Shocking Grasp allows the caster to "delay" taking the free touch attack until after a move action. Spell Strike allows the spell to be "channeled" using a weapon, but doesn't grant an additional weapon attack if used with Spell Combat.
So my question is this:
Magus declares Spell Combat. Casts Shocking Grasp. Can the Magus take the weapon attack (as part of Spell Combat) in order to try and channel the spell through the weapon attack, then, if he/she misses with the weapon, then take the "free" touch attack granted by the spell? Or does the "free" touch attack have to be taken immediately when the spell is cast?
What I find unusual is that Spell Channeling seems to imply that an extra smack with a sword is too powerful; if the character is making a full attack action and casting a spell all at once, what's one more sword slash worth of damage? Is it really too strong to let Spell Channeling + Spell Combat grant an extra weapon attack as part of channeling a touch spell?
Wouldn't seem so to me, but...shrug...working with the rules we have, not the rules we wish we had.
|
Magus declares Spell Combat. Casts Shocking Grasp. Can the Magus take the weapon attack (as part of Spell Combat) in order to try and channel the spell through the weapon attack, then, if he/she misses with the weapon, then take the "free" touch attack granted by the spell? Or does the "free" touch attack have to be taken immediately when the spell is cast?
No, you take the weapon attack instead of the free touch attack as specified in Spellstrike.
Any spellcaster can hold the charge of a touch spell indefinitely. This is only ended by the casting of another spell. So if you miss you can use the Spellstriked Shocking Grasp on the following round (or on the second or third attack if you have iteratives).
I think it would be way too much to allow the Magus an extra attack by using Spellstrike. Too much nova power IMO.
Another good question is, do I get my +3 vs. opponents in metal armor if swinging a Shocking Grasp through my Rapier?
If you get +3 to hit whilst channeling Shocking Grasp, that spell just got a lot cooler in the hands of a Magus.
|
|
If you get +3 to hit whilst channeling Shocking Grasp, that spell just got a lot cooler in the hands of a Magus.
Yeah, it isn't bad for Spellstrike at all. The damage cap is depressing, though. Intensified Spell would make it more attractive, though I'm finding the Magus a bit feat starved as it is.
I have to disagree with the Beer Dragon on this one. I don't see SG giving a bonus against armored opponents when using spellstrike.
5d6 stinks later on but at level levels 5-7 or 8, dropping 5d6 in addition to your normal attack isn't too shabby. Also, keep in mind you can crit that sucker for double fairly easily with a keen rapier or scimitar.
Getting +3 to a confirmation roll is nice too!
Only use spellstrike when you are alotted one attack.
If you are going to full attack AVOID spellstrike. It is better to get your full attack, then hit the bastard with a 10d6 touch attack from an intensified shocking grasp. This way, you still get all your allotted melee damage, AND shocking grasp is MORE likely to hit.
You don't get the extra attack when using spellstrike, but you most certainly do get it when you DON'T use it (as spell combat has no such restriction).
5d6 stinks later on but at level levels 5-7 or 8, dropping 5d6 in addition to your normal attack isn't too shabby. Also, keep in mind you can crit that sucker for double fairly easily with a keen rapier or scimitar.
Getting +3 to a confirmation roll is nice too!
There is no evidence that critting with the weapon allows the spell to deal more damage (I don't know how you could possibly argue its not EXTRA damage dice and therefore multiplied).
There is also no evidence that you get a +3 to hit just because you happen to be channeling shocking grasp via your longsword.
Even more reason to avoid spellstrike when using spell combat.
Quote:
Spellstrike Crits
Paizo Employee Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer), Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 06:32 PM
Flag
| List | FAQ |
Jason's avatar
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Good point.
The spell only gets a x2 crit. I will ensure that this is clarified.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Cool, how about the threat range? Would it still threaten on an 18-20 with a rapier?
