drinking a potion of shocking grasp + flurry of blows? [PFS]


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

I'm creating a potion loving monk. Tiefling Oni-spawn with prehensile tail and accelerate drinker trait.

Would it be legal to quaff a potion of shocking grasp one round, and then add the damage to flurry of blows the next round? Or would the touch attack of a shocking grasp not stack with a unarmed strike of a flurry?

Grand Lodge Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

This is not PFS specific. Moved to Rules forum.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You can deliver a touch attack with unarmed strike.
It would work, for the first punch , for 1d6 electricity at the cost of 50gp

Liberty's Edge

Shocking grasp isn't eligible to be made into a potion.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Range: touch, target creature touched. Why is it not elidgable as a potion?

Dark Archive

Muuuuuhahaha! Thanks Seraphimpunk. It seemed like it would work.

Shocking grasp: When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor. Thats handy.

I'll also be grabbing some potions of Chill touch, Touch of Combustion, & Frostbite. This is going to be super fun. Touch of Gracelessness could be cool too.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seraphimpunk wrote:
Range: touch, target creature touched. Why is it not elidgable as a potion?

I'd say it could work, but there'd be no point to drinking one unless you wanted to shock yourself.

"Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber."

Drinking a potion of cure light wounds is as if cure light wounds was cast upon the drinker, why would shocking grasp be different?

Scarab Sages

Mazlith wrote:

I'm creating a potion loving monk. Tiefling Oni-spawn with prehensile tail and accelerate drinker trait.

Would it be legal to quaff a potion of shocking grasp one round, and then add the damage to flurry of blows the next round? Or would the touch attack of a shocking grasp not stack with a unarmed strike of a flurry?

To answer the op... no, it wouldn't work. Drinking a potion is the same as if someone cast that spell on you. So unless you want to hit *yourself* with shocking grasp, don't drink a potion of it.


Karui Kage wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:
Range: touch, target creature touched. Why is it not elidgable as a potion?

I'd say it could work, but there'd be no point to drinking one unless you wanted to shock yourself.

"Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber."

Drinking a potion of cure light wounds is as if cure light wounds was cast upon the drinker, why would shocking grasp be different?

This.

If you drink a potion of shocking grasp, you get shocked............


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You can make it into a potion. However the drinker would also be the target of the shocking grasp, so drinking a potion of shocking grasp would deal xd6 damage to the drinker and probably isn't what the original post had in mind.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

K, so he wants scrolls or a wand of shocking grasp.
Lol. I never considered it'd be like drinking bottled electricity.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just magus, and spellstrike so you can crit more often

Dark Archive

Karui Kage wrote:

To answer the op... no, it wouldn't work. Drinking a potion is the same as if someone cast that spell on you. So unless you want to hit *yourself* with shocking grasp, don't drink a potion of it.

Yeah. That makes sense. Thanks.


That's one hell of an Energy Drink *bu dum tsh*

You know... this actually gives me a clever idea, having "decoy" potions. Mix in some potions of Shocking Grasp along with your healing potions, but they're all labeled as healing and you have a code system like numbers on all of them but only the prime numbers are healing potions and all others are harmful potions. Useful if your GM likes to have thieves steal your healing potions.

*GM* So, one of these thieves you're fighting was able to steal a healing potion from your bag last night and now he's going to use it. What kind of healing potion was... Healing Potion #9?

*Player* Oh, a #9? That was a Healing Potion of... *smirk* Shocking Grasp *full-on evil grin*

*GM* Oh... O.O OH... *Bzzzzt*


I am currently running an adventure path wherein the author mislabels a harmful portion in hopes of tricking the characters, unfortunately I don't think it's going to work because my players are going to be suspicious of any potion that strangely has a label on it.


I'm not sure if you can buy potions brewed by Rangers in PFS, but if so then a potion of Strong Jaw might be a pretty cool buff...kind of expensive though...

Shadow Lodge

Kazaan wrote:

That's one hell of an Energy Drink *bu dum tsh*

You know... this actually gives me a clever idea, having "decoy" potions. Mix in some potions of Shocking Grasp along with your healing potions, but they're all labeled as healing and you have a code system like numbers on all of them but only the prime numbers are healing potions and all others are harmful potions. Useful if your GM likes to have thieves steal your healing potions.

Yeah, good idea... until you fall unconscious and one of your party members uses your "healing potion" to revive you... Oops. ;)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if you were able to cast Shocking Grasp (as in not drink the potion) the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. So if your first attack landed, then the shock would go off and you no longer would get the +3 to hit on successive blows.


Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

That's one hell of an Energy Drink *bu dum tsh*

You know... this actually gives me a clever idea, having "decoy" potions. Mix in some potions of Shocking Grasp along with your healing potions, but they're all labeled as healing and you have a code system like numbers on all of them but only the prime numbers are healing potions and all others are harmful potions. Useful if your GM likes to have thieves steal your healing potions.

