Magus Spellstrike Whip Touch Attack allowed?


Rules Questions

Liberty's Edge

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 [u]as part of a melee attack.[/u] 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.

Touch Attacks:
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.

If I use a whip with spellstrike, can I use it just for touch attacks, and not to deal damage, which it can't do with a +1 armor bonus or +3 natural armor bonus.?

For instance, if I want to use chill touch and hit an enemy with my whip with AC 17 and touch AC 13, could I opt to just touch the enemy with the whip to deliver the touch spell rather than attempt to hit the enemy with the whip?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No, you can't give something that hasn't it the ability to use touch attack (barring specific abilities that say explicitly that they allow that, like Accurate Strike).


Sure you can.


Yeah it is the part you bolded. As part of a melee attack so no you can't do it as a touch attack. You have to put up with regular AC. Use a scorpion whip perhaps?

Grand Lodge

Whip Mastery is what you need.


If it's a brilliant energy whip yes if not no.
However you would not be able to hit constructs, undead, & a few others with it though .


Accurate Strike allows the use of touch AC for your melee attacks (causing the attacks to do normal damage), as does the 'Brilliant' magic weapon property. Nothing about the Whip itself says it can target a touch AC - all it says is that if the target has armor (defined as +1 Armor AC or +3 natural AC), that it does no damage (when hit). It does not say that the hit is calculated any differently. All Whip Mastery would do, in regards to a Magus using whip with spellstrike, is allow the whip to do it's weapon damage (1d3+STR nonlethal S) as well as the spell.

Now, it would MAKE SENSE that you'd be able to use any weapon targeting a touch AC to just see if you can touch the enemies armor/shield/person with a weapon, and deal no damage, but short of Ultimate Combat's "Armor as Damage Reduction" Variant Rules, there is nothing in the rules that allows this.


In theory, it might be something you could house rule that the spell effect can be applied if the attack roll is > the touch AC, and weapon damage applied if > Total AC.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
In theory, it might be something you could house rule that the spell effect can be applied if the attack roll is > the touch AC, and weapon damage applied if > Total AC.

"You may make armed touch attacks" is far less disruptive and easier in play.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Mancatcher or Snag Net can target touch AC.

Liberty's Edge

I think what's being lost here is that I don't mean to actually deal damage.

It's like if I were using a staff and just tapped the person to deliver the spell (not dealing weapon damage), except in this case with a whip.

"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 [u]as part of a melee attack.[/u]"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
solidarigee wrote:

I think what's being lost here is that I don't mean to actually deal damage.

It's like if I were using a staff and just tapped the person to deliver the spell (not dealing weapon damage), except in this case with a whip.

"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."

You are using a weapon? Yes

Your weapon allow you to make touch attacks? No.
You can't make touch attacks with it.

Stop trying to get the benefit of the 15' or reach of the whip for your touch attacks. The rule don't allow that.

Liberty's Edge

I'm just confused how it doesn't work.

Can a weapon touch someone? Yes.
Can I deliver touch spells through a weapon? Yes.
How are touch spells delivered? Through touching someone.

Will this deal weapon damage? Obviously not.

Unless there's something to a touch attack other than just touching someone or their armor, I don't see how this doesn't work.

Also, if it were just about the touch attack I'd just cast spectral hand. I'm doing this because it seems cool.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

solidarigee wrote:
Can I deliver touch spells through a weapon? Yes.

Only in the specific way defined in the Spellstrike class feature, which is to replace the touch attack with a weapon attack, not to make the touch attack with your weapon.

And weapon attacks—such as the one you make with Spellstrike instead of a touch attack—are by definition resolved against normal AC.

Now if you had a rapier of puncturing, on the other hand...


solidarigee wrote:
Can a weapon touch someone? Yes.

There's the rub. There aren't actually rules for touching (but not damaging) an enemy with a weapon against the enemy's will. Touch attacks assume that you use whatever means necessary to make contact with the enemy; those means are significantly lessened if you aren't right next to the enemy. Basically, the difference between whipping someone and just touching them (with or without the whip) is much narrower at 15' range than it is when you're right next to them.

That said, I'd allow it, but don't expect all GMs to.