The threat range becomes that of the weapon. There is no other good way to adjudicate that part.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
(Quotes)
It's not official until it's in a book, FAQ, or errata. Until then, it's just an opinion, no more official than yours or mine. It's quite possible he's changed his mind on how it's going to work since writing that post.
I personally think the EASIEST way to adjudicate it would be to say that the rider spell simply doesn't interact with criticals at all. It simply has its normal effect. Most of the time, it just ends up being bonus dice of damage anyways (which RAW says doesn't get multiplied).
Don't you multiply the damage of shocking grasp when you crit the touch attack? Why would it be any different now that the sword is channeling the spell?
It's not extra damage dice, it's a spell effect.
|
|
I don't think it is appropriate to consider spell damage from Spellstrike as additional damage like Flaming or Shocking.
I also don't think it's appropriate to dismiss Jason's statements as an opinion only as valid as yours or mine. He writes the books you know. Your opinion as to what ails you is not as valid as your doctor's, for example. Especially in a playtest setting where things can change on the fly, designer comments on the boards should be utilized in playtesting.
No.. you get one maneuver or the other, not both. Using spellstrike means that you've foregone the "free" touch attack option.Shocking Grasp allows the caster to "delay" taking the free touch attack until after a move action. Spell Strike allows the spell to be "channeled" using a weapon, but doesn't grant an additional weapon attack if used with Spell Combat.
So my question is this:
Magus declares Spell Combat. Casts Shocking Grasp. Can the Magus take the weapon attack (as part of Spell Combat) in order to try and channel the spell through the weapon attack, then, if he/she misses with the weapon, then take the "free" touch attack granted by the spell? Or does the "free" touch attack have to be taken immediately when the spell is cast?
Yep. If you're looking to get the touch attack IN ADDITION to your normal attack routine, simply use spell combat and forego spellstrike altogether.
The whole point of spellstrike is to channel a spell through your attack. If that's not what you want, then don't use it!
Also, using spellstrike is a bad choice mechanically when making a full attack. Better to save it for those times when you are left with just a standard action, but you need your attack to have extra oomph.
(Quotes)It's not official until it's in a book, FAQ, or errata. Until then, it's just an opinion, no more official than yours or mine. It's quite possible he's changed his mind on how it's going to work since writing that post.
I personally think the EASIEST way to adjudicate it would be to say that the rider spell simply doesn't interact with criticals at all. It simply has its normal effect. Most of the time, it just ends up being bonus dice of damage anyways (which RAW says doesn't get multiplied).
I may sound like a dick here, but I try not to be... a lot....
1.The Magus playtest, is´t a book, FAQ or Errata yet it is legal for PFS play - it may not be official, but since its the oppinion of the designer of the class before it goes to print.
2.Consider a how a spell storing weapon works: You cast the spell into the weapon, you hit your enemey, you cast the spell on the enemy as a free action.
Spell Storing
Spell StoringA spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.
Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.
Spellstrike however is different:
You cast the spell in question, you try to hit your target with your weapon holding the spell, -quote- If successful, this
melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the
effects of the spell. - quote -.
Or to illustrate it a bit more graphic:
Bob the Magus (level 10) fights the terrible BBEG. He casts a shocking grasp into his trusty longsword. He bravely charges his enemy and lands a solid hit with a rolled 15. The blow connects and the spell discarges with the usuall effect.
Enemy retaliates terribly.
Bob now almost dead has to kill his enemy now, trusting his luck, he cast a scorching ray into his weapon and prepares for the afterlife.
He rolls a 19 (confirms the threat with a 17) hits his in that spot between the 4th and 5th rib, cutting him open and cocking him from the inside for 16d6 fire damage + weapon damage.
It´s powerfull, but are the other options really better:
-No critical effects for spells that require an attack roll: Really makes spell strike worse, and often people will ignore it.
-criticals only on a 20 (or 19 with improved crit): possible, but the improved crit thing doesn´t really make sense if you use rays and touch spells through a weapon
-using a flat 19-20 x2 for weapon and spells: doesn´t really make sense in game, but would resolve damage issues and everyone running arround with scimitars and rapiers.
