By the rules alone*, I'd say the +3 applies. But if you are considering the special circumstances, I'd say there's nothing particular that would cause the +3 bonus on attack rolls not to apply. Thematically, I see the +3 allowing for a situation where you might not quite hit with your touch, but you got close enough for the electricity to arc to your target. To me, it makes as much sense when applied using a weapon as it does using a hand.
*Edit: That is to say, Spell Strike's language of "he can deliver the spell" matches up with Shocking Grasps "when delivering the jolt" language nicely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a Magus uses Shocking Grasp with Spell Strike does the magus get the +3 bonus to hit from shocking grasp when opponent is wearing metal armor/weapon?
Yes.
My, personal opinion, is you do not get the +3 bonus to hit vs metal since you are not making a touch attack any more but using a weapon and it's properties, plus doing weapon damage on top of the spell damage.
I don't see a causal relationship here. The bonus is not dependent on making a touch attack, nor on what kind of damage is applied.
Shocking Grasp: "When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls..."
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."
Note the wording: Deliver the spell.
You're delivering the shocking grasp, so you get the +3 bonus against metal.
|
Put the whole thing down. "Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal)."
And Spellstrike "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."
As Grick noted, all the criteria are met by Spellstrike to allow the attack the +3 vs. metal or metal-wearing opponents.
Yeah, but with that reasoning, Shocking Grasp wouldn't work at all (Edit: this is addressed to the OP, not the poster before me). Nor would Vampiric Touch, just to look up another random example. This is because the spells don't just have a range of "touch", they specifically call out, in the spell text, that a melee touch attack must be made.
Put the whole thing down. "Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal)."
And Spellstrike "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."As Grick noted, all the criteria are met by Spellstrike to allow the attack the +3 vs. metal or metal-wearing opponents.
Delivering the "jolt", not delivering the touch. The jolt (the part that does damage) discharges when you are "close" to the metal target, thus giving you a bonus for the spell (not necessarily the touch) "to hit" them.
Spellstrike requires you TO HIT the targets normal AC to "deliver the spell". I don't think the intent of Shocking Grasp delivered through Spellstrike is to pull the weapon towards the target, but to discharge the spell on a successful hit (against normal AC) just like any other spell delivered through Spellstrike.
The spell (any spell) is riding along on the attack. If it hits it discharges, if it misses, it can be held.
|
My take, although I don't think it would classify as a house rule.
The +3 to hit from Shocking Grasp applies to the spell. A Magus can deliver the spell via their weapon using Spell Strike.
So, the Magus attacks an enemy wearing metal armor. A hit *without using the +3 bonus* is a hit, as regular (i.e. weapon damage and spell damage).
An attack (against an enemy wearing metal armor) that misses by 1-3 still hits, but only partially. The weapon damage is not rolled because the weapon didn't connect. But, the Shocking Grasp can still arc and hit the target, thanks to the +3 to hit bonus for the spell. The weapon has still still 'delivered' the spell.
Cheers
Does the GM want to take the bonus away from you or do you want to take it away from yourself?
If it's the GM you can point him to this thread, but if it's you then no one can help you.
The jolt (the part that does damage) discharges when you are "close" to the metal target, thus giving you a bonus for the spell (not necessarily the touch) "to hit" them.
It discharges when you land the attack, not when you're close. The bonus to attack makes that attack more likely to land.
The argument that is used against this, is that Shocking Grasp turns Spellstike into a weapon with a souped up Shock enchantment. The Shock enchantment does not get the +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal)
That argument doesn't make any sense.
The spell does what it says. However you want the fluff to be, it grants a bonus to hit. That bonus still applies if you're making a touch attack, or an attack against normal AC with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, and there's no reason it wouldn't also work with Spellstrike.
The +3 to hit from Shocking Grasp applies to the spell.
Close, it applies to an attack roll made to deliver the spell.
