Firstly, I apologize for creating another thread about spellstrike.
This may seem a fairly obvious question, and I didn't see any contention regarding it, but there you go. The description of the spell Mirror Strike says you are literally splitting one attack into two, "You briefly alter the flow of time to split a melee attack into two attacks". So,
If a magus casts Mirror Strike, and then in the next round successfully strikes two targets using the Mirror Strike, is all damage attached to that strike equally split? So for example, Weapon Damage + Shocking Grasp (via spellstrike) + any other damage such as sneak attack or weapon quality is all halved and each half applied to the lucky targets.
Is this right?
I thought it would be fairly obviously yes, but others think not.
.
Mirror Strike
School transmutation; Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a shard of mirror)
Range personal
Target you
Duration see text
You briefly alter the flow of time to split a melee attack into two attacks. Before the end of your next turn, when you make your next melee attack roll, compare the result to the AC of two opponents within your reach. If the selected opponents are flanking you, you gain a +2 bonus on your attack roll (and confirmation attack roll, see below). If you hit both enemies, you can deal half damage to each. Hitting only one opponent allows you to deal that opponent normal damage for your attack. On a critical threat, you can make only one attack roll to confirm the critical hit against both opponents. If you confirm against both, you deal half your critical hit damage to each. Your hit is a normal hit rather than a critical if you confirm against only one opponent. If you fail to use the effect before the end of your next turn, the spell ends.
Whats the question? The rules spell it out fairly clearly. Roll damage once, split that damage evenly between the two targets.
If a wizard cast mirror strike and then shocking grasp, I'd expect the damage from the latter to be divided equally. I don't see a reason why spellstrike would change anything.
I don't see a reason why spellstrike would change anything.
Neither do I. That's why I was quite surprised when another player suggested the shocking grasp would only affect one of the two targets. And then went on about it for enough time to grind the combat to a halt..
I pointed out that the spell specifically splits one attack between two. As it was a PFS game I just thought I'd ask here to see if anyone else had had problems with this. Thanks for the feedback Claxon & Blahpers.
With the scenario you presented, you are correct: If he casts Mirror Strike, then on the next turn casts Shocking Grasp and attacks and successfully hits, it would split the damage of both the weapon attack and the Shocking Grasp.
You aren't making two attacks; you're making one attack (charged with Shocking grasp) during which you bend time to strike both targets simultaneously.
Is it possible the player was confused on the order of events and thought the Shocking Grasp was cast first? In that case, the moment you cast Mirror Strike your held Shocking Grasp would dissipate.
I suppose this should be a different thread, but ..
Although a held touch spell dissipates when you cast another spell, what happens if you use a wand or potion, taking care obviously to use the hand not holding the charge of course..
I'm not certain that RAW directly covers that. However, I would argue that since wands don't count as the Magus casting the spell for the purposes of Spellstrike and Spell Combat (normally), then they would not cause the held charge(s) to dissipate either.
I dug into the FAQ, and although there's not a direct ruling on whether a held charge would dissipate or not, there is certainly the definition that using a wand or potion is not considered spellcasting.
So if it ain't a spell, it ain't going to cause a held charge to dissipate (in my eyes at least)..
I do seem to recall a thread regarding a Wand Wielder shocking grasp Magus, with a wand of True Strike weaponwanded into his sword.
From what I remember, they were never able to decide whether it would or wouldn't dissipate the shock.
The held charge rules should mean the loss of the held charge when mirror stike is cast.
The held charge rules should mean the loss of the held charge when mirror stike is cast.
Indeed, except if you're using a wand of Mirror Strike, you're not casting it. So the part of the held charge rules which say the charge dissipates when you cast a spell. Wands don't count as casting a spell, they're a magic item.
Quote from FAQ
"Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting."
So whatever a wand is doing, it's definitely not you casting a spell. Otherwise Rogues wouldn't be able to UMD a wand into working.
The held charge rules should mean the loss of the held charge when mirror stike is cast.
You would normally cast Mirror Strike prior to casting Shocking Grasp. Mirror Strike, not being a touch spell, would be unaffected by the casting of Shocking Grasp.
I suppose this should be a different thread, but ..
Although a held touch spell dissipates when you cast another spell, what happens if you use a wand or potion, taking care obviously to use the hand not holding the charge of course..
Held charges are not associated with a specific hand. If you were not holding the wand at the time of casting shocking grasp, then as soon as you touched the wand so you could cast the wands spell your shocking grasp would discharge.
As for the charge dissipating on the use of a wand, RAW doesn't say, but I would rule it as the same as casting a spell for this purpose, and thus dissipate the held charge. My reason for this is that I would not allow a player to 'cast' all 50 charges from a wand, all charges being held, then strike an opponent for all 50 charges at once with a single touch attack.
As for the charge dissipating on the use of a wand, RAW doesn't say, but I would rule it as the same as casting a spell for this purpose, and thus dissipate the held charge. My reason for this is that I would not allow a player to 'cast' all 50 charges from a wand, all charges being held, then strike an opponent for all 50 charges at once with a single touch attack.
By 'precedent' RAW does actually cover it.
When you use a wand to cast the spell, it is the wand that casts the spell, not you; this is made clear by the fact that you can't apply metamagic feats to wand spells or (normally) use a wand with Spell Combat.
And so the same touch spell rules apply to the wand as they do to spells cast by a creature: When you cast spell #1 with the wand, it's now holding the charge of that spell; if you cast spell #2 from the wand, the original held charge dissipates.