So in our real life game tonight, the follow situation happened with our magus:
He cast Shocking Grasp, and with Spell Combat used Spellstrike to try and attack an enemy elf. However, he rolled a one and the GM had him roll to determine if it was critical failure. It wasn't so he hit the wall instead.
Does this mean when he hit the wall with Spellstrike, his Shocking Grasp got discharged harmlessly into the wall?
Because according to the rules:
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
Second scenario:
What if instead, he just missed the elf. He would still be holding the charge, correct?
So now, second round of combat, he attacks the elf, and hits. Does the Shocking Grasp go off?
And then he uses Spell Combat to cast Shocking Grasp again, which grants him a free attack, that he delivers via Spellstrike.
Would all of this get him twice his weapon damage and twice the Shocking Grasp damage in one round??
Does this mean when he hit the wall with Spellstrike, his Shocking Grasp got discharged harmlessly into the wall?Because according to the rules:
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
According to the rules you just miss when you roll a 1 and do not hit walls or something. So the rules can't really help you with your scenario.
RAW if he touches anything except his weapon he discharges the spell but he does not accidently hit other things when missing in combat.
Your second scenario is right. He could have delivered the held shocking grasp with his first attack, casting a new one after that and delivered that as well.
So then whats the point of the Spellstrike, if you can do that normally?
I mean, if I'm a Sorcerer, I can cast Shocking Grasp in round one, and forgo my free attack. Then, in the second round, I could hit my opponent with my staff, which would deal its normal weapon damage, and then the Shocking Grasp damage, correct?
Thus it seems like Spellstrike is kinda pointless, save for allowing you to both cast and attack with your weapon in one round and dealing both types of damage.
Is that really its whole point?
I had always figured it was to allow you to do both spell damage and weapon damage together, but you're saying I can already do that, but I have to wait a turn if I wasn't a Magus.
Edit: Which if you wait a turn as a Magus is effectively getting you a free critical hit, without having to roll a threat first.
Thus allowing you to triple your weapon and spell damage if you actually score a critical hit.
No, you cannot, as a sorcerer, deliver your touch spells with a staff attack. You can only deliver it with a touch attack, which would take your standard action for that 2nd round.I mean, if I'm a Sorcerer, I can cast Shocking Grasp in round one, and forgo my free attack. Then, in the second round, I could hit my opponent with my staff, which would deal its normal weapon damage, and then the Shocking Grasp damage, correct?
The you are describing spellstrike properly, just were comparing it to an incorrect 'normal' spell delivery.
Thus it seems like Spellstrike is kinda pointless, save for allowing you to both cast and attack with your weapon in one round and dealing both types of damage.Is that really its whole point?
I had always figured it was to allow you to do both spell damage and weapon damage together, but you're saying I can already do that, but I have to wait a turn if I wasn't a Magus.
Edit: Which if you wait a turn as a Magus is effectively getting you a free critical hit, without having to roll a threat first.Thus allowing you to triple your weapon and spell damage if you actually score a critical hit.
So, when dealing with a single effect spell like shocking grasp, one could:
Using spell combat, Cast Shocking Grasp, get your free 'touch attack' which is delivered via a weapon swing, then take full attack. So for this round, you have the Weapon + Weapon + Spell.
If, you miss with those attacks, and enter the second round with a charge, you can, as you describe:
Use spell combat, choosing to take the Full Attack first. If you hit, you deliver the spell. Then the spell comes, so you cast shocking grasp again. You then use the 'free touch attack' granted by the spell via spellstrike. In this case, you could potentially do:
Weapon + Spell + Weapon + Spell
It gets more interesting with multi-touch spells such as Chill Touch or Frostbite. With those, say you are at 3rd level, using a 1d6 weapon:
Round 1:
- Spell Combat (Cast)
- - Cast Frostbite
- - - Free Touch delivered via SpellStrike (Weapon + Frostbite #1)
- Spell Combat (Full Attack)
- - Melee Attack with SpellStrike (Weapon + Frostbite #2)
Round 2:
- Spell Combat (Full Attack)
- - Melee Attack with SpellStrike (Weapon + Frostbite #3)
- Spell Combat (Cast)
- - Cast Frostbite
- - - Free Touch delivered via SpellStrike (Weapon + Frostbite #1)
Round 3:
- Move to next target
- Melee Attack with SpellStrike (Weapon + Frostbite #2)
Round 4:
- Melee Attack with SpellStrike (Weapon + Frostbite #3)
This, over 4 rounds, and using 2 1st level spells, have made 6 attacks, each potentially doing 1d6 weapon + 1d6+1 nonlethal cold. It is this action economy that makes the magus great. However, with limited spells, you've burned through a decent amount of your daily allotment, and for the rounds in spell combat, you are taking a -2 to hit with your weapon against an armored AC, vs the sorcerer making his touch attacks, without an attack penalty, against an unarmored Touch AC.
