|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Usually, spells cast from slots gained from a specific class are referred to by the language 'class spells', as in:
"A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."
"[A magus] can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."
And yet, in the wording of Spell Combat:
"...he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list..."
This is clearly different wording, which seems to potentially signify different intent: That a multiclass magus who can cast spells on the magus spell list through another class, might be able to do so with spell combat.
Yes, there is the broad study arcana. But once again, the strange wording appears: "The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class." Even with this interpretation of Spell Combat, Broad Study provides an advantage -- there are spells not on the magus spell list that might be handy to use with that ability, after all.
This interpretation provides for another class of gish between the magus and the eldritch knight -- a magus 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight or similar build would have pros and cons compared to the other two. Yes it gets spell combat, but it never gets the improved version, or arcana to allow using it with wands or other spells. Arcane armor training beyond light is impractical to learn as it lacks medium and heavy armor proficiency, and it lags a feat and 1 BAB behind the eldritch knight who takes a fighter level instead.
So, interpreting the language of spell combat this way is at least sensible, and while I am suspicious enough of it to make a post here, I don't find it blatantly obvious. 3.5's duskblade was able to channel spells from other classes, after all. My question is, what are the rules as intended here? Has a designer ever clarified?
The intent of Spell Combat is that it does not work that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, because the devs don't post the intent of every single sentence. But the existence of Broad Study shows that it is the intent that the magus normally cannot use spells from another class with spell combat.
The game is not about subtleties. If the argument hinges on one word, especially one that is just one way to refer to the same idea, it is probably not the intent.
|
|
Broad Study, again, isn't conclusive proof because it uses the same weird wording, and still provides a benefit under this interpretation -- For example, I've seen talk of a magus mystic theurge build that could benefit from spell combating their cleric spells that do things like healing -- even my hypothetical magus/wizard/eldritch knight would benefit from being able to use spell combat with _all_ his spells instead of just some of them.
I still think it should be clarified, consistent language is important in RPGs, especially D&D. Now, it's not the least convenient interpretation which is a guideline I usually go by -- however, apparently you really can arcane mark spellstrike for a free extra attack, and I thought that was ridiculous, as is being able to abuse big crit ranges to get double damage with spells, but apparently _that_ was actually intended. That said, I certainly wouldn't expect this alternate interpretation to fly with all GMs.
|
|
I see this has come up before:
I don't disagree that RAI may be that it's "only magus spell slots", but that's NOT what it says. It says "only spells on the magus spell list." If they intended it to be "only magus spell slots", they could've easily just said that instead. Or even in addition.
I don't see how you could get more clear. It says "on the magus spell list." Is it on the magus spell list? You're fine. In a core rulebook FAQ it was stated as follows:
General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)Since this "modified spellcasting" (by changing the action) and does not explicitly say "from that class". Instead it says "from that spell list", which is not the same as "from that class."
Again, I don't disagree that RAI may be that they intended "from magus spell slots only", but that's not what it says.
Broad Study still gives a huge benefit with this interpretation. For example, a Magus/Ranger could use it to cast Lead Blades as part of their full round and benefit from it immediately (rather than spending a separate turn to cast it). They could not do this without Broad Study as it's not on the Magus spell list.
StabbittyDoom sees exactly what I see, but didn't get a clarification either :/
Dotting, as I have a Magus who has considered taking other casting classes at higher levels. Reading what's here I'm not sure how I'd rule it. It's funny how one little word "list" vs. "slots" can make so much of a difference. It's just more proof that we are playing a very semantic game.
If wands and scrolls work with spellstrike...
They do not.
Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list..."
Activating a magic item is not casting the spell, so scrolls and wands do not work with Spellstrike. (Wand Wielder (Su) applies only to Spell Combat, not Spellstrike)
If wands and scrolls work with spellstrike...They do not.
Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list..."
Activating a magic item is not casting the spell, so scrolls and wands do not work with Spellstrike. (Wand Wielder (Su) applies only to Spell Combat, not Spellstrike)
Grick, how do you interpret the spell list thing? I'm guessing RAI is that the spell has to come from the spell slots of the Magus class levels, but since it doesn't explicitly say that, and it seems that under other abilities it does specify, it could be open to casting a spell from another caster class level as long as the spell comes from the list for Magus?
Grick, how do you interpret the spell list thing?
I think the intent is for Magus spell slots only.
This FAQ item is an example of Jason Bulmahn responding to a question using "spell list" then answering about spell slots of a specific class. This isn't airtight, as JB never actually writes "spell list" outside of the quoted question.
It would be awkward to add in "using a magus spell slot" to the abilities.
I could see the argument that since "Shocking Grasp" is on the magus spell list, it doesn't matter how you cast it, as long as you cast it.
While Brennan Ashby's post is a good way around this, I don't think it's technically correct. "from the magus spell list" can't mean the same thing as magus spell slots, or the section on Spellbooks wouldn't make any sense: "A magus can learn spells from a wizard's spellbook, just as a wizard can from a magus's spellbook. The spells learned must be on the magus spell list, as normal."
By RAW and plain English, I think any spell cast that's on the list counts. This might encourage an early dip in Sorcerer to get 3 or 4 more shocking grasps (if you didn't dump Cha) or more prestige class use, but I don't think that's such a big problem in terms of balance.