Liberty's Edge

blahpers wrote:
solidarigee wrote:
Can a weapon touch someone? Yes.

There's the rub. There aren't actually rules for touching (but not damaging) an enemy with a weapon against the enemy's will. Touch attacks assume that you use whatever means necessary to make contact with the enemy; those means are significantly lessened if you aren't right next to the enemy. Basically, the difference between whipping someone and just touching them (with or without the whip) is much narrower at 15' range than it is when you're right next to them.

That said, I'd allow it, but don't expect all GMs to.

This is the one that actually explains why it doesn't work, thanks.


Yeah, like I said earlier, it could very easily be house ruled, and it does make sense in just about every situation i can think of. Then you consider things like Shocking Grasp's +3 to hit against metal wearing targets. Should that apply to spellstrike? Why would an electrified sword penetrate armor better than a non-electrified charge? The only way to handle this in a way that makes sense is to treat the touch and penetration as two different aspects. If houseruled in such a way, in the case of spellstriking with shocking grasp, you'd apply the +3 on the 'touch' aspect for spell delivery, but not on the weapon penetration.

In the end, i don't think this rule adds a LOT to figure, I mean, it's really only of use for a magus, so he's really the only one needing to swing against multiple ACs.


Buy a transformative Mage Hook. Use power to turn it into a scorpion whip. Use as whip. Make touch attacks with it at 15' AND get a +4.


solidarigee wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

If I use a whip with spellstrike, can I use it just for touch attacks, and not to deal damage, which it can't do with a +1 armor bonus or +3 natural armor bonus.?

For instance, if I want to use chill touch and hit an enemy...

I feel like you should be able to choose what kind of attack you are making as your attack action. If all you want to do is touch them and do no damage, you should be able to just try to beat their touch AC as a standard action or part of a full round action. If you are using Spellstrike, the touch spell is in your weapon, it doesn't specify that you can't use a reach weapon. And the definition of a touch spell is that it only has to make contact. Bypass your damage (or Disarm/Trip SQ) for a safer touch spell hit...sounds completely level to me. Maybe take a -4 to the attack cause you are essentially limping it over there...


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I just wrote a nice paragraph arguing for doing touch attacks via a weapon, then did some more reading and had to change my mind to an inconclusive answer.

I believe that it is much easier to touch someone with a weapon than to deliberately damage someone with a weapon. In particular there is an Iaido kata I am thinking of where the opponent's blade is deflected in such a way that it may still touch your clothing and possibly even body, but the opponent is unbalanced and unable to put lethal force behind the blade in a direction that would actually hurt you. If a spell required touch via weapon, that would then discharge.

The key point I found is the text clearly states the touch attack is replaced by a melee attack, and while I found text stating that touch attacks can count as armed attacks, I have yet to find anything stating that touch attacks are melee attacks.

So what I find needs clarification by Paizo is if delivering a spell strike via a melee weapon requires doing damage (even if it is absorbed by DR), or if the blade merely has to make contact like a bare hand touch attack.

On the other hand, reading through FAQ's, I realized that if you are holding a spell, all you'd have to do is put on a spiked gauntlet (cestus, or similar glove-like weapon) and you can store that spell indefinitely (even sleep with it), hug your friends, pet a bunny, etc. as long as you don't make melee attacks with that gauntlet or cast another spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lythe Featherblade wrote:


On the other hand, reading through FAQ's, I realized that if you are holding a spell, all you'd have to do is put on a spiked gauntlet (cestus, or similar glove-like weapon) and you can store that spell indefinitely (even sleep with it), hug your friends, pet a bunny, etc. as long as you don't make melee attacks with that gauntlet or cast another spell.

Read the rules about holding a charge. And re-read the FAQ.

FAQ wrote:


On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.


I think what is trying to be said is that if the hand is covered with the weapon then it can't touch anything else since it'd be the weapon touching it. When wearing a gauntlet, it's touching things not your hand.


^^^ You touch the gauntlet then.


HectorVivis wrote:
^^^ You touch the gauntlet then.

Quote from the FAQ: "On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell."

I think you misunderstood something along the line. Look at Diego Rossi's post and read the FAQ quote in full.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
I think what is trying to be said is that if the hand is covered with the weapon then it can't touch anything else since it'd be the weapon touching it. When wearing a gauntlet, it's touching things not your hand.

