Shocking Grasp, Spellstrike, and the +3


Rules Questions


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:

Spellstrike wrote:
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.
Shocking Grasp wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

He absolutely gets the +3.

Liberty's Edge

If he didn't get the +3 to hit then he wouldn't get the +1d6/lvl damage either.


You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.

Sczarni

Relevant FAQ


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Relevant FAQ

Thank you for that. I'll show him the FAQ.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.

As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.
As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.

Well yes. I would hope everyone in the thread understands how the spell being discussed works, thus rendering such a qualifier unnecessary.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.
As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.
Well yes. I would hope everyone in the thread understands how the spell being discussed works, thus rendering such a qualifier unnecessary.

And as we've seen time and time again, some folks have a rather selective forgetting of text.


LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.
As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.
Well yes. I would hope everyone in the thread understands how the spell being discussed works, thus rendering such a qualifier unnecessary.
And as we've seen time and time again, some folks have a rather selective forgetting of text.

*Shrug*

I assume basic competence. I'm not going to iterate every time that Weapon Focus is not +1 to hit, but rather +1 to hit with a specific type of weapon, and I'm not going to do that with Shocking Grasp either.


LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.
As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.
Well yes. I would hope everyone in the thread understands how the spell being discussed works, thus rendering such a qualifier unnecessary.
And as we've seen time and time again, some folks have a rather selective forgetting of text.

You mean like your forgetting the text "or is carrying a metal weapon".

;)

Sczarni

Or that the +3 still applies even when the elemental damage is modified (say, fire instead of electricity).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Or that the +3 still applies even when the elemental damage is modified (say, fire instead of electricity).

That's one I'm going to say no to... since the original +3 is clearly from the conductivity of electricity with metal.

Sczarni

Yours would be a houserule.

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
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:

Versatile Evocation (Su) wrote:
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.

Sczarni

Jeff Merola wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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:

Versatile Evocation (Su) wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.
As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.

And until the spell discharges.

As that happens with the first successful hit you don't roll all your attacks and apply the modifier to everyone of them, but you roll them in sequence.


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?


Logically? Maybe. I'd still kind of blink-and-say-no, but you could argue the logic.

Rules-wise? No.


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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Magic.

Go ahead, "logically" explain magic.


kestral287 wrote:

Logically? Maybe. I'd still kind of blink-and-say-no, but you could argue the logic.

Rules-wise? No.

You're kidding, right?

FAQ wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

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...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TorresGlitch wrote:


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.

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.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Logically? Maybe. I'd still kind of blink-and-say-no, but you could argue the logic.

Rules-wise? No.

You're kidding, right?

FAQ wrote:
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.

No, I'm not kidding. Read the post I was responding to. Reading without context is the most useless way to read.

For the record:

Quote:
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?

That's what I was responding to; the post directly above mine.

Contrast, my response to the OP:

kestral287 wrote:
You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Logically? Maybe. I'd still kind of blink-and-say-no, but you could argue the logic.

Rules-wise? No.

You're kidding, right?

FAQ wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

Maezer wrote:
TorresGlitch wrote:


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.
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.

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?

Grand Lodge

Maezer wrote:
Monsters that deal electric damage with each attack don't get this +3 to hit metal. .

Well, one of them does.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shocking Grasp, Spellstrike, and the +3 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.