Okay, that's kind of how I was leaning too. Thank you for your response, I highly value your informed opinion.
|
|
Grick I just wanted to thank you for _finally_ getting me an answer on this. I'm a little surprised it hasn't come up in a FAQ, but I guess that entry covers it.
Amusingly, I noticed the exact same thing with the duskblade back in 3.5 (channel spell was _not_ limited to duskblade spells) and the Sage later confirmed my interpretation.
Magus/Wizard/Eldritch Knight may be my new favorite PF character, though I'll have to see how well it works in play.
Grick I just wanted to thank you for _finally_ getting me an answer on this.
Was there an official answer somewhere? My post a couple up wasn't definitive, and I still think the way it reads is probably not the way it was intended.
Side arguments:
Does Spell Combat modify your spellcasting? Kind of, as it allows you to cast when you normally couldn't (in the same action as a full-attack) but it's still different enough from something like "All your spells deal fire damage" that I'm not sure it really applies to the general rule in the FAQ.
Then there's the exception for when the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class. If "from the magus spell list" is supposed to be specifically saying it only works for magus spells, then it becomes circular.
Spell combat doesn't modify your spellcasting, so no on that count.
following RAW and the way I have been using spells from different classes is this:
If the spell is on the magus spell list but in another classes spell slot it incures ASF, but may be used with spell combate or spellstrike.
If the spell is not on the magus spell list it requires broad study to use and also incures ASF.
These are RAW.
This isn't overpowered IMO tho it maybe in others. Anyhow ASF builds up as you get better armor as a magus so look into spells with out somatic componets (like truestrike). Other than a few spells really it adds a secound check to casting a spell witch adds a really high probability of failure imo. I could do the math and give some generalized numbers but variables such as build stats and play style would ultimately make it a futile effort to do so.
For GMs who have magus running around one shotting big baddies here are a few suggestions:
1. Put the bad guy on higher ground, magus focused on combate rarely train in climb and casting then climbing cant be done(touching ground with hands). That gets rid of the cast and move.
2. Have the bad guy move to them to force the concentration checks.
3. Look into giving your npc spellbreaker and disruptive.
4. Their will save sucks most of the time.
5. If they have a familiar KILL IT.
6. Thier CMD is more than likely CRAP. (whip trips at range on a readied action when they cast suck).
7. Most don't go with see ivisibility or gilter dust so OMG they suck with that.
8.If they over use (or focus) on shocking grasp use elec immune mobs like flesh golems.(this one is funy since if they fail to realize it they haste the construct if they try to sg it. (I think flesh golems are immune to any spell with sr but I'm lazy and wont look it up).
9. If you can't hit them cast dispell magic on them and watch thier world fall apart as their ac drops by 4 and they can't deside to reprotect themselves or try and kill the caster. (at range do it twice)
10. Ranged Ranged Ranged.
|
|
Was there an official answer somewhere? My post a couple up wasn't definitive, and I still think the way it reads is probably not the way it was intended.
Yeah I totally misread your post, whoops.
Then there's the exception for when the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class. If "from the magus spell list" is supposed to be specifically saying it only works for magus spells, then it becomes circular.
Everywhere else it's used, "classname spells" means "spells cast from a classname slot" (an important distinction, because other abilities you have might give you access to spells from other spell lists or something). Otherwise a wizard could dip a class that can cast in armor and then get to cast any spells on both lists without ASF, even from wizard slots, which seems weird but I suppose could be RAI.
"spells on the classname spell list" seems to mean exactly what it says -- there is no reason to use this language when "classname spells" is established and available language.
So I guess at the moment it's still up to a DM's interpretation. At least we seem to agree on the RAW though, for what that matters. I'm surprised this unusual use of language hasn't been errataed yet, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
TL;DR SIMPLIFIED VERSION
Simple example question:
Can a Magus/Wizard use Spell Combat and Spellstrike with a Shocking Grasp prepared in a wizard spell slot without the Broad Study Magus Arcana?
Justification:
While the Magus can cast 'magus spells' in light armor, just as the bard can cast 'bard spells' in light armor, Spell Combat and Spellstrike use the unusual language 'spell on the magus spell list' when determining which spells can be used with them. Broad Study uses 'spells from the spell list of that class' to determine which additional spells can be used.
This seems to indicate that a multiclass magus can use spell combat and spellstrike with spells cast from other classes' slots, as long as the spells are also on the magus spell list, although he will suffer arcane spell failure even in light armor.
It seems that RAW says yes to my question, and after considering it I honestly can't tell if RAI is yes or no. It depends on if you think the following is a good idea, or abusive:
Why would anyone care?
Because a Magus(1 or 2)/Wizard6/Eldritch Knight would be a new variety of gish, separate from the single-classed Magus and the traditional Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight.
Compared to the traditional EK, the new build gives up 1 BAB and a feat, but can cast some spells in the same round as attacking (and even spellstrike them if they give up an additional caster level), which is especially useful for self-buffs (time spent buffing being one of the EK's usual weaknesses), and can also temporarily enchant his magic weapon with certain handy +1-cost enchantments.
Compared to the single-classed magus, the new build gives up improved spell combat, spell recall, arcana and a lot of the cool things it can do with its arcane points (but then, it won't have a big pool anyway), in return for having access to the entire wizard spell list and eventually reaching 7-9th level spells -- it can better fulfill the utility role with the wider spell list, and it can use effects more powerful than any magus (although it can't use them with spell combat!)
There may also be some other builds that can make use of this to do new things.