I am fairly sure that that is what she is trying to say, but that interpretation has a big hole. If you use it every spellcaster that isn't a magus would be unable to deliver any touch spell if he was wearing an armor that include gauntlets.

Gauntlets are weapons, non maguses can't deliver touch spells through weapons, so they are unable to deliver the spell to the intended target. Instead it will be discharged against the gauntlet.
Same thing for all the magical gloves that work as some form of weapon.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

The key is gauntlets that are also weapons. How many spellcasters actually wear spiked gauntlets on both hands?

Cestus wouldn't be a true container as the description indicates the fingers are exposed, but spiked gauntlets, or any weapon that does fully enclose the hand would.

Maybe it is a loophole, but considering the ridiculous things I sometimes see that are held up via RAW, it is fairly clear cut in this case. Via the current rules and FAQ that as long as the ruling supports that you can't make a touch attack via a melee weapon as a magus, you can store a spell indefinitely in a spiked gauntlet.

If it is ruled that you can discharge through your weapon via a touch vs needing to deal damage, then you can't container a charge.


And as a followup if you wish to argue that the palm of the spiked gauntlet is a non-damaging part of the weapon and would still work for touch attacks and discharging, then you still open up the field for non-damaging parts of other weapon being able to deliver touch attacks. Either way it still needs clarification.

Going back to ease of doing touch attacks and the whip, if you are trying to merely touch it is definitely easier, the (real world) difficulty would be in not doing damage when you do. So yea, if you are trying to only touch then you might have a harder time than mere touch AC, but if you don't care whether you actually damage or not as long as you touch, then regular touch AC would apply, with maybe a % chance to deal some damage (potentially modified by armor).. mainly for when you use that whip (or other weapon) to deliver a spell to an ally that's not next to you.

The other key to this issue about using weapons for touch attack beyond the benefit of range is bonuses from feats and enhancements on the weapon that you wouldn't otherwise get with your bare hand. Having +5 for a touch attack can be pretty useful sometimes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lythe Featherblade wrote:
The key is gauntlets that are also weapons. How many spellcasters actually wear spiked gauntlets on both hands?

All the gauntlets are weapons, check the weapon tables.

PRD wrote:
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

so a large percentage of the clerics, oracles, paladins, some ranger, and some bard wear them routinely.

Lythe Featherblade wrote:

And as a followup if you wish to argue that the palm of the spiked gauntlet is a non-damaging part of the weapon and would still work for touch attacks and discharging, then you still open up the field for non-damaging parts of other weapon being able to deliver touch attacks. Either way it still needs clarification.

Not what I said.

I am saying that when you cast a touch range spell and you are wearing something on your hand
1) it don't count for "touching anything" and discharging the spell;
2) the held touch spell is held on the outside of the glove, gauntlet and so on.

Without those stipulations a caster would be unable to use gloves, gauntlets and so on. Note that the cestus would discharge the spell, as your hand is touching it.

Lythe Featherblade wrote:


Maybe it is a loophole, but considering the ridiculous things I sometimes see that are held up via RAW, it is fairly clear cut in this case. Via the current rules and FAQ that as long as the ruling supports that you can't make a touch attack via a melee weapon as a magus, you can store a spell indefinitely in a spiked gauntlet.

People that treat the rules as they were a piece of programming, try to find a loophole and then cry "see, see, I can do that" are a dime the dozen in the forum. But the ruels are written for human beings with a minimum capability to interpret them, not for mindless automatons.


No.

Would YOU allow a player to use a flaming weapon as a rouge to just touch foes to get sneak attack?

Always consider:

are you arguing from belief to improve this game for all and all games for everyone. OR are you arguing to be a douch, emotive reaction, ego, self interest, this game specific self aggrandisement?


insaneogeddon wrote:

No.

Would YOU allow a player to use a flaming weapon as a rouge to just touch foes to get sneak attack?

Always consider:

are you arguing from belief to improve this game for all and all games for everyone. OR are you arguing to be a douch, emotive reaction, ego, self interest, this game specific self aggrandisement?

