Magus and Shocking Grasp

[TwilightKnight]

Normally, Shocking Grasp is a touch attack that gets a +3 to atk if the target is wearing metal armor. Since the Magus can deliver the spell though his sword using Spellstrike, but looses the touch attack aspect (becomes a weapon attack), does s/he also loose the +3 bonus to hit?

[Xum]

Yes.

[TwilightKnight]

Not to be rude, but is that an official rule or player interpretation? Honestly, I don't care either way, but it has come up during decent game events and I'm too lazy ;-) to search thru pages of UM/Magus material to find the answer.

[LazarX]

Spellstrike is very much like hitting with a Dagger of Spellstoring. You've got to make full contact before the spell can be triggered. Spell Combat requires a full hit vs AC before the spell effect is resolved, so both the +3 to hit and the touch AC target are what you give up in order to have the bonus weapon damage and the wider crit possibilities.

[submit2me]

I agree with LazarX. The +3 vs armor to hit from Shocking Grasp is moot since you only get that from casting the spell. The spell is cast after you successfully roll to hit for Spellstrike, so there is no reason or way to then add in the +3 vs armor from the spell.

[Xum]

submit2me wrote:

I agree with LazarX. The +3 vs armor to hit from Shocking Grasp is moot since you only get that from casting the spell. The spell is cast after you successfully roll to hit for Spellstrike, so there is no reason or way to then add in the +3 vs armor from the spell.

No, the spell is cast BEFORE you hit.

"you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor"

+3 bonus on ATTACK ROLLS, not touch attack rolls or anything of the like. It's pretty clear cut.

[LazarX]

Xum wrote:

submit2me wrote:

I agree with LazarX. The +3 vs armor to hit from Shocking Grasp is moot since you only get that from casting the spell. The spell is cast after you successfully roll to hit for Spellstrike, so there is no reason or way to then add in the +3 vs armor from the spell.

No, the spell is cast BEFORE you hit.

"you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor"

+3 bonus on ATTACK ROLLS, not touch attack rolls or anything of the like. It's pretty clear cut.

But it's not a normal spell cast. the effect is transfered to the weapon waiting for it to be cast. (Same thing with a Daze spell,you're not dazing the sword you're putting the effect in waiting for weapon contact)

[submit2me]

If you're talking about Spell Combat, then of course. You can cast that spell before your melee attack and get that +3 bonus vs armor for the "off-hand attack" (aka Shocking Grasp). But that wouldn't carry over to the main hand weapon attacks.

If you're talking exclusively about Spellstrike (whether performed by itself or in conjunction with Spell Combat), which the OP and I both were, then I still believe that LazarX and I have made our point.

[cranewings]

The +3 reflects the fact that it is easier to electrocute someone wearing metal.

Nothing changes that. If you wanted to emulate what was happening, you could give the shock damage a +3 to hit and the rest of the damage only comes off if the hit was good enough without the +3 bonus.

Acting like the +3 has anything to do with anything other than how electricity works is missing the point.

[Quantum Steve]

Spellstrike is NOT like a spell storing weapon at all.

Consider a spell storing pair of brass knuckles and delivering a spell via unarmed strike.

With the knucks, you hit the target, then the knucks deliver the spell. You have to hit before the spell is cast.

If you cast the spell, then you deliver it with an unarmed strike (even while wearing brass knuckle, if you like). You hit after the spell is cast

Why would Spellstrike, which is delivering a spell via a melee attack, mimic a magic weapon ability (which it's not) rather than the already established way to deliver a spell via a melee attack (which it is)?

[TwilightKnight]

IMO, the +3 should apply since the shock would still discharge on a touch. However, it would make sense that you would roll an attack and compare it to both touch and normal AC. If you hit the touch, but not the normal, the touch spell would be delivered, but the strike was not accurate enough to breach the armor to add the weapon damage as well.

However, that is a complicated resolution and could be impacted by various AC enhancements that I cannot foresee at the present.

Giving the Magus the benefit of both the touch target AND the weapon enhancements, essentially the best of both worlds, seems a bit much. But it feels like a fringe case where the normal touch spell rules don't apply.

EDIT--note that the Shock/Burst quality for weapons does not use Shocking Grasp in the creation, but Call Lightning or Lightning Bolt both are higher level than Grasp, but the quality does less damage. Not sure if that quantifies the relationship between the effects or not, but it's interesting to compare nonetheless :-)

[Xum]

Quantum Steve wrote:

Spellstrike is NOT like a spell storing weapon at all.

Consider a spell storing pair of brass knuckles and delivering a spell via unarmed strike.

With the knucks, you hit the target, then the knucks deliver the spell. You have to hit before the spell is cast.

If you cast the spell, then you deliver it with an unarmed strike (even while wearing brass knuckle, if you like). You hit after the spell is cast

Why would Spellstrike, which is delivering a spell via a melee attack, mimic a magic weapon ability (which it's not) rather than the already established way to deliver a spell via a melee attack (which it is)?

And that's the way it works, so the +3 applies.