Yeah, good idea... until you fall unconscious and one of your party members uses your "healing potion" to revive you... Oops. ;)

The code should naturally be given to your party members... That wouldn't stop enemies from not knowing this, which means they could still fall for this trick.


claudekennilol wrote:
Even if you were able to cast Shocking Grasp (as in not drink the potion) the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. So if your first attack landed, then the shock would go off and you no longer would get the +3 to hit on successive blows.

Slight correction; the +3 would apply until you hit. So if you miss on your first, you retain the +3 bonus on subsequent attacks until one of them hits; then you lose the bonus.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

You can deliver a touch attack with unarmed strike.

It would work, for the first punch , for 1d6 electricity...

If you had a shocking grasp effect ready (ie. while holding the charge from a spell you just cast, for instance) then you can indeed make an unarmed strike and you are correct it would only apply to the first punch that lands. Missing, you continue to hold the charge.

It would not be a touch attack however, it would be a normal unarmed strike, so the opponent would still get armor, natural armor, etc. against it, though the +3 to hit if they have a lot of metal would also apply.

Quote:

Touch Spells in Combat

Holding the Charge
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

So your monk wouldn't provoke AoO doing it this way (since his unarmed attacks don't provoke AoO), but you also give up the chance to critically hit with the spell (you would do critical damage as normal for an unarmed attack), since the attack would do its normal (critical) damage and then the spell discharges (which is considered an extra affect from the attack and not multiplied by the critical.)

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Even if you were able to cast Shocking Grasp (as in not drink the potion) the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. So if your first attack landed, then the shock would go off and you no longer would get the +3 to hit on successive blows.
Slight correction; the +3 would apply until you hit. So if you miss on your first, you retain the +3 bonus on subsequent attacks until one of them hits; then you lose the bonus.

I fail to see how that's different from what I said.


I'm not sure if this was lost but.. all potions target the drinker. Drinking a potion of shocking grasp would subject the drinker to 1d6 electrical damage. It does not provide a touch attack any morecthan cure light wounds potions.


claudekennilol wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Even if you were able to cast Shocking Grasp (as in not drink the potion) the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. So if your first attack landed, then the shock would go off and you no longer would get the +3 to hit on successive blows.
Slight correction; the +3 would apply until you hit. So if you miss on your first, you retain the +3 bonus on subsequent attacks until one of them hits; then you lose the bonus.
I fail to see how that's different from what I said.

You said, "the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. I corrected that by stating that you still get the +3 on all misses up until you land the first hit, plus the first hit. That's why it's a slight correction.

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Even if you were able to cast Shocking Grasp (as in not drink the potion) the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. So if your first attack landed, then the shock would go off and you no longer would get the +3 to hit on successive blows.
Slight correction; the +3 would apply until you hit. So if you miss on your first, you retain the +3 bonus on subsequent attacks until one of them hits; then you lose the bonus.
I fail to see how that's different from what I said.
You said, "the +3 to hit vs armor would only work on the first hit. I corrected that by stating that you still get the +3 on all misses up until you land the first hit, plus the first hit. That's why it's a slight correction.

Ok, I can see how that might be read differently. But a miss is not a hit, so the effect is obviously still there as he wouldn't have hit if he missed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seraphimpunk wrote:
Range: touch, target creature touched. Why is it not elidgable as a potion?

Target of a potion is the drinker.... Bottoms UP! On that basis, I allow magic missile potions as well. :)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A flesh golem with potions of shocking grasp....


I imagine a legendary drinking establishment serving up spirits infused with shocking grasp for any fool willing to take the challenge.


The Toaster wrote:
A flesh golem with potions of shocking grasp....

Constructs don't breathe, eat, or sleep. So they can't drink potions as they have no functional digestive system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In that case, give them oils.

Scarab Sages

Kazaan wrote:
The Toaster wrote:
A flesh golem with potions of shocking grasp....
Constructs don't breathe, eat, or sleep. So they can't drink potions as they have no functional digestive system.

there is a difference between "don't" and "can't" ....

but I guess YMMV...

Sczarni

Oh god, Elemental Kin Barbarians with shocking grasp potions...

... that worship Urgathoa for the Potion Glutton feat from Inner Sea Gods.


I always wish, since you can make potions that damage the target.. that you could just use them similairly to splash weapons (sans the splash damage). Like you just throw the potion.

Kind of makes me want to make a "Chemist" alchemist archetype, with some attack infusions that they can throw. The witch already has an archtype that allows you to use touch at range, so not a big deal.. yup.. wanna do this now..


The Toaster wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
The Toaster wrote:
A flesh golem with potions of shocking grasp....
Constructs don't breathe, eat, or sleep. So they can't drink potions as they have no functional digestive system.

there is a difference between "don't" and "can't" ....

but I guess YMMV...

These substances don't burn.

These substances can't burn.

These two statements are equivalent; they mean the same thing.

Constructs don't eat.

Constructs can't eat.

These two statements are also equivalent.

Constructs don't eat.

Constructs needn't eat.

These two statements, however, are not equivalent. The latter means they do not need to eat, but not necessarily that they are incapable of the act. To state that they do not eat means just that; they do not do it... ever.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / drinking a potion of shocking grasp + flurry of blows? [PFS] All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.