A flaming weapon isn't a touch spell. Your argument is invalid.

(SA only adds extra to the damage of the attack, and a touch attack doesn't do damage. Even if it did 'extra damage' from a flaming weapon, the 'attack' didn't do any damage, so cannot benefit from extra damage.... which, really, is the same reason that the flaming enchant doesn't do any damage... because it functions by doing 'extra damage' too. So, a touch attack with a flaming whip wouldn't do any damage, and therefore not be able to deal extra damage either.)


The only RAW argument that really prevents this is that there aren't well defined rules for choosing to make touch attack with a weapon.

Is it easy to figure out how that'd work? Yeah.

Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.

The purpose of spellstrike is to utilize a weapon as a touch spell conduit, so that when you strike someone with it, it also discharges a spell charge.

So, if you could make a melee touch attack with a weapon, the touch spell should discharge and deliver the spell effect.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Remy Balster wrote:


Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.

It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.
It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.

It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.


Remy Balster wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.
It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.
It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.

Yeah, its pretty much a core ability of the magus.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.
It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.
It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.
Yeah, its pretty much a core ability of the magus.
PRD wrote:
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.


If the magus attacking a person in chain with a whip with shocking grasp he will need to hit the normal AC of the target. He will get +3 to hit because of shocking grasp. If he hits the the shocking grasp will harm the target. The whip will not harm the target unless he has whip mastery.

There is a difference between hit and damage. Whips treat armor as DR infinate unless you have whip mastery.

They would not even damage someone in armor if they were brilliant energy weapons.

The above is stupid but RAW. Personally I allow whips to damage any target and whip mastery just removes the AoO.


Diego Rossi wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.
It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.
It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.
Yeah, its pretty much a core ability of the magus.
PRD wrote:
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.

Let it go, buddy.

There is no such thing as a melee touch attack with a weapon simply to touch them. Since there is no such thing, people can form whatever opinion they like regarding how it 'could or would' work if it was a thing.

And rules quotes aren't going to much matter, as we're discussing something that isn't covered by the rules.

Can you make a touch attack with a weapon for the express purpose of simply making contact and not injuring them? Nothing says that you can, no.

Is it easy to imagine how that would work? Yes.

Should a Magus be able to deliver a touch spell through a weapon, if we do allow these weapon touch attack thingies? Yeah, seems about right. The intent of the magus ability is to channel touch spells through their weapons, and this would be just another case of them channeling a touch spell through their weapon.

Follow? The point where this convo stopped being RAW was at 'Nothing says you can do this'. Everything after that is the land of 'intent and possibility'.


You cant because channeling spell thru weapon makes it weaker, so instead of just touching someone you need to stab him and discharge spell in the wound or else it will have no effect.


Why don't you try this?

Accurate Strike (Ex)
Prerequisite: Magus 9
Benefit: The magus can expend 2 points from his arcane pool as a swift action to resolve all of his melee weapon attacks until the end of his turn as melee touch attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Remy Balster wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.
It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.
It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.
Yeah, its pretty much a core ability of the magus.
PRD wrote:
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.

Let it go, buddy.

There is no such thing as a melee touch attack with a weapon simply to touch them. Since there is no such thing, people can form whatever opinion they like regarding how it 'could or would' work if it was a thing.

And rules quotes aren't going to much matter, as we're discussing something that isn't covered by the rules.

Can you make a touch attack with a weapon for the express purpose of simply making contact and not injuring them? Nothing says that you can, no.

Is it easy to imagine how that would work? Yes.

Should a Magus be able to deliver a touch spell through a weapon, if we do allow these weapon...

Rule Forum

Suggestion/Houserules/Homebrew is anotehr section of the forum.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
lucesque wrote:

Why don't you try this?

Accurate Strike (Ex)
Prerequisite: Magus 9
Benefit: The magus can expend 2 points from his arcane pool as a swift action to resolve all of his melee weapon attacks until the end of his turn as melee touch attacks.

Because someone want the benefit without paying the arcana points or taking the Arcana.

Shadow Lodge

Want Touch Spells w/reach? Try this.

Sczarni

A successful TRIP Combat Maneuver with a whip would deliver the chill touch... just saying...