An attack (against an enemy wearing metal armor) that misses by 1-3 still hits, but only partially. The weapon damage is not rolled because the weapon didn't connect. But, the Shocking Grasp can still arc and hit the target, thanks to the +3 to hit bonus for the spell. The weapon has still still 'delivered' the spell.
If a wizard uses his Bite attack to deliver a held touch spell (lets say Ghoul touch to make it easy) and his attack roll is less than the AC value of his target, but it would have been enough to hit his target's touch AC, he still missed the attack, he still didn't deliver the spell, and he's still holding the charge.
Having weird multi-AC-value partial misses is clunky, confusing, and not part of the rules.
|
|
Put the whole thing down. "Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal)."
And Spellstrike "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."As Grick noted, all the criteria are met by Spellstrike to allow the attack the +3 vs. metal or metal-wearing opponents.
Delivering the "jolt", not delivering the touch. The jolt (the part that does damage) discharges when you are "close" to the metal target, thus giving you a bonus for the spell (not necessarily the touch) "to hit" them.
Spellstrike requires you TO HIT the targets normal AC to "deliver the spell". I don't think the intent of Shocking Grasp delivered through Spellstrike is to pull the weapon towards the target, but to discharge the spell on a successful hit (against normal AC) just like any other spell delivered through Spellstrike.
The spell (any spell) is riding along on the attack. If it hits it discharges, if it misses, it can be held.
I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Are you somehow saying that there should be two attack rolls, one to touch and another to actually deal damage with the spell? Because that's needlessly complicated and just plain incorrect to boot. The +3 applies to the roll to deliver the spell. Spellstrike allows you to deliver the spell through the weapon. Consequently, you get the +3 bonus when Spellstriking. It's what Magus' are meant to do. They nova really hard and dish out gads of damage while they've got touch spells available, and then their damage and accuracy drops off rapidly once they've expended their resources.
|
If you're going to take the "+3 to hit" bonus away from the weapon attack, then you should also revert the spell delivery to a simple touch attack rather than a melee attack through the weapon. Quite apart from the fact that this is going against the very definition of spellstrike, with any sort of metal armour a touch attack (even one with no additional bonus) is going to be at more than +3 to hit compared to a regular melee attack.
Allowing a melee attack with a weapon at a +3 bonus is a compromise that falls somewhere between a melee attack with no bonus and a touch attack with the bonus. Given that, and the fact that the damage from the weapon is rarely a major portion of the total damage, it seems unnecessary to add the extra complexity that would be needed to track two kinds of attack.
|
|
One other point - don't forget an attack is meant to represent a summary over an entire round (six seconds). If I'm fencing with my opponent, and when our weapons beat against each other he gets a jolt of 4d6 of electrical damage, it seems reasonable to assume that this distracts him long enough for me to follow up with a lunge and slip the point of my rapier under his guard to deliver that extra 1d6+ of damage at a bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Are you somehow saying that there should be two attack rolls, one to touch and another to actually deal damage with the spell? Because that's needlessly complicated and just plain incorrect to boot. The +3 applies to the roll to deliver the spell. Spellstrike allows you to deliver the spell through the weapon. Consequently, you get the +3 bonus when Spellstriking. It's what Magus' are meant to do. They nova really hard and dish out gads of damage while they've got touch spells available, and then their damage and accuracy drops off rapidly once they've expended their resources.Put the whole thing down. "Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal)."
And Spellstrike "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."As Grick noted, all the criteria are met by Spellstrike to allow the attack the +3 vs. metal or metal-wearing opponents.
Delivering the "jolt", not delivering the touch. The jolt (the part that does damage) discharges when you are "close" to the metal target, thus giving you a bonus for the spell (not necessarily the touch) "to hit" them.
Spellstrike requires you TO HIT the targets normal AC to "deliver the spell". I don't think the intent of Shocking Grasp delivered through Spellstrike is to pull the weapon towards the target, but to discharge the spell on a successful hit (against normal AC) just like any other spell delivered through Spellstrike.
