And a second point. Arcane Mark lets you "inscribe your personal rune or mark" not whatever you want. Yes it doesn't specifically say you can't decide that today your rune will say "kick me" and tomorrow it will say $%#!@&. But, it also doesn't say you can change you personal mark willy nilly. This should be discussed with you GM as he/she may see your rune/mark as being a much more permanent thing, similar a royal seal, used to prevent forgeries and posing. I saw something in another post about one of the 3.5 worlds backstory having Arcane Marks working that way. If your GM is OK with you writing whatever (as I assume yours is Xoshack Ostarian) great. But don't be showing up to a table with a new GM assuming that is the case.
There is cheese, as I see it, in using Arcane Mark to get that 2nd attack. Is it legit? Apparently, yes. But even the developer said 'no rulings here', so he was smelling the cheese.
So if you use it, prepare for charges of cheese. If you get it accepted at the table, be accepting of Spellcraft-capable foes identifying the lack of danger in the Arcane Mark spell, and not providing the opening for your weapon strike. You get to deliver that touch attack, and leave an Arcane Mark. And at my table, you don't get to declare it's on their forehead, cheek, nose, or cornea... unless they are already subdued.
What's a Magus to do? (switching from GM's viking helmet to my Magus' feathered broadbrim...)
Cast Chill Touch before the engagement. When the too-clever foe too-cleverly allows the Arcane Mark, he can read in the runes, "Thought he was more clever than (personal rune)", and take damage and fatigue. And then again, when you use the normal weapon strike.
Get a Touch Injection elixir and whatever nasty surprise to put in it. Waters of Lamashtu, perhaps.
Play a Hexcrafter Magus, and use Brand.
Research a 1-HP-damage Cantrip, Nugent's Catscratch, perhaps.
|
Hopefully I can get a designer to see this and make an "official" comment.
When using Spell Combat and Spellstrike as a full-round action, you can potentially deal:
Weapon damage from main hand.
PLUS
Touch range spell damage + weapon damage (spell can be delivered through the "off-hand attack"
I had a magus in my game last night using the Arcane Mark spell to try and get this to get 2 attacks with his weapon and spell damage (I know that spell doesn't do dmg, but it counts for the cheese of making the wording of Spell Combat and Spellstrike work for this situation).
Is that right?
Yes this is right.
It is also less efficient than two-weapon fighting. The magus has to make an extra roll to get his extra attack off.
If you get it accepted at the table, be accepting of Spellcraft-capable foes identifying the lack of danger in the Arcane Mark spell, and not providing the opening for your weapon strike. You get to deliver that touch attack, and leave an Arcane Mark.
You seem to be misunderstanding the situation. Spellstrike allows a magus to deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. He replaces the melee touch attack with a melee attack with his weapon. If he hits, the melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.
If a GM wants to houserule that the enemy will allow me to strike him with my weapon because of a harmless spell effect that's about to be delivered in addition to my weapon damage, I'm fine with that.
Cast Chill Touch before the engagement. When the too-clever foe too-cleverly allows the Arcane Mark, he can read in the runes, "Thought he was more clever than (personal rune)", and take damage and fatigue.
If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. So as soon as you cast arcane mark, you lose the held charge of chill touch.
When I first read about people using Arcane Mark with Spellstrike, I REALLY hated the incredible cheese of it. I had just assumed you couldn't. That was based on the idea that the spell caster literally writes on the object when casting Arcane Mark. And people were and still are talking about how they are using it "Zorro" style to carve the mark into their opponent.
Cheese source #1 - That means it's just as easy to carve up to six characters onto an opponents skin as simply trying hit them, and you could be doing the carving with a blunt weapon.
Cheese source #2 - Even if you accept the above as feasible, how is carving or bruising six characters into the skin of an opponent going to do the same damage as plunging a rapier into them, a deep slice of a scimitar or smacking them upside the head with a staff?
I personally feel like the "Arcane Mark Spellstrike Cheese" isn't all that cheesy. Its not really worth it to just Arcane Mark / Spellstrike as a standard action; you're making one attack and putting a magical mark on your foe. Its only worth it when you're also using Spell Combat, in which case, combining Arcane Mark with Spellstrike basically turns Spell Combat into a slightly better Two-Weapon Fighting. Considering you don't get Improved TWF and Greater TWF for free like the Monk does as you level, I'd say the tactic is hardly overpowered at all.
So, that lead me to the other way of interpreting Arcane Mark, which is that spell actually etches the mark onto the object or opponent when you touch it. This makes it work just like any other touch attack, your opponent doesn't need to stand still while you write on them. You are hitting them like normal, but your mark would be left where the blow landed. Much more believable.
The spell seems to imply that the markings just magically appear and that there is a limit to the number of characters one spell could do. Like, "Ah ha! I touch you and now the word LOSER appears on your chest! I'm such a troll!"
I'm sure many of you were already aware of and using the second interpretation, and this isn't specifically about "rules". I'm bringing this up for the benefit of any players and GMs out there who want to play RAW (and give the low level Magus the free attacks), but are still thinking of this as the "Zorro" style, and can't get past the ulracheese that goes with it.
Its not really a free attack. A –2 penalty on attack rolls is pretty huge for a low BAB class, and its not any better than Two-Weapon Fighting. That's all the Arcane Mark combo allows you to do, and again, the Magus doesn't even do it as well as the Monk, who essentially has a Fighter's BAB when using Flurry of Blows.
However, as Cheapy said, a much better combo would be to take the Magus arcane that lets you learn Wizard spells and add Touch of Fatigue to your Magus spell list. Its a melee touch spell (awesome) that is a cantrip (even better) that has a chance to fatigue your opponent (sweet) that can be used in a Spellstrike. (No. Freaking. Way.)
@Alexander Augunas, to be clear, I'm not at all saying "cheese" because I think it's unbalanced in anyway, heck from a balance stand point it's unfair to the vanilla Magus NOT to allow Arcane Mark with Spellstrike. I was mainly saying thematically it's didn't make sense based on my initial interpretation. My reinterpretation of how Arcane Mark could works seems to be how you were reading it all along. I think we are on the same page on this.
However there are people out there that seem to think this allows their Magus to "carve" marks into opponents. This is what I'm calling ultra cheese.
I called it a free attack, because it's a free action granted by a touch spell, I agree it's not "free" of downsides.
This thread needs to be moved to its rightful place in the afterlife.
Also: if the target is willing, the touch spell is delivered automatically, without a to-hit roll. I.e., a magus can deliver touch spells to friendly targets as a part of spell combat. That spell can be delivered via the magus' weapon.
Normally I would only do this with a whip, to deliver a critical buff or heal, but if my opponent is willing ...