QUESTION: Rogues/Mages that take the leather grip of their longsword or Shortsword and leave spaces for their fingers to touch the metal of the hilt. Since the metal hilt is attached to the metal blade would Shocking Grasp work through the blade as it is a conductible material. Thereby giving your rogue/mage normal weapon damage and the shocking grasp damage on a successful hit?
This would also give the shocking grasp sword advantage to hit opponents wearing metal armor no?
I think that it does. Here's the spell in 5e
S h o c k in g G r a s p
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action <-------- Does this not mean that it's one action to cast it, and you need a 2nd action to use it?
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous <------- the effect of 1d8 damage is instantaneus upon a successful touch melee attack.
Lightning springs from your hand to deliver a shock to
a creature you try to touch. Make a melee spell attack
against the target. You have advantage on the attack roll
if the target is wearing armor made o f metal. On a hit,
the target takes 1d8 lightning damage, and it can’t take
reactions until the start o f its next turn.
The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach
5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).
If you're the DM and you think that it does, then it does.
It takes an action to Cast a Spell and an action to take an Attack action. Cast a Spell in this case includes a melee spell attack, not a melee attack with a weapon. So there are potentially some action economy issues with that ruling. But if it works at your table, no problem.
You're right in that it would require an action to cast and then an action to attack. They likely developed the spell to function that way specifically to prevent most characters from doing this. It's certainly possible, but it's a slow way to do some extra damage.
transcendantviewer wrote:
Thank you all. 
i find it confusing that the duration is instantaneous when you also have to cast it. The confusing part is the "when do you have time to make contact with the victim? during the casting, after the casting, or at the exact moment the casting ends?"
like, is touching the victim the actual completion of the Somatic (S) requirement? I commend the OP for a stylistic approach to tazing people while stabbing them. The 2 total action cost thing seems like a reasonable way to deal with the economics, but it seems also possible if you opened with a Sneakattack, you might be able to follow up with a Shocking Grasp, perhaps at advantage at the cost of your weapon, leaving it in the target as a conductor. That could make for a nasty combo, with the disadvantage that you would have to at some point spend an action to pull your stuck blade out of the victim.
Total House rules though.
shintashi wrote:
As written, casting the spell is part of the attack. It doesn't really allow for casting it through a weapon, but I would probably allow it under certain circumstances. I would probably allow a caster with a sword to cast it as one action, then attack as another, letting him hold the charge in the blade. There aren't a lot of situations in which it would be particularly helpful (sneak attacks, as mentioned) but it's a cool thing to do, and not overpowered.
3e Unapproachable East has a "Ramauthari Battlemage" prestige class, which allows a mechanic like OP suggested.
I think putting this ability on a specific NPC would be cool to try out, but I suspect if it were widely available, it would mostly turn into "Wizards step on Fighters' toes".
OTOH, you may be on your way to creating a Swordmage of sorts.
(In my dreams I would equip such a battlemage with a pike designed with a lightning rod in the business end and a Witch Bolt capacitator on his end.)
This is pretty much a hold over from 1st edition "holding the charge" of a touch spell. That mechanic does not exist in 5e.
Let your player know that, if they have the warcaster feat so that they can cast a spell with an S component while holding their weapon, that they can do this, but they are merely touching the target with the sword, not wacking them, and that the attack is resolved as per the spell with the spell attack roll, and the advantage if the enemy is wearing the metal. Let them know that if they have a means by which to cast a spell, and make an attack, in a single round (such as what a high level EK can do) then you are more than happy to let them fluff the total result as if it were them whacking the target with an electrified sword, although the resolution is as per the mechanics in the game.
If a player wanted to do this, I'd invent a feat for them that covered channeling touch spells through weapons and other similar trickery.
I wouldn't consider it appropriate to do without some investment in resources to enable it.
BRJN wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Sounds like a Magus from Pathfinder as well, discharging touch spell attacks through his sword.
transcendantviewer wrote:
It could be interesting to allow your mage to basically charge their sword with it, and then make the attack. I'd allow it, it's pretty clever, and adds a coolness factor to playing a mage.
I would caution you to review other spells that have the "touch" effect in the description. You may set a precedence to allow other touch type spells to be delivered that way and lead into some damage per round problems that could be difficult to compensate for with NPCs.
I've allowed one of my warlocks to cast Vampiric Touch and deliver the spell with his weapon. In addition, I'm allowing weapon damage with the delivery of the spell. Therefore this is a melee spell weapon attack, which allows his second attack to occur with a melee weapon. In addition, this attack allows the bonus action of a melee attack. I've limited the spell casting to occur once per turn. Therefore the character delivers melee weapon damage with a light weapon three times plus the Vampiric Touch damage to the enemy. The warlock does have the feat that allows casting while holding weapons. The damage output is similar to a barbarian with a great axe and Great weapon master feat. I'm not sure I exactly like it, but thus far I have a hard time telling the player that his warlock should not be doing similar damage as a barbarian because of some preconceived notion that the barbarian should be on top for melee DPR.
i think using the sword would grant advantage on the attack, but not extra sword damage.
Feat Arcane Strike:
As a bonus action you may cast a spell that allows a melee spell attack vs. a single target into a melee weapon. This spell is placed on your melee weapon and can be used until the end of your next action or the end of your turn. When you strike with that melee weapon and hit, this spell is released and the attack does normal weapon damage plus the spell effect. (A critical would affect both spell and weapon damage).