The spell (any spell) is riding along on the attack. If it hits it discharges, if it misses, it can be held.
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse. There is only one attack roll. It is what the attack roll represents that I'm trying to clarify.
I've been playing D&D since 1e. Back in the THAC0 days where there was no "touch" AC, and the explanation behind attack rolls wasn't that you "miss" but that you don't deal damage. That's why STR helps you "hit". It is also why Shocking Grasp had a bonus against metal armor, to represent that you may not have actually hit the target, but that the spell did damage because you were "close enough" for it to arc and discharge on the target.
I still use this style of thinking (sometimes incorrectly) but when it comes to something that has been around forever and its "flavor" text is relatively the same, I believe the representation of the attack is the same. Which doesn't translate well with Spellstrike since that is more cut and dry hit or miss to deal WEAPON damage, not just the jolt from Shocking Grasp.
If the weapon misses, it doesn't discharge the spell. This is true for all spells (except Shocking Grasp to some). To me Shocking Grasp doesn't pull the weapon, or even the touch toward the target to help it hit. It is a method to convey that the electrical energy from the spell "jumps" toward metal, making it more likely to deal damage against that kind of opponent.
Again this is just my 2 cents and the way me and my players (who have also been playing forever) see the spell.
|
|
I like Canthin's post and he gets the idea across better then me -
Delivering the "jolt", not delivering the touch. The jolt (the part that does damage) discharges when you are "close" to the metal target, thus giving you a bonus for the spell (not necessarily the touch) "to hit" them.
Spellstrike requires you TO HIT the targets normal AC to "deliver the spell". I don't think the intent of Shocking Grasp delivered through Spellstrike is to pull the weapon towards the target, but to discharge the spell on a successful hit (against normal AC) just like any other spell delivered through Spellstrike.
The spell (any spell) is riding along on the attack. If it hits it discharges, if it misses, it can be held.
(wish I could use quotes but work PC. I'm shocked I'm even able to visit the forums)
Guessing it all comes down to on how the DM reads the bonus. If it applies to all attacks or just to the touch attacks.
There is no difference between the jolt and the touch, you hit with it, or you don't. If anything, this weird word parsing only makes it more likely that the bonus applies to the weapon attack being used with spellstrike since it completely separates the effect from the touch attack. Ultimately though, you're doing some very strange and unnecessary rules parsing, and then misinterpreting what that would mean. There is no separation between "the jolt" and the attack made to deliver it. If the attack is delivering the spell, it gets the bonus.
|
|
**EDITED For Space**Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse...
That actually makes sense, and I get what you were trying to say now. Good old THAC0.... So glad that's gone.
The thing here is, you have a flat set of defenses. Touch AC, Flat-footed AC, AC. A normal wizard would probably hit a target in metal armor by rolling a 5 with Shocking Grasp in most circumstances, because he's going after the touch AC, which is quite low. The magus trades the ability to target this Touch AC and is forced to swing at the (potentially twice as high or more) standard AC, with the benefit being the ability to apply his weapon damage and use his weapon's critical threat range if he successfully connects.
By removing the in-built bonuses for a spell like Shocking Grasp, you're actually making Joe the Wizard with his 1/2 BAB better at connecting with Shocking Grasp than a class made to utilize touch spells specifically. The balance has already been achieved by the Magus relinquishing his ability to target the much weaker Touch AC when using Spellstrike.
There's nothing in the text of the spell, or in the balance of the game, that would/should/does deny the magus the standard +3 to hit vs. metal targets provided by Shocking Grasp.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having weird multi-AC-value partial misses is clunky, confusing, and not part of the rules.
+1
The definition of spellstrike explicitly subsumes the spell delivery into the melee attack, including changes to use the critical range of the weapon rather than the normal critical range for a spell. You can't split them apart again, and say only part of the attack was successful.
