Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ranger19k" data-source="post: 5529009" data-attributes="member: 98621">Granted, the feat is not clear about how many spells can be used simultaneously, and you can probably make a case either way.&nbsp; Before you argue for your DM to allow multiple spells however, I'd consider how happy you'd be if your character was hit by one arrow and then told to roll 16 saves. - I know that it would piss me off.&nbsp; And if I was DMing and you convinced me to let it work that way, you can be sure than after you had used it a couple times that way, that it would come right back at you.....Personally, I would rule &quot;only one spell at a time&quot; per weapon - but I acknowledge that it's not entirely clear.&nbsp; The feat description says: &quot;you can alter a spell with a range of touch to transfer its energy from your hand to a weapon that you hold.&quot;&nbsp; To me, that simply means that the weapon is now &quot;holding the charge&quot; rather than your hand - and I would apply the same &quot;holding a charge&quot; rules to the weapon.&nbsp; Since a wizard can not hold multiple touch-spells simultaneously (you lose the held charge when you touch someone/something or cast another spell), I would have the same rules apply to a weapon. - ergo, just one spell per weapon at a time.The feat is a little more clear when it comes to putting the spell into arrows: &quot;You can place A smiting spell on A piece of ammunition or A projectile.&quot; (emphasis mine)&nbsp; That tells me that it's one spell per one piece of ammunition.What I would allow, and think is unambiguously within the rules, is to fire off a &quot;rapid-shot&quot; volley of arrows, each of which could be holding a separate poison/chill touch spell.&nbsp; This would still suck... but would be a little more balanced than one arrow with 16 spells attached.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ranger19k, post: 5529009, member: 98621"] Granted, the feat is not clear about how many spells can be used simultaneously, and you can probably make a case either way. Before you argue for your DM to allow multiple spells however, I'd consider how happy you'd be if your character was hit by one arrow and then told to roll 16 saves. - I know that it would piss me off. And if I was DMing and you convinced me to let it work that way, you can be sure than after you had used it a couple times that way, that it would come right back at you..... Personally, I would rule "only one spell at a time" per weapon - but I acknowledge that it's not entirely clear. The feat description says: "you can alter a spell with a range of touch to transfer its energy from your hand to a weapon that you hold." To me, that simply means that the weapon is now "holding the charge" rather than your hand - and I would apply the same "holding a charge" rules to the weapon. Since a wizard can not hold multiple touch-spells simultaneously (you lose the held charge when you touch someone/something or cast another spell), I would have the same rules apply to a weapon. - ergo, just one spell per weapon at a time. The feat is a little more clear when it comes to putting the spell into arrows: "You can place [B]A[/B] smiting spell on [B]A[/B] piece of ammunition or [B]A[/B] projectile." (emphasis mine) That tells me that it's one spell per one piece of ammunition. What I would allow, and think is unambiguously within the rules, is to fire off a "rapid-shot" volley of arrows, each of which could be holding a separate poison/chill touch spell. This would still suck... but would be a little more balanced than one arrow with 16 spells attached. [/QUOTE]

Verification