Self-explanatory title. Our Magus gains Spellstrike this level, and wants to implement the cookie-cutter Shocking Grasp spell with his Spellstrike attacks.
The GM is arguing that if the Magus is using Spellstrike to deliver the Shocking Grasp, that the Magus would not receive a +3 to the attack.
Here's the relevant text:
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.
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).
Is the GM wrong in his ruling (as far as RAW/RAI is concerned)?
You'd get the +3, that's a reason why it's the best spell for it.
He absolutely gets the +3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Relevant FAQ
Thank you for that. I'll show him the FAQ.
|
Yours would be a houserule.Depends on the source of the shift. Elemental Spell doesn't say anything, but if you're using the Admixture School power, it says the following:
Any non-damaging effects remain unchanged unless the new energy type invalidates them (an ice storm that deals fire damage might still provide a penalty on Perception checks due to smoke, but it would not create difficult terrain). Such effects are subject to GM discretion.
Touché.
Wait a minute:
You get the +3 to your attack roll for the Shocking Grasp melee touch attack if the opponent is wearing metal armour, probably because metal conducts electricity.
But, if a Magus channels the Shocking Grasp through their weapon, shouldn't the +3 apply at all times if the weapon is made of metal?
The target is still taking electricity damage. So the +3 bonus would apply.
Now if the element was changed to acid , fire, or cold he wouldn't get the bonus.
At least that's how is rule it.
Logically? Maybe. I'd still kind of blink-and-say-no, but you could argue the logic.
Rules-wise? No.
The +3 bonus is not dependent on using a melee touch attack to deliver the jolt. For example, a magus using spellstrike to deliver shocking grasp through his weapon would get the +3 bonus on the attack roll.
|
I can't believe they ruled it that way. It makes no sense whatsoever that it gets easier to strike with a weapon because it now has some electricity as a rider effect.
Well that's what I thought until I considered it working like a magnetic effect. The electricity will guide the attack towards the metal...
Hm... Still shouldn't work as the weapon attack would hit the targets armor and be brushed off...
Logically? Maybe. I'd still kind of blink-and-say-no, but you could argue the logic.
Rules-wise? No.
The +3 bonus is not dependent on using a melee touch attack to deliver the jolt. For example, a magus using spellstrike to deliver shocking grasp through his weapon would get the +3 bonus on the attack roll.
I'm fairly certain the point of the FAQ is that you get the +3 bonus if you meet the other prerequisites for the spell (having cast it, attacking a target in melee, and when the target wears metal armor).
I'm fairly certain the FAQ didn't mean that you get the +3 bonus when attacking someone who has no metal accessible, like, say, a dire wolf.
|
|
Because they aren't treating it as an 'electricity' rider effect. Rather just the effect of the spell. No other spell with the electricity descriptor has this built in +3 to hit. Monsters that deal electric damage with each attack don't get this +3 to hit metal. Its not something generally associated with the 'electric' descriptor. Rather this singular spell grants a bonus if attacking a certain type of type of opponent and the effect is independent of its descriptor.
I can't believe they ruled it that way. It makes no sense whatsoever that it gets easier to strike with a weapon because it now has some electricity as a rider effect.
Yes I am aware of it being a non-riding spell effect with their ruling which goes completely against the RAI that the touch spells with spellstrike are considered rider effects.
Would this mean they consider the spells imbued with the weapon?
|
Monsters that deal electric damage with each attack don't get this +3 to hit metal. .
Well, one of them does.