Darkbluestar's page

No it is an attack with several parts of extra damage that are all separate. Resistance would apply to every portion. Shocking + CL 5 Shocking Grasp =/= 6CL Intensified Shocking Grasp.

Is there a specific rule you are using to come to this conclusion?

Scenario:
Level 5 Magus wielding a +1 shocking katana casts Shocking Grasp.
The Magus spellstrikes an enemy with Energy Resistance 10 Electricity.

Does the energy resistance subtract from both the shocking property of the weapon and shocking grasp separately? In other words subtract 10 from both or does it only subtract 10 from the total electric damage done from that attack.

1d8 + 1d6 Electricity - 10 + 5d6 Electtricity - 10
OR
1d8 + 6d6 Electricity - 10

The bolded section of spellstrike has me interpreting it as both the spell and the weapon damage come from a single melee attack. This combined with the bolded section from Energy Resistance, which specifies that energy resistance only ignores a certain amount of damage per attack leads me to believe that in the scenario above, the Energy Resistance 10 Electricity would only be applied to the total damage dealt by the attack.

I am posting here to determine if my interpretation is correct or not. Thank you in advanced for your help.

Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Energy Resistance: A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity.
Each resistance ability is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted. It doesn't matter whether the damage has a mundane or magical source.

When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell. This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide.

I want to remind everyone that this discussion is regarding a Tiefling with both the racial trait Prehensile tail and the Grasping Tail feat. Which reads as follows:

Grasping Tail:

Benefit: You can use your tail to grab stowed items. While you cannot wield weapons with your tail, you can use it to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on your person as a swift action.

Special: If you have the prehensile tail racial trait, you can use your tail to grab unattended items within 5 feet as a swift action as well as to grab stowed objects carried on your person; you can hold such objects with your tail, though you cannot manipulate them with your tail (other than to put them in your hand).

Owly wrote:

I'd allow it, with the caveat to the players that non-tail-having NPCs can wield metamagic rods clenched between their butt cheeks.

Sarcasm noted. But this does raise an interesting question.

How many GMs would allow this? Or more realistic approaches, like holding the metamagic rod between their knees, or under their arm pit, or in their teeth (if the spell has no verbal component), or under their chin, or by bending their neck to hold the rod between their ear and shoulder like people sometimes do with telephones?

All of these ideas could "hold" the rod without "wielding" it. Would any GM allow this kind of thing?

My suggestion would be: if you would allow those ideas to work, then the prehensile tail should work too, but if you wouldn't, then you should probably disallow the tail.

Except all the options you listed would leave a person engaged in combat at a disadvantageous position to defend themselves or attack. Whereas a tail would not hinder movement or vision as would happen with trying to hold a rod anywhere else.

It isn't one of the use activated items that you simply wear (there is no body slot in which you wear it), so it has to held and used in some (undefined) way, probably waving it around.

As the tail can't use items I would say that it can't use the rod.

I'm not trying to troll but if a tail can pick an item off the ground or take a specific item out of a pack filled with numerous other things as a swift action, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to wave a rod around.

Is there a clear definition somewhere that states what it takes to wield a rod. I know there's the wield definition but what exactly does wield mean in the context of a rod.

Glove of Storing is still a perfectly fine solution.

Free action: shift an item (weapon) from one hand to another, or in this case a tail.
Free action: retrieve rod from glove
[...]
Free action: put rod away
Free action: shift weapon from tail to hand.

The bolded sections would be debatable since there isn't a clear definition on what action it takes to put a weapon from a hand into the tail and vice versa.

I would personally agree that it is a free action but I have run into situations where the GM ruled that it used up a swift to put anything in the tail.

I agree that Metamagic Rods are powerful however it is not so easy for all spellcasters. It is very difficult for a magus to use them, due to the 1 hand weapon/free hand requirements as they are.

Once again thank you for your reply.

I would be overjoyed if that is the way it works. I am just trying to argue the other side of this argument.

I just wish to see a consensus on how it works. Locally this is not allowed because "wield" is not the same as "hold". The idea being that in order to "wield" something it has to be in your hands, not a tail.

Edit for additional information.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#17

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#23

Carrying is not necessarily the same as holding. "Carrying" could mean that it is in your backpack for example. You are carrying it, but you are certainly not holding it. "Holding" is more akin to "grasping."

In any case, holding an item in your tail is still considered holding it, therefore it works.

Thank you for the reply.

So the issue I see is whether wielding is the same as holding. Note that the Grasping Tail feat specifically states that you cannot wield weapons with the tail.

Sorry to dredge up this old thread but I have the same question as OP. The answer here and pretty much everywhere else seems to indicate table variation on how the rules are interpreted. Is there a set in stone answer?