You also have a chance to critical on any of these weapon attacks, which if delivering a spell effect, provides a x2 critical on the spell as well. This is why there are so many Scimitar wielding Magi, due to the increased crit range (before even considering the Dervish feats)
Which is exactly what I thought, but then it says, as in my OP, that if you touch anything,even accidentally, you discharge the spell.
So, how does a non Magus not discharge a touch spell when he hits with a weapon attack?
Which is exactly what I thought, but then it says, as in my OP, that if you touch anything,even accidentally, you discharge the spell.
So, how does a non Magus not discharge a touch spell when he hits with a weapon attack?
Because you haven't touched anyone with your hand when you hit with a weapon attack. The spell is held in your hand, not on your weapon (unless you have spellstrike). If I am reading correctly, without spellstrike you couldn't even hold a weapon in the hand you are holding a charge with as this would discharge the spell.
You could hold a weapon while casting the spell (only need one hand to cast). That way you would not discharge on the weapon, I guess. But you'd still not be able to discharge by hitting someone with the weapon.
A non magus, using the 'single hand to cast' description, is holding the spell in the off-hand that did the casting. He can either continue holding it there, or reach out and touch someone with that hand. The only attacks you are allowed to make while 'holding the charge' are 'touch attacks', or unarmed and natural weapon attacks. In which case, if you hit, the spell is discharged in the attack. Making any weapon attack, hit or miss, while 'holding the charge' would lose the charge.
But Spellstrike doesn't actually channel the spell, per se.
Its a replacement effect.
So you could not, for example
Cast Shocking Grasp in round 1 and not attack.
Then, in round two, attack with your weapon and claim its a Spellstrike with the held charge from round 1, not a brand new spell.
You could, however, make a normal touch attack, then cast the spell again and make a Spellstrike, but only if your BAB was high enough to allow more than one attack. Right?
No Monkeygod, just no. You have really misunderstod the rules.
There are two abilities at play here:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
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.
A magus gets to use spellcombat to cast a touch spell and make a full attack. Normally, casting most spells is a standard action on it's own. Because touch attacks include an attack roll, once you have spell strike you're essentially getting an extra weapon attack and spell damage.
However, having spellstrike and spell combat do not prevent you from casting touch spells the same one anyone else does. There's just no good reason to do so normally.
So you could very much not use spellcombat and just cast shocking grasp and hold the charge instead of taking the attack. You just wouldn't normally want to.
But Spellstrike doesn't actually channel the spell, per se.
Its a replacement effect.
So you could not, for example
Cast Shocking Grasp in round 1 and not attack.
Then, in round two, attack with your weapon and claim its a Spellstrike with the held charge from round 1, not a brand new spell.
You could, however, make a normal touch attack, then cast the spell again and make a Spellstrike, but only if your BAB was high enough to allow more than one attack. Right?
Wrong. Spellstrike can be used to deliver a touch effect whether the direct result of the spell casting (the free action), an attack in the same round as the spell casting (via spell combat, or a quickened spell), or later as part of spell combat (prior to the spell casting) or via a standard or full attack action.
Put simply, any time you would normally be able to make a melee touch attack to deliver a spell, you can make a melee weapon attack instead. Conversely, any time you make a melee weapon attack while holding a touch spell charge, you can deliver the touch effect with the weapon attack.
Reading both descriptions again, plus the ruling on them not randomly discharging the spell if they miss, means what we eventually ruled last night ended up being correct.
Thanks for all the assistance, just needed to make sure we did the right thing.
Only partially 'ruled right'. By the base rules, there is nothing that makes a miss hit something else. If, however, you had rules in place that DID make a 'critical miss' hit something else, I would rule that the spellstrike hit that 'something else' as well. If, for instance, you're running with a critical fail card deck or something. If it says you miss the intended target, and strike a random adjacent target (friend or foe), then I would rule the spell hit that random target as well. By that logic, in your case last night, I'd say the spell went off into the wall.
