Crit for Stored Spell?

[Zirconia]

Offensive attack spells such as Shocking Grasp can crit (x2) on a natural 20, as per the PHB discussion on page 140. If Shocking Grasp is stored in a Spell Storing weapon, how does the crit range work for that?

For example, a Scimitar has a crit range of 18-20. Suppose you have a Spell Storing enhancement on your Scimitar, with Shocking Grasp in it, and roll a 19. The scimitar crits, does the Shocking Grasp crit as well since the weapon did and you don't make a separate attack roll with the Shocking Grasp in this case, or do you need to roll at natural 20 on the scimitar hit for the Shocking Grasp to crit? Or is there something I'm not aware of that prohibits critting on a Stored spell?

[Jurai]

It would be my interpretation that spells that require attack rolls (of any kind, and hereby referred to as Weapon-like Spells) can be criticals, and that Spell Storing allows a spell to get around that property of Weapon-like Spells, allowing, for example, a Vampiric Touch stored in a +2 Spell Storing Scythe to heal 40d6 points of damage, rather than 10. It's why the AoE, saving throw spells are allowed higher damage caps than touch spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It doesn't. By placing the spell into a spell storing weapon it becomes bonus damage like the elemental damage from a flaming/ frost/ shocking weapon or a rogue's sneak attack dice. Criting with the weapon doesn't let the stored spell do any more than its normal damage value.

[heavyfuel]

It doesn't. By placing the spell into a spell storing weapon it becomes bonus damage like the elemental damage from a flaming/ frost/ shocking weapon or a rogue's sneak attack dice. Criting with the weapon doesn't let the stored spell do any more than its normal damage value.

Agreed. Similarly, the Duskblade's Arcane Chanelling doesn't deal extra damage on a crit because it becomes extra dice

[Zirconia]

It doesn't. By placing the spell into a spell storing weapon it becomes bonus damage like the elemental damage from a flaming/ frost/ shocking weapon or a rogue's sneak attack dice. Criting with the weapon doesn't let the stored spell do any more than its normal damage value.

Not an unreasonable interpretation, but do you know of any examples or rules about that? Otherwise it seems to be removing a property the stored spell would otherwise have had, since the spell on its own gets to crit, and an attack roll is still being made, the roll is not removed as in the case of a fireball, which they give as an example of something which doesn't get to crit.

[Khedrac]

There's a lot of debate on this one, and to make matters worse, some of the abilities items that do this have different text to the others (such as the Spellsword).

The usual 3 positions are:

1) The spell damage does not get multiplied on a critical (usually because it is "bonus dice" - but what if it isn't dice?)

2) The spell damage is multiplied if the weapon criticals using the weapon's multiplier.

3) The spell damage criticals independently of the weapon - usually* 20 (×2) - but only if it was a weapon-like spell before being channeled.
*Some spells, feats can modify this.

There may be other variants, but those are the main ones.

At this point it becomes DM's call, personally I got for option 3, but that is just me.

[heavyfuel]

Not an unreasonable interpretation, but do you know of any examples or rules about that? Otherwise it seems to be removing a property the stored spell would otherwise have had, since the spell on its own gets to crit, and an attack roll is still being made, the roll is not removed as in the case of a fireball, which they give as an example of something which doesn't get to crit.



You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

When placed on a weapon, you're no longer making touch attacks with it, so the above ruling no longer applies. Otherwise, you'd have to check two different ACs for your attack roll, and if you were able to hit Touch AC you could discharge the spell, but that's not how it works.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not an unreasonable interpretation, but do you know of any examples or rules about that? Otherwise it seems to be removing a property the stored spell would otherwise have had, since the spell on its own gets to crit, and an attack roll is still being made, the roll is not removed as in the case of a fireball, which they give as an example of something which doesn't get to crit.

It's simple.

For a spell to crit, it has to be a spell that requires an attack roll and that roll has to crit.

When you place a spell into a spell storing weapon, it loses the attack roll that would allow it to crit. The damage is still from the spell, not the weapon it's stored in and the weapon's attack roll is for its own damage.

[Zirconia]

For a spell to crit, it has to be a spell that requires an attack roll and that roll has to crit.

When you place a spell into a spell storing weapon, it loses the attack roll that would allow it to crit. The damage is still from the spell, not the weapon it's stored in and the weapon's attack roll is for its own damage.

