Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If you are holding the charge on a touch spell, will getting hit by melee, ranged attack, or spell dissipate the spell you're holding?

If it's a melee attack, does the attacker feel the effects of the spell you are holding?

share|improve this question
up vote 9 down vote accepted


The attacker is assumed to have avoided your hand, which is holding a charge of magical energy. You still hold the charge, he is not affected with it. Even if he Grapples you, he’s assumed to be holding your hand away, just as he’d be assumed to be holding a dagger away.

In general, you have to actively try to touch someone to trigger it. It requires an attack action on your part, an attack roll, and so on. In a Grapple, you have to win a Grapple check to get an attack.

A free, retributive effect like you propose is quite rare in 3.x, and usually quite weak. To be able to do it with just any touch spell is potentially overpowered and opens up shenanigans that are probably inappropriate.

The spell-storing property can, in Pathfinder, be applied to armor to do something similar, but

  1. It’s a special +1-equivalent property that has to be explicitly built into the armor

  2. Even then it’s limited to 3rd-level or lower touch-attack spells that are cast into the armor ahead of time, and in Pathfinder, at least, triggering the discharge requires an immediate action (in 3.5 the property was written before immediate actions were a thing and it wasn’t updated, but I’d recommend adding that houserule).

share|improve this answer
+1 for shenanigans :3 Theoretically any spell that can be accidentally discharged with a touch can function as a retributive effect. If the wording doesn't specifically restrict such an effect, yes, shenanigans would ensue. I would assume though that anyone using that for too much would be treated as cheesy players tend to be treated and left to stand alone. – Dorian Jun 1 '14 at 13:19
So, normally, if you're holding a charge, no one can make you "drop" that charge with attacks? – Nerevar Jun 1 '14 at 13:49
@Nerevar Correct. The charge also does not require Concentration. – KRyan Jun 1 '14 at 13:57
The Touch Spells in Combat paragraph does say if you touch anything, it, it depends on how you define 'touch' - only a hand? Any body part? Any unclothed body part? What about gauntlets? – YogoZuno Jun 3 '14 at 22:46
@TimB The other reason is history: that line is a holdover from earlier editions, and never meshed with, made sense in, or was supported by the rules of 3.x. – KRyan Jun 5 '14 at 13:00

I would assume that when someone is holding a charge for a touch attack, the touch attack wouldn't do anything to an attacker normally. The only circumstance in which it might cause something is if they touched the hand holding the charge, or you touched them. An attacker with a weapon would most certainly not discharge the touch attack. The only time a touch attack's charge is dispelled is if the hand which holds the charge (or item or weapon in the case of channeling) actually touches a valid target.

Though that does bring up an interesting idea... Channeling a touch spell into your armor or shield as a defense, possibly even sending it through an opponent's weapon... Will have to look into the rules for channeling touch spells through items...

share|improve this answer
I know of two options for channeling spells through weapons during attacks in 3.5 (Smiting Spell and Arcane Channeling), and I know the Pathfinder magus can do something similar, so those would be places to look first. I really doubt any ability allows you to channel it through armor to produce a retributive effect. – KRyan Jun 1 '14 at 13:13
Well it's something to consider anyway. If it could be channeled as a touch attack, it can be discharged upon connecting with a valid target. Assuming the rules for discharging a channeled spell would function the same, touch attacks might even be used as a trap given the proper circumstances. – Dorian Jun 1 '14 at 13:15
@KRyan Armor of spell storing will let you do that, with the added benefit of choosing on each hit if that's the one you wanna discharge on, instead of automatically discharging on the first – Matthew Najmon Jun 2 '14 at 19:52
@MatthewNajmon I see; that's pretty interesting. I actually rather like the design on that one. – KRyan Jun 3 '14 at 18:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.