"Remy Balster wrote:


There is no such thing as a melee touch attack with a weapon simply to touch them. Since there is no such thing, people can form whatever opinion they like regarding how it 'could or would' work if it was a thing.

There sure IS "a melee touch attack with a weapon simply to touch them". It's called a wizards hook.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Rule Forum

Suggestion/Houserules/Homebrew is anotehr section of the forum.

Cute.

We don't need to take a discussion of intent to the homebrew forums. Especially as it relates to a rules question.

Both RAW and RAI are welcome here, even if you don't like it.


Of course you can use a wio to use Spellstrike. Where is the Spellstrike description does it say the melee attack has to deal damage to deliver the spell? All he whip says is that it doesn't deal damage to amor a voce a +1, it never says it can't HIT armor above +1 and all you need to do is make contact in order to make the Spellstrike ability work. You can still make disarm and trip attacks with a whip against someone in any type of armor, therefore you can make contact with a whip, just not deal damage.


maouse wrote:
A successful TRIP Combat Maneuver with a whip would deliver the chill touch... just saying...

Really now? Then what, pray tell, is this feat for:

PRD wrote:

Tripping Staff

Benefit: You treat quarterstaves as if they had the trip special feature.
Special: If you are a magus with the staff magus archetype, you can use spellstrike on any trip combat maneuver you make with the staff.

Why would you need a special line in a feat that says you can use spellstrike when tripping with a staff if you can use spellstrike on a trip maneuver by default?


Kazaan wrote:
maouse wrote:
A successful TRIP Combat Maneuver with a whip would deliver the chill touch... just saying...

Really now? Then what, pray tell, is this feat for:

PRD wrote:

Tripping Staff

Benefit: You treat quarterstaves as if they had the trip special feature.
Special: If you are a magus with the staff magus archetype, you can use spellstrike on any trip combat maneuver you make with the staff.
Why would you need a special line in a feat that says you can use spellstrike when tripping with a staff if you can use spellstrike on a trip maneuver by default?

That's a very good example of "exception that proves the rule": If X, then you can spellstrike with a trip, therefore you can not normally spellstrike with a trip.

However, the Staff Magus feats are piss-poorly designed, and on that basis, I would not allow them as arguments for anything outside their positive effects.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Seraph Stormborn wrote:
Of course you can use a wio to use Spellstrike. Where is the Spellstrike description does it say the melee attack has to deal damage to deliver the spell? All he whip says is that it doesn't deal damage to amor a voce a +1, it never says it can't HIT armor above +1 and all you need to do is make contact in order to make the Spellstrike ability work. You can still make disarm and trip attacks with a whip against someone in any type of armor, therefore you can make contact with a whip, just not deal damage.

Yes, you can use whip, even if it don't deal any damage, but you still need to make a melee attack, as spellstrike say: "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."

maouse wrote:
A successful TRIP Combat Maneuver with a whip would deliver the chill touch... just saying...
PRD wrote:


Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).and

PRD wrote:


While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

To use spellstrike with a weapon you need to make a melee attack. Trip replace your melee attack with a combat maneuver. You can't use spellstrike with it.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Seraph Stormborn wrote:
Of course you can use a wio to use Spellstrike. Where is the Spellstrike description does it say the melee attack has to deal damage to deliver the spell? All he whip says is that it doesn't deal damage to amor a voce a +1, it never says it can't HIT armor above +1 and all you need to do is make contact in order to make the Spellstrike ability work. You can still make disarm and trip attacks with a whip against someone in any type of armor, therefore you can make contact with a whip, just not deal damage.

Yes, you can use whip, even if it don't deal any damage, but you still need to make a melee attack, as spellstrike say: "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."

maouse wrote:
A successful TRIP Combat Maneuver with a whip would deliver the chill touch... just saying...
PRD wrote:


Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).and

PRD wrote:


While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
To use spellstrike with a weapon you need to make a melee attack. Trip replace your melee attack with a combat maneuver. You can't use spellstrike with it.

That's a good point. I was simply making the case that there is no reason that you couldn't use Spellstrike with a whip. Seems as though I was wong in my use of the trip example, but am still correct about being able to use the ability in conjunction with a whip.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus Spellstrike Whip Touch Attack allowed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.