If the weapon misses, it doesn't discharge the spell. This is true for all spells (except Shocking Grasp to some).
This is mis-representing the argument. If the attack misses, it doesn't deal weapon damage, nor does it deliver the spell. Delivering a spell with a miss is explicitly against the rules.
To me Shocking Grasp doesn't pull the weapon, or even the touch toward the target to help it hit. It is a method to convey that the electrical energy from the spell "jumps" toward metal, making it more likely to deal damage against that kind of opponent.
Instead of the +3 representing the spell jumping the gap on a miss (and thus making the spell text wrong) maybe it represents the spell guiding the attack more towards the target. This would mean the rules as written are correct, and everything is working as it should.
With the assumption that the rules were written for a reason, and they are by default correct, this makes your interpretation of the intent less likely.
The thing here is, you have a flat set of defenses. Touch AC, Flat-footed AC, AC. A normal wizard would probably hit a target in metal armor by rolling a 5 with Shocking Grasp in most circumstances, because he's going after the touch AC, which is quite low.
Unless the wizard is holding the charge and trying to deliver the spell with a melee attack, in which he's targeting normal AC, not touch. If the wizard misses, he doesn't get to deliver the spell if he would have hit the touch AC, he just misses, and continues to hold the charge.
The magus trades the ability to target this Touch AC and is forced to swing at the (potentially twice as high or more) standard AC
He's not trading anything, with a held charge he still has the option to make a normal touch attack or an unarmed strike or natural weapon, just like the wizard. The magus just gets the option to use a manufactured weapon in addition to any of the other types of attacks he could use.
|
|
**Content**
I get how it works Grick, I was just trying to address any concerns the other posters may have had about this being "unbalanced" or something, by pointing out that a wizard delivering a touch attack with Shocking Grasp or a Magus using Spellstrike have different pros and cons that remain roughly constant. My point being that there is not only nothing in the rules prohibiting a Magus from gaining the +3 to hit when delivering Shocking Grasp via Spellstrike, but that it does not create any imbalance between the various classes that might utilize the spell through differing methods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this FAQ'd post applies to this question.
"Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185)"
"Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells."
Other than the delivering method (melee vs touch), Spellstrike doesn't change the spell. The +3 bonus to hit with shocking grasp applies regardless if it's via touch or spellstrike.
This is mis-representing the argument. If the attack misses, it doesn't deal weapon damage, nor does it deliver the spell. Delivering a spell with a miss is explicitly against the rules.
Since you seem to have misunderstood, I will try and clarify my statement.
If the weapon misses (whether this is Spellstrike or Unarmed Strike, or Natural Weapon), the weapon doesn't deal damage and the spell doesn't discharge. Miss = nothing happens, no damage, no discharge, nothing, nada.
Some people seem to think that Shocking Grasp is an exception to this rule. That it either deals damage on a miss that is within 3 without dealing weapon damage in the process OR provides the +3 bonus to discharge the jolt from the spell to the weapon used to "deliver it". Thus making it the only spell that changes how Spellstrike works. I personally don't believe either of these two options, but I have already given my reasons (based on how the spell has always worked throughout history) and have been told that I don't know what I'm talking about.
With the assumption that the rules were written for a reason, and they are by default correct, this makes your interpretation of the intent less likely.
And I explained that my assumption was based on a spell written over 25 years ago and the intent behind the original text based on the system at the time. I (and probably any one that knows what THAC0 stands for) would argue that the "interpretation of the intent" is pretty spot on.
I play a Magus in a Carrion Crown game and I would love to have my Shocking Grasp confer a bonus to my normal melee attack making that attack not only deal more damage, but also be easier to hit with, but my DM is an old gamer as well and "assumes" the "intent" of Shocking Grasp the same way that I do. Heck we didn't even have to talk about it. He just said to me one day "I can't believe some people think Shocking Grasp gives a bonus on the regular attack from Spellstrike". My response was "You are kidding right?"
