Produce Flame and Wild Shape

[Gerrtt]

Quick question, I'm sure it's not a new idea either, but it just jumped in my head.

I know with spells like shocking grasp or ghoul touch a character is able to discharge the spell with either a touch attack or an unarmed attack with the spell-charged appendage. So for example, a wizard/monk could punch something with shocking grasp on for extra damage.

What about produce flame? It's not substantial damage or anything (1d6+1 per caster level, max +5) but it lasts for 1 minute/caster level or 1/attack per caster level, whichever comes first, so at higher levels it seems like to me it couldn't hurt.

So my question is twofold:

1) Can you use produce flame to make unarmed strikes instead of just touch attacks (so you have less chance to hit but more damage)?

2) Can you wildshape into something with hands/paws and do the same thing with natural spell?

I can't think of any reason why it couldn't work the same way. Wild Shape and then use Natural Spell to get a little boost on your claw attacks (since the spell specifically says the palm of your hand). Any thoughts?

[Da King]

I'd allow it. It sounds like it should work and It isn't game breaking or anything. Just a nice little buff to have on your attacks.

[FlyMolo]

I'd allow it. It sounds like it should work and It isn't game breaking or anything. Just a nice little buff to have on your attacks.

To say the least. Bear with flaming hands? AWESOME! You're allowed to do that in any game I DM, just for cool factory, btw.

[Guy_Whozevl]

In essence, you are replicating the Duskblade's channel spell feature, in which you basically sacrifice an assured hit (touch attack) for potential extra damage (melee attack). Although it isn't gamebreaking, it seems to enter the territory of other classes, something a straight Druid should not be able to do. Plus, it's not like the Druid needs any more help for damage; the class has enough self buff spells if you consult Spell Compendium.

[Gerrtt]

Well, after being at home and reading the relevant section in the PHB I really can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be allowed. It says you can use either unarmed or natural attacks to discharge spells in that manner, so that works out for anything.

I guess the real question now is whether the affected area needs to be a hand-like appendage.

For example, what about a rhinoceros, hawk, or snake. I know it says the flames don't hurt you or your equipment, but it also says the flames appear in your hands.

Thoughts on that? Can a snake have a flaming bite? Can a hawk rain down fire touch attacks from above? What about a flaming gore attack for the rhino?

[Enzario]

IIRC, a touch range spell is stored in an appendage (whether that be hand, leg, tail, horn, etc., as long as the creature in question has the coordination with said limb to practically hit something) until that appendage touches an opponent for any reason. In fact, IIRC, the SRD makes a special point of mentioning a monk with inflict-charged unarmed strikes. The difference? A touch attack is much easier to hit with, whereas an actual attack has to go through armor, etc. Nevertheless, until the spell is discharged, it stays there. Flail away.
</possible derail>

Anyway, on to the main point of your question:
yes, and yes.

[Gerrtt]

That's what it seems like to me too. I know the spell mentions hands, but I think that it's because without the ability to use spells in wildshape (you may notice that Produce Flame is on the Fire Domain list for clerics) you have to use your hands. My guess is that if you don't have hands then the flames go to whatever relevant attack you have.

[Mojo_Rat]

It seems to me that as Written Produce flame goes to your hand. So your Idea should work however you would be a bear with one flaming paw. It is also likely a charge would go off every time you put your foot down to stand, but even if that is not the case there are serious fire issues.

[theMycon]

I've always figured, while wildshaped, the flame goes in the mouth-

Because who could say no to a firebreathing polar bear?

[Weasel2007]

I'd allow it but probably have it work on a bite because bear with a single flaming paw looks silly whereas a wolf or bear whose mouth spews flame whenever it takes a bite seems pretty cool.

[Mojo_Rat]

the reason i say it would go to the paw is that baring Natural spell. Your casting it in your humanoid form where it goes to your hand. the spell itself seems to assume it goes to a hand so at least as far as RAW goes The spell doest give bears a flaming bite :P Although i can see the appeal somewhat. It isnt as if druids have and power issues to need it.

[Gerrtt]

And what about creatures without hand based attacks?

[Haikiah]

It seems to me that as Written Produce flame goes to your hand. So your Idea should work however you would be a bear with one flaming paw. It is also likely a charge would go off every time you put your foot down to stand, but even if that is not the case there are serious fire issues.

Does D&D even have rules regarding the spreading of fire? Would this result in massive bush fires if left unattended or is there just going to be little bear paw shaped fires that burn for somethingDwhatever rounds?