Oh and btw if used with spellstrike, and delivered with weapon, shocking grasp shoudln´t give a bonus to the attack roll, after all thats just the electricity trying to connect.
Actually with the increased threat range it is well worth it to channel the Shocking grasp through your sword even when making a full attack. Additionally there can be times where attacking with a weapon might provide you a better chance to hit than attacking with a touch attack. If I am using a +3 Sword, with Weapon Focus +1 and say weapon training 2 as a fighter +2 to hit. That give me +6 to hit. Against an opponent (say a monk) that +6 may be greater than the difference of his regular AC and his Touch AC.No.. you get one maneuver or the other, not both. Using spellstrike means that you've foregone the "free" touch attack option.Shocking Grasp allows the caster to "delay" taking the free touch attack until after a move action. Spell Strike allows the spell to be "channeled" using a weapon, but doesn't grant an additional weapon attack if used with Spell Combat.
So my question is this:
Magus declares Spell Combat. Casts Shocking Grasp. Can the Magus take the weapon attack (as part of Spell Combat) in order to try and channel the spell through the weapon attack, then, if he/she misses with the weapon, then take the "free" touch attack granted by the spell? Or does the "free" touch attack have to be taken immediately when the spell is cast?
Yep. If you're looking to get the touch attack IN ADDITION to your normal attack routine, simply use spell combat and forego spellstrike altogether.
The whole point of spellstrike is to channel a spell through your attack. If that's not what you want, then don't use it!
Also, using spellstrike is a bad choice mechanically when making a full attack. Better to save it for those times when you are left with just a standard action, but you need your attack to have extra oomph.
I agree, the better chance to crit, can be worth the risk.
Quote:
Spellstrike Crits
Paizo Employee Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer), Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 06:32 PM
Flag
| List | FAQ |
Jason's avatarEric Clingenpeel wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Good point.
The spell only gets a x2 crit. I will ensure that this is clarified.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingCool, how about the threat range? Would it still threaten on an 18-20 with a rapier?
The threat range becomes that of the weapon. There is no other good way to adjudicate that part.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Wow, if this is going to be true in the final version...I can picture Magus running around with Improved Crit and Rapiers to get threat ranges of 14-20 and then using wordcasting to channel a 20d6 (or more) touch attack spell through their rapier. That's a fairly high chance of getting a 40d6 + weapon damage crit with a magus' 5th level spell (in the current WoP system at least).
He'd be able to do it at 13th level too with the way WoP is currently written in the playtest. All he'd have to do is add together two 1d6/level max 10d6 effect words together (such as Fire Blast + Lightning Blast).
15-20. Rapiers have 3 points (18-20) and gain another 3 with keen/imp crit, going to 15-20.
15-20. Rapiers have 3 points (18-20) and gain another 3 with keen/imp crit, going to 15-20.
Ah, right XD
Quote:
Spellstrike Crits
Paizo Employee Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer), Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 06:32 PM
Flag
| List | FAQ |
Jason's avatarEric Clingenpeel wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Good point.
The spell only gets a x2 crit. I will ensure that this is clarified.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingCool, how about the threat range? Would it still threaten on an 18-20 with a rapier?
The threat range becomes that of the weapon. There is no other good way to adjudicate that part.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingWow, if this is going to be true in the final version...I can picture Magus running around with Improved Crit and Rapiers to get threat ranges of 14-20 and then using wordcasting to channel a 20d6 (or more) touch attack spell through their rapier. That's a fairly high chance of getting a 40d6 + weapon damage crit with a magus' 5th level spell (in the current WoP system at least).
He'd be able to do it at 13th level too with the way WoP is currently written in the playtest. All he'd have to do is add together two 1d6/level max 10d6 effect words together (such as Fire Blast + Lightning Blast).