Though an attack roll is being made, as I said a stored spell doesn't become fireball-like where no attack roll is made, a saving throw is used instead. It just loses a separate attack roll for the spell portion only. And, interestingly, Heavyfuel's comment raises the possibility of a fourth way of handling it beyond the three Khedrac outlines, make one tohit roll, and depending on how high it is you may do no damage, i.e. miss completely, spell damage only if you hit touch AC, or spell damage + weapon damage if you hit normal AC, with crit ranges as normal for the weapon and the spell. That could be argued to increase the effectiveness of the Spell Storing enhancement more than it should (it is already pretty darned good for +1), and I strongly suspect it is not RAI, mind you.

I like option 3 Khedrac mentioned, as it is easy to adjudicate, but I'll see how "swingy" the DM likes damage to be and present him with all the options.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There are no provisions in the rules, anywhere, for an attack against a target's full ac being allowed to retroactively deliver a touch attack if the roll is between the target's touch and full ac's.

It's a house rule.

[kernal42]

When placed on a weapon, you're no longer making touch attacks with it, so the above ruling no longer applies. Otherwise, you'd have to check two different ACs for your attack roll, and if you were able to hit Touch AC you could discharge the spell, but that's not how it works.

This is correct. If the weapon attack hits, then the spell discharges. There is no roll associated with the spell discharge, so it can neither crit nor miss.

-Kernal

[Zirconia]

This is correct. If the weapon attack hits, then the spell discharges. There is no roll associated with the spell discharge, so it can neither crit nor miss.

There is no tohit roll associated EXCLUSIVELY with the spell discharge, there is a tohit roll for the weapon bearing the stored spell, and if that tohit roll misses, the spell does not discharge. If the weapon hits, the spell does discharge, so there is an AC-based tohit roll being made to determine whether the stored spell goes off. That is slightly different than the case where there is no tohit roll AT ALL associated with the discharge of the spell, as is the case for disallowed spells for stored spells, like a fireball, and arguably does match the concept described for getting a crit with a spell.

That said, in practice I agree that the better argument can be made for yours and Kelb's positions that since no separate tohit roll is made specifically for the spell discharge, no crit can happen.

I also agree with Kelb that there is no rule anywhere for "graduated" tohit rolls, with different effects based on what AC type is matched, they even give an example of switching back and forth between a touch attack and a "normal" attack when holding a spell charge in the PHB.
I think it would be an interesting house rule, though. It could be justifiable with the idea that when you swing at that dragon, your sword usually connects, but bounces off the thick scales. For the same reason the wizard can touch the scales with Shocking Grasp and zap the dragon, a sword with Shocking Grasp could, even if it can't stab through the scales into tender dragon flesh.

[Fax Celestis]

Here is an old argument (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369995-The-Duskblade-and-Arcane-Channeling) about this very subject. The tl;dr conclusion is as follows:


FWIW, from the FAQ:


If a duskblade scores a critical hit when channeling a spell through a melee attack, is the spell’s damage multiplied just like the weapon’s?

The rules aren’t as clear as they could be, but the Sage is inclined to say no. Here’s the key sentence, from the PHB II, page 20: “If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.” If you score a critical hit, the attack deals the normal (critical) damage. Then the spell resolves normally, but it’s just a rider effect applied due to the successful attack roll—you’re not actually using the spell in the normal manner, so it can’t score a critical hit.

When a duskblade (PH2 20) uses arcane channeling to deliver a spell but misses with the weapon attack, is the spell discharged or can he try to deliver the spell again on his next turn?

This follows the normal rule for touch spells; that is, a melee touch spell that misses its target is not discharged. However, when using the improved version of this class feature gained at 13th level, the spell is discharged at the end of the round regardless of whether you hit or not (as described on page 20).

At 13th level, the duskblade’s arcane channeling class feature (PH2 20) says “you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round.” If you hit the same creature more than once during the full attack action, does the spell affect it each time you hit?

No. The spell affects each target only once.


Improved Unarmed Strike:
You can add the damage of your unarmed strike to the damage of a touch spell by delivering the spell as a regular melee attack instead of a melee touch attack. The defender gets the full benefit of armor and shield, but if the attack hits, the unarmed strike deals normal damage over and above any damage the spell deals as it’s discharged. If the unarmed strike misses, then the spell isn’t discharged. If the unarmed strike scores a critical hit, damage from the spell isn’t multiplied.


These are two separate events, hence the necessary use of a semicolon. The attack resolves, then the spell resolves as a "rider" effect. Since the spell never had an independent attack roll (such as one made during the normal casting of a touch-range spell), it cannot crit.

It is in essence the same effect of having a spell-storing weapon. Attack happens, damage resolves, and then effects of attack resolve (such as the spell generated from Arcane Channeling, Smiting Spell metamagic, or poison applied to a weapon).

The FAQ got this one right.