These black leather gloves are lined with soft black velveteen and have silver buckles that run from the wrist to the elbow. Three times per day, the gloves allow the wearer to treat a ranged magus spell as a spell with a range of “touch,” allowing him to deliver the spell with his spellstrike ability. The glove can only affect spells that normally affect one or more creatures at a range greater than “touch” (such as slow), not rays or other created effects. The altered spell only affects the creature attacked (any other targets normally allowed by the spell are lost).
So say a magus with these gloves uses them to treat Chain Lightning as a spell with a range of "touch," allowing him to deliver the spell with his spellstrike ability.
Spellstrike allows the magus to "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."
That would mean that, if the melee attack granted by Spellstrike was successful, the creature attacked by the magus (and only that creature) would take 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level of the magus (maximum 20d6).
Chain Lightning, however, allows a Reflex saving throw for half damage.
Does the targeted creature still get a saving throw? I'm inclined to say no, because Reflex saving throws "test your ability to dodge area attacks and unexpected situations," and in this case the attack is already successful. Furthermore, looking at the list of magus spells with a range of touch that inflict damage or some kind of negative effect, there is either a Fortitude saving throw, a Will saving throw, or no saving throw at all.
Thoughts?
I completely get your argument. Please don't take this as me refusing to take no for an answer, it's just that two things occurred to me about this topic since last night:
1. I find it odd that the designers would balk at a 16d6 damage touch spell at 16th level considering that the same character can inflict 15d6 damage with intensified, empowered shocking grasps (4th level spells, but probably even lower with everyone's favorite traits).
2. In this specific case, Chain Lightning being made into a touch spell that nonetheless allows a saving throw and only affects a single target is objectively worse than just using Chain Lightning with Spell Combat (no bonus melee attack, but passing up on 16 other targets).
I completely get game design wherein the benefit provided by a magic item is limited in terms of scale/scope (e.g., "no rays or other created effects"), but I struggle with a benefit whose net result for something it explicitly allows is a negative one.
Ultimately, it's not my call. I promise I'm not just looking for a "yes." I'm just putting out feelers before presenting this to my GM.
Okay, if we look at power balance and such, it's probably fine to allow chain lightning to skip the save in this scenario... buuut now the GM is going to be asked to evaluate every other spell that some player (or the GM themself through an npc) wants to apply this logic to. Does the GM want to start this ball rolling? Or is it better to stick to the "only does what it says" model and duck the issue? Personally, I tend to take the second option.
Some touch spells allow a saving throw in addition to being required to roll the attack roll. Ray Of Enfeeblement is the first one that comes to mind, but there are others. There is nothing in the rules that states that a touch spell cannot also require a saving throw. The type of saving throw is not relevant to a rules discussion. If that is what you are interested in you should post in the homebrew or advice forum, not the Rules Question.
Why is it a problem that some combinations have negative consequences? Somethings simply do not work well together and this magic item and spell are one such combination.
|
You should consider the added benefits when speaking of balance:
1) You can roll a critical with Touch Chain Lightning.
2) You can hold the cast spell for your whole turn as a minimum. That means that with Spellcombat you can make multiple attacks if the first attack misses.
Alternatively, you can cast the spell, move, and get your free melee attack, as it is a touch spell.
Not sure if the RAW will allow you to hold the spell beyond the first round if not expended. I think it will work that way, but some GM could disagree.
The comparison with the intensified, empowered, with discounts Shockin Grasp completely disregards the cost, that is two feats and one trait that stop you from getting other magical traits.
Sure, probably you want those feats and the trait, but they are still resources that you have expended.
Okay, if we look at power balance and such, it's probably fine to allow chain lightning to skip the save in this scenario... buuut now the GM is going to be asked to evaluate every other spell that some player (or the GM themself through an npc) wants to apply this logic to. Does the GM want to start this ball rolling? Or is it better to stick to the "only does what it says" model and duck the issue? Personally, I tend to take the second option.
But that's the thing--when we talk about "every other spell" in this scenario, it's actually quite a small number of spells that strictly apply to this magic item (not touch, no created effect, calls for 1 or more targets). I only found five that require a Reflex save, and two of them are effectively the same spell.
Some touch spells allow a saving throw in addition to being required to roll the attack roll. Ray Of Enfeeblement is the first one that comes to mind, but there are others. There is nothing in the rules that states that a touch spell cannot also require a saving throw. The type of saving throw is not relevant to a rules discussion. If that is what you are interested in you should post in the homebrew or advice forum, not the Rules Question.
Not a Reflex save. That's the issue. A Reflex save represents an effort to avoid something, in whole or in part, but in this case avoidance has been adjudicated by way of the melee attack allowed by Spellstrike. I wouldn't be raising this topic for a Fortitude save or Will save because both those represent an effort to resist something--not dodging an explosion or rolling with an impact.
Maybe "argument" in a debate way but not in the usual sense. LoL.
Believe me, I didn't mean it in a negative fashion. Everyone here has been great in presenting their case.
IMO you are looking to leverage stuff most of the time so you're not really interested in the Rules forum as you are looking for loopholes to exploit. You need Advice or Homebrew. Just research Magus, great magic items for the Magus, and read the build guides. We are 8yrs post publication and most effective stuff was found long ago.
I take your point about trying out the Advice forum instead, but I'm genuinely not interested in leveraging anything if it's contrary to the spirit of the law/fairness to the game.
You should consider the added benefits when speaking of balance: ...
Fair points, fairly made, Diego!
If this is not to your liking you can have your Magus use the Loremaster prestige class to use the Secret of Magical Discipline feat and use spell combat with Harm for much greater damage.
I appreciate the idea, but ultimately the magus in question (that is to say, my PC) has already found these gloves. Thus, it's not a case of trying to achieve an effect, but rather trying to see if something is possible with a tool already in hand. GM adjudication was always going to be the ultimate answer, but he and I now and again like to see whether or not this board already arrived at a consensus (or could cite a developer's opinion) on things we run into for the first time.