Scimitars will work better because you can use them in 2 hands when not using spell combat, thus decreasing the gap between you as a single weapon fighter and everyone else.
|
Oh and btw if used with spellstrike, and delivered with weapon, shocking grasp shoudln´t give a bonus to the attack roll, after all thats just the electricity trying to connect.
You only get the +3 bonus on Shocking Grasp if your opponent is carrying metal, wearing metal, or made of metal - the point being that it's easier to damage someone with electricity if they're holding a copper rod... There's no indication RAW or RAI would take that specific aspect of the spell away from a guy using Spellstrike to deliver it through his weapon's melee attack instead of his hand's touch attack, any more than Spellstrike + Close Range delivered Acid Arrow wouldn't keep burning just like the regular version.
Oh and btw if used with spellstrike, and delivered with weapon, shocking grasp shoudln´t give a bonus to the attack roll, after all thats just the electricity trying to connect.You only get the +3 bonus on Shocking Grasp if your opponent is carrying metal, wearing metal, or made of metal - the point being that it's easier to damage someone with electricity if they're holding a copper rod... There's no indication RAW or RAI would take that specific aspect of the spell away from a guy using Spellstrike to deliver it through his weapon's melee attack instead of his hand's touch attack, any more than Spellstrike + Close Range delivered Acid Arrow wouldn't keep burning just like the regular version.
Well, there is a little difference, shocking grasp enhances your chance to hit, acid arrow gets the same effect as the full spell.
But I have to admit is isn´t totally clear, and we really need some input on this since every magus will end up using it.
|
|
Well, that extra attack is kind of a lot when you're using an Arcane Point to stack Frost, Flaming, and Shocking on your weapon, too.
And how would it work with Haste? Do you get yet another attack or does it not stack? If it doesn't stack, why not? It is inconsistent with the way Haste and Two Weapon Fighting (on which Spell Combat is based) normally work.
Too messy, too many questions of balance.
I think it would be way too much to allow the Magus an extra attack by using Spellstrike. Too much nova power IMO.
I think you quoted the wrong person. I didn't say that.
Well, that extra attack is kind of a lot when you're using an Arcane Point to stack Frost, Flaming, and Shocking on your weapon, too.
And how would it work with Haste? Do you get yet another attack or does it not stack? If it doesn't stack, why not? It is inconsistent with the way Haste and Two Weapon Fighting (on which Spell Combat is based) normally work.
Too messy, too many questions of balance.
Haste only ever grants a single bonus attack regardless of how many weapons you wield (or in this case, weapons and spells).
I'm pretty sure that Spellstrike never grants an extra attack, it just changes the designated 'touching impliment' from your hand to the thing in your hand.This is my point exactly (and I'm pretty sure I'm quoting correctly this time... >_0a). This is where my confusion sets in.
Conceptually, too, it makes little sense; why would they let you swing your sword around, cast a spell, then slap someone upside the head, but not let you swing your sword one more time?
I sort of understand the contention with a Flaming, Frost, Corrosive, Shock weapon, but I wonder if the same thing couldn't be done by wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the right enchantments on it?
Spellstrike can be resumed to "You can deliver with the weapon instead of an unarmed touch attack. If you use it with spell combat, the attack used to deliver is from your normal array of attacks."
Notice that it doesn't always forbid you from gaining armed attacks. The restriction only applies to spells cast through spell combat. Anything else goes. For example a move->shocking grasp->q-touch of fatigue lets you do 2 weapon attacks. spell combat attacks->spell combat spell->q-spell also lets you deliver an extra weapon attack.
1. I hope that they remove the weapon criticals applying to a channeled spell. If they do keep it then it needs to be a general rule (say using a natural weapon attack to deliver a touch spell) rather than a magus special.
-James
Isn't it a general rule already? That is, if a Monk takes Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike) would he not threaten on a 19-20 if he uses an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell?
Isn't it a general rule already? That is, if a Monk takes Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike) would he not threaten on a 19-20 if he uses an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell?If you can find it then it would be. But I have yet to do so.
