| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a rules question because unless I've missed something massive the book is quite clear on the matter (all spells with somatic components have the manipulate trait -> the manipulate trait provokes AOO's). It's more a philosophical question of if this is a desirable state.
PF2 has done a lot to make melee touch attacks more attractive than they were last edition, but I find this one issue discouraging me from going full on in a shocking grasp druid build. There's no casting defensively in this edition (and I'm glad it's gone) and the only real defense against oppy's melee casters get is a 25% chance not to lose the spell... not great, honestly. I think the worst part is that if you're in melee you might as well cast a ranged spell anyways since they provoke exactly the same number of AOO's.
Melee Touch Casters are so close to being a real thing, this is the only major hangup I have. Whether as a baseline rule or something you can feat into I think it'd be for best if shocking grasp didn't provoke the same as swinging a sword wouldn't.
Reach Spell works and even has specific text to make sure it works, but using Reach Spell means that you're by definition not a melee touch caster. Basically what I'm trying to do is play a melee Druid that simply relies on Flame Blade and higher level touch spells as her primary attack routine rather than a weapon.
Wait, maybe I'm wrong, but I could've sworn that Attack of Opportunity only disrupted the triggering action on a critical hit. If that's the case (and I'm completely fine with being corrected!), them having to crit and having the chance to keep the spell anyway is pretty good.
Wait, maybe I'm wrong, but I could've sworn that Attack of Opportunity only disrupted the triggering action on a critical hit. If that's the case (and I'm completely fine with being corrected!), them having to crit and having the chance to keep the spell anyway is pretty good.
Imagine if Power Attack had the manipulate trait and consider if using it would be worth giving an enemy Fighter a free attack every turn. That is the situation Shocking Grasp is in, whether you lose the spell or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... the answer would be that it's worth having against a majority of of enemies, but you shouldn't be a one trick pony, and should have another option for cases where your enemy has a reaction that counters it? That doesn't sound too bad.
There's no casting defensively in this edition (and I'm glad it's gone) and the only real defense against oppy's melee casters get is a 25% chance not to lose the spell... not great, honestly.
When I replied, I was very specifically replying to this. In essence, adding it mislead me as to what the point of your post was. I simply fastened onto that part because it came first, and somehow missed the last line.
I don't know which way I feel about it being able to avoid provoking, honestly. I think it should, but I think there should be a way around it, likely as a class feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the answer would be that it's worth having against a majority of of enemies, but you shouldn't be a one trick pony, and should have another option for cases where your enemy has a reaction that counters it? That doesn't sound too bad.
If it's not going to work against the majority of humanoid warrior enemies then why not just prepare ranged spells to begin with
So... the answer would be that it's worth having against a majority of of enemies, but you shouldn't be a one trick pony, and should have another option for cases where your enemy has a reaction that counters it? That doesn't sound too bad.If it's not going to work against the majority of humanoid warrior enemies then why not just prepare ranged spells to begin with
Who gets attacks of opportunity this edition, again? I only saw it for fighters and champions so far.
And do monsters get it? You might not shocking grasp the fighter, but say that zombie needs a good zap ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The generic warrior version of every humanoid is built like a mini-fighter and gets AOO's. Depending on the campaign that might be a minor issue or it could mean that every cast of shocking grasp is gonna get you whacked.
@thenobledrake: I looked at goblins, orcs, and humans. Y'know, the humanoids that are in every damn campaign, not the ones you only see in specific settings.
Hm. There were at least originally rules for humanoids who didn't have classes, not even the 'npc classes' like Warrior or Aristocrat. I haven't seen mention of those in PF2 ... *yet*. But I do remember that just about every version of the game going back to D&D 2nd said that not every fighty-type you meet is a Fighter-class.
Get a Familiar/Animal Companion and first action in the fight move around to trigger all the enemies' attacks of opportunity. Knowing who AoO and who can't is so powerful that this move is a game changer.
Get a Familiar/Animal Companion and first action in the fight move around to trigger all the enemies' attacks of opportunity. Knowing who AoO and who can't is so powerful that this move is a game changer.
lol. The thought had occurred to me, but I never would have dreamed up risking my familiar like that.
It's not that risky when you consider that:
- 85% of enemies don't have attacks of opportunity. So, most of the time, the movement is not dangerous.
- You protect your familiar after one attack, the goal is not to lose it. It's not like if most familiars were usefull in combat.
Also, people tend to forget that Familiars and Animal Companions use the PC rules when dropped to 0 hp. So they don't die that easily.
This isn't a rules question because unless I've missed something massive the book is quite clear on the matter (all spells with somatic components have the manipulate trait -> the manipulate trait provokes AOO's). It's more a philosophical question of if this is a desirable state.
PF2 has done a lot to make melee touch attacks more attractive than they were last edition, but I find this one issue discouraging me from going full on in a shocking grasp druid build. There's no casting defensively in this edition (and I'm glad it's gone) and the only real defense against oppy's melee casters get is a 25% chance not to lose the spell... not great, honestly. I think the worst part is that if you're in melee you might as well cast a ranged spell anyways since they provoke exactly the same number of AOO's.
Melee Touch Casters are so close to being a real thing, this is the only major hangup I have. Whether as a baseline rule or something you can feat into I think it'd be for best if shocking grasp didn't provoke the same as swinging a sword wouldn't.
This is all true, but note that spells are only lost on critical hits, normal attacks don't disrupt them unless the one making the attack also has the Disruptive Stance feat. A powerful 10th level Fighter feat that makes any of their attacks cancel any concentrate or manipulate action. Any character with Fighter Dedication can pick it up as a 20th level class feat (which actually isn't bad if you build a certain way).
It sounds stringent, but honestly, an offensive fighter worth his salt will take this, and is extremely deadly with reach weapon wielders.
So... the answer would be that it's worth having against a majority of of enemies, but you shouldn't be a one trick pony, and should have another option for cases where your enemy has a reaction that counters it? That doesn't sound too bad.If it's not going to work against the majority of humanoid warrior enemies then why not just prepare ranged spells to begin with
Because there are a heck of a lot of enemies that aren't humanoid warriors? Like space aliens and animals/beasts and undead and fey and mages and priests and oozes.