Arcane Channeling + Shocking Grasp

[rgard]

I would DM/play it differently than RAW.

I break the attack into 2 possible results. The player attacks and you resolve the attack with a view to whether he/she made a successfull 'touch' attack and whether a successful 'melee' attack was made:

1. Touch attack gets the +3 as per the spell.
2. Melee attack doesn't get the +3.

So in other words say the opponents touch ac is 13 and regular ac is 21. The duskblade has a total of bab and bonuses of +6. Player roles a 5 on the die:

1. Touch - 5 rolled, +6 attack bonus, +3 (opponent is wearing metal armor) = 14...shocking grasp goes off and hits the opponent.
2. Melee - 5 rolled, +6 attack bonus, (no shocking grasp +3 bonus) = 11...not a successful melee attack - no weapon damage.

You could have situations where both the shocking grasp goes off along with the melee attack being successful (player rolled a 15 on the die using the above example), or both fail (player rolled a 3 on the die using the above example.)

In the latter case when neither the touch ac nor (obviously) the melee ac is hit, I would rule the shocking grasp is not discharged and remains in the sword until the next successful touch attack is made.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Kmart Kommando]

It is clearly all or nothing. If you make a touch attack, then you deal damage, if you try to make a regular attack vs. normal AC, and miss, then the spell stays in your hand/weapon, etc, even if your roll would have hit the touch AC otherwise. You're trading the chance for an easy hit for a chance to do more damage.

Do you allow someone to Power Attack and then only do normal damage if they miss but would've hit if they hadn't Power Attacked? Don't think so. Same principle here.

 

[rgard]

It is clearly all or nothing. If you make a touch attack, then you deal damage, if you try to make a regular attack vs. normal AC, and miss, then the spell stays in your hand/weapon, etc, even if your roll would have hit the touch AC otherwise. You're trading the chance for an easy hit for a chance to do more damage.

Do you allow someone to Power Attack and then only do normal damage if they miss but would've hit if they hadn't Power Attacked? Don't think so. Same principle here.

"I would DM/play it differently than RAW"

 

[nogray]

No Bonus to Hit

For me the telling part is this:

If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved

If you don't hit, then the spell effect is never resolved, so there is no +3 to hit from Shocking Grasp. If you did hit, then you didn't need the +3. (And before anyone asks, I wouldn't allow the +3 to confirm a critical, either. You only resolve the spell after the melee attack is resolved.)

 

[RigaMortus2]

For me the telling part is this:


If you don't hit, then the spell effect is never resolved, so there is no +3 to hit from Shocking Grasp. If you did hit, then you didn't need the +3. (And before anyone asks, I wouldn't allow the +3 to confirm a critical, either. You only resolve the spell after the melee attack is resolved.)

This is true, however, this particular spell has a caveat that specificlly effects the attack roll portion of the attack, before the main effect of the spell occurs (the 5d6 damage).

I do like your logic however, but I can see it being ruled either way.

 

[Torin Ironfist]

I do believe i am the Duskblade in question. The way i viewed it was such: If my sword functions in all ways as my hand would when channeling a spell into it, then the spells effects do not change/are not negated. As i understood it at the time, and, this seemed to be a big part of the disagreement, after channeling a spell into your hand, you may use a standard attack with that hand to deliver the spell, as long as you are rolling an attack roll (or even if you dont if its an automatic hit on a helpless character) you will discharge the spell on a hit. The other party thought it to be different, as in, if you were to make an attack that would do normal damage, that the spells extra effects would not function because it wasnt a touch attack, even if you were to hit with that attack.

For the specific example of shocking grasp... If the spell were to help you hit your opponent when swinging with your fist ( does it? ) than it should do the same with your weapon imo. If I must make a touch type attack with my hand instead of making a standard attack that would deal damage by itself, than that is what should also happen with my weapon.

As per the PHB 3.5

Shocking Grasp description:

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 made out of metal, carrying a lot of metal, or the like).

Arcane channeling states specifically that the the touch spell you cast into your weapon is delivered in a standard (or at 13th lvl, a full round) attack. It does not state that because the touch attack is being delivered as a standard attack that any part of the spell changes (duration, spell resistance, saving throw, S,V, M are all the same) so i see the spell as "active" on the weapon, just as it would be "active" on your hand... glowing with a purple light, or electricity jumping from the blade depending on the spell... not just stored within dormant. If i'm incorrect let me know thanks everyone.

P.S. I like the idea of 2 separate parts of the roll when using shocking grasp, one to see if the blade hits, and one to see if the spell bounces from the blade to the metal its attracted to, but that falls far into the realm of house rules/DM discretion, not clarification of existing rules.

 

[Vegepygmy]

If you don't hit, then the spell effect is never resolved, so there is no +3 to hit from Shocking Grasp.

I agree.

 

[Darklone]

Kmart Kommando has it right (and more explicitely as others). Think about the old rulings of a monk with IUS and Shocking Grasp or Chill Touch.

Or about whether the damage from the spell is multiplied when you score a critical.

It's not.

 

[Torin Ironfist]

It is clearly all or nothing. If you make a touch attack, then you deal damage, if you try to make a regular attack vs. normal AC, and miss, then the spell stays in your hand/weapon, etc, even if your roll would have hit the touch AC otherwise. You're trading the chance for an easy hit for a chance to do more damage.

Do you allow someone to Power Attack and then only do normal damage if they miss but would've hit if they hadn't Power Attacked? Don't think so. Same principle here.

I agree with your statement, however, just like the example imo it is flawed, the basic idea is flawed as well. We are dealing with an extrodinary spell ability that doesn't function at the same time the rest of the spell functions... the spell is "active" so to speak before its effects can be resolved... as in. When you go to touch an opponent to deliver your shocking grasp as a wiz would do, you must roll an attack to touch said opponent, and succeed, then you resolve the effects of the spell, but BEFORE the spells effects are resolved/discharged, the spell has an additional function of giving you a +3 to hit characters wearing metal armor... if for some reason the touch attack ~roll~ was successful but you still don't touch your opponent, the spell effect isnt resolved... yet you still get the +3 to your attack roll. It seems, at least to me, to be the same thing as arcane channeling, you must hit, then the effect of the spell is resolved.

In both cases, you are rolling an attack, one to touch a body without doing physical damage, one to hit a body to do damage... in both cases, i see no reason why the spell wouldn't function as the description explicitly states it functions.

In your example you suggest that there is a correlation between power attack (swinging harder but more wildly, and its resulting effects) and shocking grasp (a situational magical modifier to an attack), which i just dont agree with.

 

[Darklone]

Torin... such arguments are not what we like to talk about in a Rules forum. Your argument hinges on the definition of "touching" someone with a touch attack.

If you interpret a touch attack to be easier because you don't have to do all the rest of a normal strike, all your arguments are invalid. Because in this case, a missed normal attack would not necessarily mean that you "touched" your opponent.

Power Attack can be in the same way be interpreted as "swinging slow and carefully aiming at a certain point" thus making it harder to hit; instead of swinging wildly with more force (what would in real combat usually only damage your weapon and decrease the damage you score with a blow... at least with most weapons).

These interpretations are interpretations and people tend to disagree how to interpret something (I can give more examples how to interpret the same rule in two seemingly opposite ways). That's why we stick with the rules. They work, they do so nicely and pretty often in an IMHO pretty realistic way... even though most people think reality should be different.