Certainly the monk would threaten on a 19-20 for his unarmed strike, but honestly I'm not sure that any spell held would critical without some adjudication.
Regardless it should be a general rule one way or the other. The magus only highlights the need for such a general rule.
-James
Huh.
Well, as Jason remarked, there is no other good way to adjudicate it. If this is not the general rule, it needs to be.
I too agree it should be a general rule.
I strongly disagree. There's no reason the Magus shouldn't have something all its own.
I strongly disagree. There's no reason the Magus shouldn't have something all its own.
Then how does one adjudicate said Wiz/Mnk w/ Imp Crit? Does the spell simply not crit ever, because it's extra damage? It's not, though, really
Or is it something weird and confusing? The attack crits on a 19-20, but the spell only on a 20. How does this "Half-Crit" work? Do crit feats go off? Do you confirm them separately as they're now 2 separate crits?There needs to be a general rule.
Can one of the gentleman quote wher it days, that you can actually use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell.
I know weapon focus and improved crit.: ray works, I am not sure if weapon focus: touch works, but I am pretty sure that touch doesn´t mean unarmed strike.
Can one of the gentleman quote wher it days, that you can actually use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell.
I know weapon focus and improved crit.: ray works, I am not sure if weapon focus: touch works, but I am pretty sure that touch doesn´t mean unarmed strike.
The combat section, on spells
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. 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.
You can't do it in the round the spell is cast, you only hit if you pierce normal ac, and the spell itself doesn't grant you "armed" status.
I'm pretty sure that Spellstrike never grants an extra attack, it just changes the designated 'touching impliment' from your hand to the thing in your hand.This is my point exactly (and I'm pretty sure I'm quoting correctly this time... >_0a). This is where my confusion sets in.
Conceptually, too, it makes little sense; why would they let you swing your sword around, cast a spell, then slap someone upside the head, but not let you swing your sword one more time?
I sort of understand the contention with a Flaming, Frost, Corrosive, Shock weapon, but I wonder if the same thing couldn't be done by wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the right enchantments on it?
Casting a spell is a standard action. Making a melee attack is a standard action. Making more than one melee attack in a round is a full-round action. You can't make two standard actions in one round, you can't make a standard action and a full-round action in one round. Casting a spell with touch range changes the touch attack to a free action, Spellstrike changes the touch attack to a melee attack with your weapon.
Then how does one adjudicate said Wiz/Mnk w/ Imp Crit? Does the spell simply not crit ever, because it's extra damage? It's not, though, really
Or is it something weird and confusing? The attack crits on a 19-20, but the spell only on a 20. How does this "Half-Crit" work? Do crit feats go off? Do you confirm them separately as they're now 2 separate crits?
On a 19-20 the IUS damage is multiplied. On a 20 the spell damage is as well, the same way touch spells are now. One roll, One crit. No biggie.
There needs to be a general rule.
There already is. The same way there is a general rule for BAB progression, unless you're using FoB. The same way there is a general rule for who acts in a surprise round, unless a Diviner is involved. Touch spells crit on a 20, unless a Magus is involved.
The game is full of general rules with specific exceptions. The Magus is just another example. In fact, almost every single feat violates a general rule. That's what makes them worth taking.
I just don't see this being a difficult ability to adjudicate.
On a 19-20 the IUS damage is multiplied. On a 20 the spell damage is as well, the same way touch spells are now. One roll, One crit. No biggie.
But it's not one crit: yes/no. It's crit A: yes/no crit; B: yes/no.
If this Wiz/Mnk has levels in EK. When does Spell Critical go off? When he crits with the IUS or does he have to crit with both.RAW also states, as a general rule, that touch spells target touch AC. If I roll a 20, and on the confirm hit the touch AC, but not the regular AC does the spell crit but not the attack? We're using the touch spell rules to threaten, surely we are using the same rules to confirm.