7
\$\begingroup\$

My Magus takes Phase Bolt as a cantrip. They use it with Spellstrike. My target has Raised a Shield for a +2 circumstance bonus to their AC. Do I Spellstrike against their AC with or without their circumstance bonus? Phase Bolt normally allows me to ignore it, but I'm not positive on how it interacts with Spellstrike. The key phrase in Phase Bolt:

Make a ranged spell attack roll against your target's AC; if the target has any circumstance bonuses to AC (such as from a shield or cover), reduce that bonus by 2 for this attack.

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

4
\$\begingroup\$

No, you don't gain that (or any other similar spells') benefit

You are not using the spell to attack. Spellstrike is pretty clear...

You channel a spell into a punch or sword thrust to deliver a combined attack. You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell don't occur immediately¹ but are imbued into your attack instead. Make a melee Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack. ² Your spell is coupled with your attack, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell.³

  1. The effects of the spell do not occur as they normally would.
  2. You are making a melee Strike, which is a type of basic action. Nothing about "the effects" of the spell being "imbued into your attack" alters how you make the Strike.
  3. Your (melee) attack roll is used to determine the effect of your spell.*
  • Arguably, you could partially benefit from phase bolt and similar effect but not for the Strike; you could theoretically miss the target's shielded AC but have phase bolt function as it's success condition by hitting their reduced AC because you use the "roll", not the "result" of your Strike.
\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This would apply to something like Shocking Grasp as well, yeah? At least RAW, it doesn't grant the +1 circumstance bonus to the Spellstrike attack roll? \$\endgroup\$
    – ESCE
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 4:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Correct, you would not get the bonus from shocking grasp. Again, arguably, if you miss their AC by one your Strike could miss but shocking grasp could succeed, but I don't feel like that's the intent (nor how I would run my table for simplicity) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 13:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Looking into it, I think this is the RAW reading - I'm not sure I'd run it this way at my table, but I would do so while consciously going against the rules here. \$\endgroup\$
    – ESCE
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:26
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @brandon the problem I see with that is that it's still part of "don't occur immediately". That leads me to the interpretation that the imbued spell is still delayed until the attack hits. I do expect some table variation on this rule, but I still struggle to find a reason in the text to use an order of operations that doesn't wait until after the melee attack roll to resolve the entirety of the spell. \$\endgroup\$
    – ESCE
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 19:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think I personally would rule that a spell like phase bolt or shocking grasp can hit even if the melee attack just barely misses. That's how I always did it in 1e with e.g. draconic sorcerers holding a touch spell to use with a later claw attack, and it worked fine. Ruling that Spellstrike removes phase bolt's special feature reduces the space of reasonable Magus cantrip choices, because it makes phase bolt just strictly worse than telekinetic projectile. Phase bolt is already kind of bad, so I see no reason to weaken it further. \$\endgroup\$
    – Paul Z
    Commented Jul 30, 2022 at 22:21
3
\$\begingroup\$

Strike and Spell as One Attack

You channel a spell into a punch or sword thrust to deliver a combined attack.

Spellstrike involves Casting the Spell and making single attack roll for the results of both the Strike and the spell. Normally this spell's effect is coupled with the Strike that is made, though there are some specific interactions with certain effects that work differently.

Splitting up the steps of making a Spellstrike for clarity, you get:

  • You Cast a Spell that requires a spell attack roll. The effects of this spell don't occur immediately but are imbued into your attack instead.
  • Make a melee Strike. Your spell is coupled with your attack, using your attack roll to determine the effects of both.

Casting a Spell normally requires immediate resolution by rolling a spell attack, but this ability delays the spells effects until you make an attack roll as a melee Strike. The spell is imbued into that Strike, and both are delivered as "a combined attack".

Phase Bolt

Make a ranged spell attack roll against your target's AC; if the target has any circumstance bonuses to AC (such as from a shield or cover), reduce that bonus by 2 for this attack.

With only one attack being made, Phase bolt's effect reducing AC would apply to determine the effects of both Strike and spell.

There are other spells with similar effects that would also apply for a Spellstrike with the same reasoning, such as shocking grasp that gives a +1 circumstance bonus on the attack roll if the target is made of metal or wearing metal armor.

Spellstrike Specifics

There are those specific interactions described for certain types of effects used as part of a Spellstrike that could change how this works, but none of these apply here.

The closest in Ancillary Effects only covers "non-targeted effects that might affect creatures other than the target, as well as any ongoing effects starting from the moment you hit with the Strike", but phase bolt's effect to reduce the bonus to a target's AC applies only for that single attack and only to the target.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm inclined to agree, my only hesitation is the Ancillary Effects clause in Spellstrike Specifics seems to exclude "pre-hit" effects (like Shocking Grasp's +1 or Phase Bolt here). I'm guessing I'm missing something since Shocking Grasp + Spellstrike is a common combo? What am I missing? \$\endgroup\$
    – ESCE
    Commented Jul 27, 2022 at 21:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ancillary effects actually pretty clearly and explicitly talks about post-hit effects such as splash damage, subsequent attacks, etc. it doesn’t have anything to say about Shocking Grasp. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 27, 2022 at 21:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this is how I would run it at my table (I don't think it's overpowered, but I could be wrong). However, I do what the rules say aligns more with Ifusaso's answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – ESCE
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @brandon I really appreciate you updating your answer to address my concerns - I still lean the other way for the RAW ruling, but this is still a solid case for your interpretation, and I can see tables agreeing to this as RAW. If I could upvote it again I would! \$\endgroup\$
    – ESCE
    Commented Aug 1, 2022 at 18:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .