and you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. Until the spell ends, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action.”

[kazaryu]

You’re missing the first sentence of VT:

“The touch of your shadow wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds.”

If your SWH is touching someone, RAW, you can siphon life force from whom you’re touching.

you're literally ignoring parts of the sentence that you quote. your touch can siphon life from others...'

it doesn't say your touch does siphon life. it says 'can'. as in 'under the right conditions'. and the right conditions aren't extrapolated in the sentence you quoted, you need to keep reading in order to find out how. and how you do it is by making a spell attack roll.

there's nothing in the fluff or crunch that specifies that all it takes is physical contact ro guarantee a successful siphon, and that therefore being in constant physical touch guarantees the siphon.


with the pedantry aside, there's nothing in the grappling rules that says, or even implies that you're touching them in the same place that you'd target for a spell attack. in fact, its implied that you have a pretty weak grip on something attached to them, since the only thing grappling does is reduce their speed to 0. it tethers them to you, but otherwise doesn't interfere with their actions at all. that could be as little as getting a good grip on their shirt. so even if the phrasing *were* different, then grappling wouldn't guarantee a successful strike.

Now, i don't think it'd be all that broken if a DM decided to allow it. but it is absolutely not RaW/RaI.

[Schwann145]

Don't let RAW get in the way of common sense.
The rules are guidelines meant to be followed and ignored at the whim of the DM.

This is not a computer game. Do what is right for your table.

[RSP]

with the pedantry aside, there's nothing in the grappling rules that says, or even implies that you're touching them in the same place that you'd target for a spell attack. in fact, its implied that you have a pretty weak grip on something attached to them, since the only thing grappling does is reduce their speed to 0. it tethers them to you, but otherwise doesn't interfere with their actions at all. that could be as little as getting a good grip on their shirt. so even if the phrasing *were* different, then grappling wouldn't guarantee a successful strike.

Disagree: though the RAW doesn’t assume any specific part of the body is grappled, when grappled, it’s not “implied that you have a pretty weak grip on something attached to them.” You can drag them over spikes, jump or fly them into the air, carry them to a cliff and then drop them over the edge, etc. Those aren’t doable with a “pretty weak grip.”

Don't let RAW get in the way of common sense.
The rules are guidelines meant to be followed and ignored at the whim of the DM.

This is not a computer game. Do what is right for your table.

Sure. Common sense, at least to me, says if magic has made my right hand wreathed in shadow that sucks the life out of other people with a touch, then shaking my right hand is probably not a good move (unless of course your intent is to heal me).

[Mellack]

You are welcome to rule however you want at your table, but the RAW seems clear that it requires a melee spell attack to trigger. If any kind of touch we allowed, that would be stated. It also seem unreasonable that there would be such distinctly separate ways to trigger the spell. Why can a wizard do it with an intelligence melee spell attack when you are saying it can instead be done with an athletics check? Those are completely different.
You have already been told how you are misreading the word "can" as being a guaranteed result. It is not. Instead the mechanic of checking if the melee spell attack roll hits is used to determine when "can" becomes "does".
Finally, look at possible interactions of the different positions. Do you really think that it would balanced to have say a warlock/monk getting to use this on each on their unarmed strikes? I would say that is a clear no.

[RSP]

Finally, look at possible interactions of the different positions. Do you really think that it would balanced to have say a warlock/monk getting to use this on each on their unarmed strikes? I would say that is a clear no.

I’d agree mechanically it would be unbalanced to allow it on unarmed strikes or natural weapons, but that doesn’t change what the RAW states. (Not sure how unbalanced it would be, as it’s still a lackluster spell, and still requires Conc, but I agree it’s probably unbalanced: particularly as attacks go up and/or VT is upcasted. As an aside, I’m pretty sure I’ve had a DM run it with natural weapons on a monster with Multiattack, with each NW attack benefitting from VT, but that’s beside the point).

Another application would be using it during a handshake: that seems very much within the scope of the RAW, while it makes no sense that you have to release the handshake, in order to see if you can touch them again.

So something like target goes to greet his “friend”, but the disguised Sorc Subtle casts VT during the handshake: doing the damage and then trying to maintain the grip of the handshake (I’d imagine this nicely falls under Contests: with one trying to maintain the grip while the other wants to break it).

[Zhorn]

Selectively reading a feature (spell in this case) to hyper fixate on one part of a feature while ignoring the other part is not adhering to RAW.
Houserule as you like, but it is a houserule

[sithlordnergal]

Don't let RAW get in the way of common sense.
The rules are guidelines meant to be followed and ignored at the whim of the DM.

This is not a computer game. Do what is right for your table.

In this case, RAW is the common sense. You can't just automatically deal damage with Vamperic Touch via a grapple, you need to succeed on a Melee Spell Attack first. It doesn't matter how you envision this, its how it works.

Trying to claim that you get an automatic VT hit just by touching a creature makes 0 logical sense, or game sense. Yeah, it does state your hand is wreathed in shadow and whatever, but that's about as important to the spell as "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame."

I.E. not that important, and can be changed/reflavored to whatever you like without changing the spell at all. As such, it can't be used to bypass the spell attack.

[sithlordnergal]

I’d agree mechanically it would be unbalanced to allow it on unarmed strikes or natural weapons, but that doesn’t change what the RAW states. (Not sure how unbalanced it would be, as it’s still a lackluster spell, and still requires Conc, but I agree it’s probably unbalanced: particularly as attacks go up and/or VT is upcasted. As an aside, I’m pretty sure I’ve had a DM run it with natural weapons on a monster with Multiattack, with each NW attack benefitting from VT, but that’s beside the point).

Another application would be using it during a handshake: that seems very much within the scope of the RAW, while it makes no sense that you have to release the handshake, in order to see if you can touch them again.

So something like target goes to greet his “friend”, but the disguised Sorc Subtle casts VT during the handshake: doing the damage and then trying to maintain the grip of the handshake (I’d imagine this nicely falls under Contests: with one trying to maintain the grip while the other wants to break it).

You can try with a handshake, no-one is saying you can't. But you need to make that melee spell attack first if you want to deal any damage. If you miss, then you don't get to deal damage.

Aa for unarmed strikes, no, that would not work. Those aren't Melee Spell Attacks, you get no extra damage from the spell. Plain and simple.