But in the RAW rules, the reason it isn't lost, is that you genuinely missed everything in your spellstrike attempt.
"Critical Failures" don't exist in Pathfinder.
Rolling a 1, is an automatic miss, and nothing more.
To be fair, they don't exist in the 'core rules', but seeing as how Paizo themselves publish a deck of critical fumble cards, I think it's safe to call them an optional rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, they don't exist in the 'core rules', but seeing as how Paizo themselves publish a deck of critical fumble cards, I think it's safe to call them an optional rule."Critical Failures" don't exist in Pathfinder.
Rolling a 1, is an automatic miss, and nothing more.
One of the worst, in my experience.
Welp, in our games, we use them. So, yea.
Though, I must say, I don't see how they are any worse than a critical hit. I just rolled a d20 30 times, got 5 natural 20s and a single natural 1.
I love the cards (hit and fumble). They provide instant plot twists. My Magus lost 2 fingers last week to a Fungal Crawler that got lucky with an AoO bite attack. Completely changed the tenor of the battle, and the rest of the expedition.
Even with a fumble, the Magus wouldn't discharge into the wall.
...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....
His attack was not successful, being a natural 1, therefore the requirements for spellstrike were not met.
@ Azuroth: That text is irrelevant. Even if it was, the Fumble for the scenario resulted in the Magus hitting the wall, not the creature. The attack was still a success, just only on a different, unintended target. Only if he missed both the wall and the creature would he still be holding the charge.
For the record, here are the relevant rules:
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.
This tells us that A. When the Magus hit the wall (and not the creature), even if he did not mean to hit the wall with his weapon (which is substituted for being applicable for Touch Spells), the spell still discharges into the wall, and B. the Magus' ability to Spellstrike with his weapon is a special class ability that is an exception to the general rule that you must discharge Touch spells with a Natural Weapon (which an Unarmed Strike is constituted as).
Darksol: you seem to be ignoring "If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."
Frankly, the basic rules don't deal well at all with the concept of a critical fumble, and the additional rules from the critical fumble deck are pretty breif and don't cover all situations either. This means either everyone playing should be pretty flexible as far as 'rules' go or additional houserules need to be created to spell out exactly what happens.
In any event, questions on critical fumbles should probably not be in the 'rules' forum.
In any event, questions on critical fumbles should probably not be in the 'rules' forum.
Then questions on any other optional rules should also not be in here (downtime, kingdom building, armor as DR, etc). Its and optional RULE, and should be able to be discussed here. Its not even 3rd party. In any case, if the fumble card said strike the wall, or some other unattended object, or another creature, it all results in a strike, and the spell should go off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Dave Justus: I am not. The attack resulted in missing the original target, the creature (meaning the charge is still being held at this point), but hitting the wall (meaning the charge becomes expended, since the limb/weapon holding the charge touched the wall).
On the contrary, you're ignoring that the result of the fumble ended up with the PC's attack hitting the wall, not the creature, meaning the attack with the held charge became expended. Since RAW, charges are expended regardless of if you intended to hit a given target or not, nothing in the book is being broken or houseruled in this matter. There are no exceptions being made on that front, so by rights this part of the RAW is being upheld.
What isn't being upheld is the result of a Natural 1; instead of it just being an automatic miss, there are rider effects that are applied based upon what's written on the card in respect of the type of attack being made. (On top of which, there are feats and abilities that do have these additional riders, although they are more specific in their results, instead of randomized from a deck of cards.) That's what the houserule is; nothing else has been, nor needs to be, changed, since it properly conforms with the rest of the rules.
@ BBT: The cards are produced as a supplement to the game, from Paizo. Unless the OP are not using these Critical Hit/Fumble cards (which, as far as I know, has not been specified in either event), it's too soon to call it a houserule; the other term being used (optional rule) rings true regardless of the former result.
@ The Rest: While I understand that many of you voice your opinions on the Critical Hit/Fumble Rules, it's hardly fair for you to dismiss results simply due to their involvement, this caused primarily due to your bias towards such rules. You have a right to your opinion, but simply expressing how much you detest the rules in this thread (which, for the record, my group uses and currently enjoys using so far) doesn't help the OP with his question, and simply bogs down the thread into a derailment of "Critical Hits/Fumbles are stupid" thread, which isn't fair to the OP.