This may just be an "old dogs" "new tricks" thing though. We have had to change our thinking on some other changes Pathfinder (and even 3.5) made over the years, and this may just be another one of those. I do wish a Dev would pipe up though. It's so much easier to change an entire group's point of view when they know "this is how it is" as opposed to "this is how a bunch of people kind of think of it as".
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there's nothing that says one way or the other.
There's also nothing explicitly saying one way or the other on whether the +3 is removed if you use Reach Spell, are enlarged for additional reach, have parachute pants on, or are attacking on Tuesday.
If a rule says "do X", and nothing else contradicts it, you do X. Changing Y has no bearing on X unless you can prove dependency of X on Y.
Failing to call out everything that Spellstrike doesn't change does not constitute the rules being unclear or silent.
|
|
there's nothing that says one way or the other.There's also nothing explicitly saying one way or the other on whether the +3 is removed if you use Reach Spell, are enlarged for additional reach, have parachute pants on, or are attacking on Tuesday.
If a rule says "do X", and nothing else contradicts it, you do X. Changing Y has no bearing on X unless you can prove dependency of X on Y.
Failing to call out everything that Spellstrike doesn't change does not constitute the rules being unclear or silent.
+1
Some people seem to think that Shocking Grasp is an exception to this rule. That it either deals damage on a miss that is within 3 without dealing weapon damage in the process OR provides the +3 bonus to discharge the jolt from the spell to the weapon used to "deliver it".
Some people think it rains oatmeal on Thursdays.
Thus making it the only spell that changes how Spellstrike works. I personally don't believe either of these two options, but I have already given my reasons (based on how the spell has always worked throughout history) and have been told that I don't know what I'm talking about.
The reason you don't know what you're talking about isn't that the oatmeal people are right, it's that you're saying the spell text is wrong.
There are more than those two options.
Option A) Miss doesn't really miss, sometimes.
Option B) The spell doesn't do what it says.
Option C) The spell does what it says.
And I explained that my assumption was based on a spell written over 25 years ago and the intent behind the original text based on the system at the time.
So in an old version of a different game touch AC didn't exist. Thus, Shocking Grasp was given a bonus to hit. What about all the other touch spells? They don't get a bonus to hit. This means the bonus in shocking grasp was not created as a way to cause touch spells to be more likely to hit.
Even if that was the case, when PFRPG was created, they DO have touch AC. And shocking grasp still has the +3 bonus, which everyone agrees works with touch attacks, which means the bonus is still not intended to represent how touch attacks are easier to land than normal attacks.
He just said to me one day "I can't believe some people think Shocking Grasp gives a bonus on the regular attack from Spellstrike". My response was "You are kidding right?"
Yeah, he should really read the rules some time. They've changed a lot. Elf is a race, now!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It clear states, in the description, melee touch attack.
Yes, because it's a touch spell.
In addition to that it ALSO, in a whole other sentence, grants you a bonus to attack rolls made to deliver the spell. Not touch attack rolls, just attack rolls. The bonus to hit is in no way connected to the method of delivery. This is why a wizard punching someone in armor gets the bonus. This is why a sorcerer clawing at someone with a sword gets the bonus. And this is also why a magus stabbing someone gets the bonus. Because those are all attack rolls made to deliver the spell.
If you use one of those methods to deliver a Vampiric touch, you still get the temporary hit points, even though an earlier sentence in the spell description mentioned a touch attack.
At this point, you've got what the rules say. If your GM wants to run it differently, that's his option.
|
|
It clear states, in the description, melee touch attack.
Spell Strike is a melee AC attack.
Spell Strike changes the mechanic on how the spell is delivered. The debate comes from if this change negates the +3 bonus to hit metal targets.
Matt, please take a step back.
Spellstrike delivers melee touch attacks via a weapon.
