Striking Spell and question about flat checks for targeting and such.


Magus Class


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Sorry if this has already come up, but if you are required to make a flat check to attack due to concealment or due to being restrained, do you have to make the check for both the discharging strike, as well as the subsequent spell attack roll separately?

I would hope/feel it shouldn’t be necessary, but I’m not sure that is clear or that it was intended.

Since you can’t trigger the stoned spell attack Until you have hit, it makes sense it relies on the first attacks flat roll to target. If anything the discharging strike is almost like a second targeting requirement that is more skill based.

I really feel requiring an additional flat check would be horribly cutting their effectiveness in such situations down to where they would be largely unable to function. I’d hope that wasn’t desired.

I’m fine with being grappled potentially interfering with casting the spell, but feel if the spell is already cast, and they succeed in making their strike, the grapple shouldn’t normally make them have a chance of not being able to release the spell.


Quote:
A creature that you’re concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect.

You are targeting the enemy first with an attack and then targeting them again with a spell. As written, you do have to roll concealement twice, just like how someone using Double Slice has to roll it twice.

Being Grabbed on the other hand would only require you to roll a flat check when you Cast the Spell into your weapon right after using Striking Spell. The spellcast has the Manipulate trait, but the discharging Strike or Striking Spell itself do not have it, so only the spellcast requires a flat check when grabbed.


This also explains another issue I've had with the two roll system is spell strike.

It gets the bad interactions from both melee and spell so your going to have more situations and more monsters they screw over your shtick on this basis alone.

Two rolls really need to go in order for this class to function as many would hope.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This leads to a really weird narrative...

Striking Spell wants you to deliver a spell through a weapon but then plays like you’re dual wielding it instead.


That's why narratively it's rather Spell Combat xD


richienvh wrote:
Striking Spell wants you to deliver a spell through a weapon but then plays like you’re dual wielding it instead.

As it stands, it seems pretty clear there is a large disconnect between the fluff of Striking Spell and its actual mechanical implementation. If anything, it is far closer to a worse version of Spell Combat than Spell Strike if we were to compare it to 1e features.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Magus Class / Striking Spell and question about flat checks for targeting and such. All Messageboards
Recent threads in Magus Class