If you really, really, really need a justification for a weapon attack to get the +3, consider the weapon being slightly magnetized while the Shocking Grasp is being held, so it is "guided" toward ferrous (metallic) targets.
Also remember the -2 that the Magus is taking to hit by using spell combat to get the spellstrike spell turned on...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, Matt2VK; You DM is quite incorrect. I direct you to the words of developers once again, in case you missed it the first time it was posted. As this comes from the designers of the game, there is no question of intent for how the spell is supposed to work with spellstrike. SpellStrike supposed to work to give them more options, not limit them. You are delivering the spell through your weapon, and qualify for the bonus. What else do you need?
Also remember the -2 that the Magus is taking to hit by using spell combat to get the spellstrike spell turned on...
While you have the option of using Spellstrike and Spell Combat together, they both work just fine independently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 on the +3. Arr.
Metal. It be conducive. Aye.
|
|
I play a Magus in a Carrion Crown game and I would love to have my Shocking Grasp confer a bonus to my normal melee attack making that attack not only deal more damage, but also be easier to hit with, but my DM is an old gamer as well and "assumes" the "intent" of Shocking Grasp the same way that I do. Heck we didn't even have to talk about it. He just said to me one day "I can't believe some people think Shocking Grasp gives a bonus on the regular attack from Spellstrike". My response was "You are kidding right?"
This may just be an "old dogs" "new tricks" thing though.
That's pretty much what it is.
Your Magus still has the ability to deliver the spell using a normal touch attack, whereupon I assume you and your GM would allow the +3 bonus.
Spellstrike, though, allows a magus to use a melee weapon attack, rather than a melee touch attack, to deliver the spell. This is an attack against regular AC, not against the touch AC, so it's already going to require a roll at least four higher to successfully land the attack. And yet despite that, and despite the fact that shocking grasp explicitly allows the +3 bonus if the opponent is wielding a metal weapon, you think that for some reason it doesn't apply if the magus is delivering the attack through a weapon?
You can house-rule what you want, of course, but by RAW the bonus applies.
+1 on the +3. Arr.
Metal. It be conducive. Aye.
This argument doesn't hold water for the same reason that I'm coming around to the +3 being totally valid.
James M above said that Shocking Grasp behaves no differently if it was changed to Fire, Cold, or Acid damage (via bloodline or metamagic or whatever) so the +3 then isn't because of it being electricity damage or being conductive to metal armor/items. So if you take away everything but the mechanics (something that is sometimes hard to do with the "Electricity vs. metal = good, this spell is electricity so it is good against metal, +3!" types of descriptions) this spell plainly and justly gives a +3 to hit no matter what. You have to take all the fluff, physics, explanations, and intent out of it, but then it is clear. It just isn't easy to do.
This changes my point of view on the whole thing. "Metal Buster Touch" would be a better name for the spell :)
|
|
The +3 to hit from Shocking Grasp applies to the spell.
Close, it applies to an attack roll made to deliver the spell.
An attack (against an enemy wearing metal armor) that misses by 1-3 still hits, but only partially. The weapon damage is not rolled because the weapon didn't connect. But, the Shocking Grasp can still arc and hit the target, thanks to the +3 to hit bonus for the spell. The weapon has still still 'delivered' the spell.
If a wizard uses his Bite attack to deliver a held touch spell (lets say Ghoul touch to make it easy) and his attack roll is less than the AC value of his target, but it would have been enough to hit his target's touch AC, he still missed the attack, he still didn't deliver the spell, and he's still holding the charge.
Having weird multi-AC-value partial misses is clunky, confusing, and not part of the rules.
Your example with Ghoul Touch is not quite similar enough to make a comparison.
That aside, yes the partial is clunky and after double checking the "firing into combat" rules, PF has removed that partial miss scenario (i.e. miss an enemy, hit a friend), so this decision now lies with Rule O and DM fiat.
Cheers