Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Does the current most popular touch spell / Magus rule interpretation seem thematically broken to anyone else?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Okay, bare with me (bad way to start I know). I feel like the current way Magus' are being used is thematically broken and counter to intent and has arisen due to Pathfinder trying to clarify touch spells over time and people doing very literal word-by-word rule interpretations.

When I first saw Magus I loved it. Finally, a melee caster that felt thematically right. Then I just recently saw how everyone was interpreting the rules at their table.

In classic DnD, you cast a touch spell and your hand glows with the power of the spell. It discharges when you touch something, anything, whether you wanted it to or not. It's not a mental thing you are doing, choosing to heal/hurt something with it. It is power you put on your hand that goes off on a touch trigger. You can dismiss it without discharging it because you can dismiss any spell effect you create. You aren't actively sustaining it though just like you aren't actively sustaining your mage armor. It just is. You can cast a touch spell and touch an enemy as part of the same standard action because it is such a trivial action. You are already gesturing while you cast the spell, now you are just trying to touch them as well. It is really no different than pointing in their direction at the end of a ray spell.

It seems like they tried to "clarify" why you can cast the spell and touch attack in the same standard action so they added the words that casting a touch spell also grants a free attack which you use to make said touch. People are perverting that while using spell combat and spellstrike. All spellstrike does (should do) is let you put that energy on your weapon instead of on your hand. You can cast the spell in the same round you swing the weapon offensively thanks to spell combat. You can have the energy on that weapon instead of your hand thanks to spellstrike. People are twisting the wording to say, oh, I swing my weapon and cast a spell thanks to spell combat. I then use the "free attack" from casting a touch spell to swing my sword again since I can deliver touch spells with a sword thanks to spellstrike.

It is just.. wrong. Your character has the speed and skill to swing a weapon competently once per round (with BaB below 6). The magic you are casting does something in particular (creates an electrical charge if Shocking Grasp). It does not enhance your speed to let you swing the sword again. Claiming it does is absurd. Thematically broken. If you want to make 2 attacks in one round swing the sword and put the energy on your hand instead of the sword and poke them just like a regular touch spell.

I also don't get where this "casting any spell dismisses your held charge" thing comes from. It also seems thematically broken. The spell is cast and done. The energy is there. The only way it discharges from casting another spell is if you try to put another touch spell on the same hand/weapon. It feels like this was added to try and curb power the wrong way. It's acting like they have a GUI screen showing their item slots and one of them happens to be "charge" and it is just floating on your stat sheet and only holds one object instead of the charge being attached to an object that just happens to be part of your body (hand). If you wanted to do the mythos that way you could (who am I to say how magic works) but I don't know of anything in DnD lore to say that magic works like that.

Does anyone agree on either of the two points or am I just crazy?


It is just wrong. I don't see any reason for a houserule like that. It goes against RAI in the worst possible way. Nearly as bad as those parody posts talking about how "dead doesn't mean you can't take actions".

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't quite follow.

Are you saying that a Magus should not be able to attack, and then cast a spell, which is channeled through his weapon, as if using TWF rules? Because it specifically states that's the intention.

The second part, I can't say I can really talk about, because I've never gotten to play a Magus past level 1.


Wait, I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. You think SC/SS should give the double sword strike or shouldn't? I thought the common official ruling was that it should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When you use Spell combat and spellstrike, you effectively get an extra attack due to the extra attack with your weapon from spellstrike. That's the intent of the rules.

Cheliax

It should. Because it works like TWF. Except instead of Weapon/Touch Attack it's Weapon/Spell Imbued in Weapon.

I think he may have been talking about the second bit, about spell charges being dismissed.


I'm saying that if a Magus swings his sword for damage, then casts a spell, and puts that energy on his weapon instead of his hand he can't attack again with the sword that round. The energy is on there but there is no insta-free attack. He already swung the sword as much as he is physically capable that round. The only way to get 2 attacks in one round is by putting the energy on the hand and poking them which is free.


Seranov wrote:

I don't quite follow.

Are you saying that a Magus should not be able to attack, and then cast a spell, which is channeled through his weapon, as if using TWF rules? Because it specifically states that's the intention.

The second part, I can't say I can really talk about, because I've never gotten to play a Magus past level 1.

Pretty sure he's talking about Spellstrike.

Quote:
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.

It says specifically "INSTEAD OF the free melee touch attack" you can make a free melee attack with your weapon AS PART OF casting the spell.

Obviously the intent is that he puts the spell in the sword, swings it, and the sword delivers the spell.

He's saying people are interpreting it as "I swing my sword to hit them with the spell, then I get a free extra attack with my sword".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jason Bulmahn confirms as such here.

Confirms it again, here :)


Scrynor wrote:
It seems like they tried to "clarify" why you can cast the spell and touch attack in the same standard action so they added the words that casting a touch spell also grants a free attack which you use to make said touch. People are perverting that while using spell combat and spellstrike.

Spellstrike explicitly says that you can use the free attack granted by casting the spell.

There's no twisting or perverting or anything. The author thought this point was so important, he actually re-stated it explicitly so there could be no question whatsoever that the free attack you get from casting a touch spell can be delivered with Spellstrike.

Scrynor wrote:
All spellstrike does (should do) is let you put that energy on your weapon instead of on your hand.

You're actually pretty close to what it does. It doesn't 'move' the energy, it just lets you direct that energy through your weapon, in addition to your hand or claws or teeth.

Scrynor wrote:
People are twisting the wording to say, oh, I swing my weapon and cast a spell thanks to spell combat. I then use the "free attack" from casting a touch spell to swing my sword again since I can deliver touch spells with a sword thanks to spellstrike.

A level 2 magus can indeed make two attacks with his sword in one turn, if he uses Spell Combat and Spellstrike and casts a touch spell.

Much like every single class in the game can make two attacks in one turn.

Scrynor wrote:
Your character has the speed and skill to swing a weapon competently once per round (with BaB below 6).

Unless you have two weapons, or natural attacks, or any special ability that lets you make more attacks.

Scrynor wrote:
I also don't get where this "casting any spell dismisses your held charge" thing comes from.

Core rulebook, Combat chapter, Touch Spells in Combat, Holding the Charge: "If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates."

I suggest you read the PFRPG rules and define the way the spells work according to the game system you're playing. Trying to shoe-horn it into working like a half-remembered interpretation of an older game doesn't seem like such a good idea. Also, you'll be better off learning how touch spells work in general before trying to understand the magus.

Here's A Guide to Touch Spells, Spellstrike, and Spell Combat.


@Cheapy - I get that what you are saying is the current interpretation. I'm saying that interpretation is thematically broken.

How does casting shocking grasp or arcane mark make you magically faster and more skilled than you are to get off another weapon attack that you normally couldn't do? No part of the spell said you are faster or better with a sword. You either are that capable or you are not.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scrynor wrote:
Okay, bare with me (bad way to start I know).

Yes, because it's BEAR with me (as in bear this burden) not BARE (as in remove your clothes). Sorry, but this is up there with DUEL/DUAL and ROGUE/ROUGE in grating on the eyes.

Scrynor wrote:
You can dismiss it without discharging it because you can dismiss any spell effect you create.

Not QUITE true. It's only if the duration descriptor ends with (D) that a spell is dismissable. I don't know of any touch attack spells offhand that AREN't dismissable, but that doesn't mean there aren't any or won't be any in the future. If "Produce Flame" wasn't dismissable (wich, BTW, requires a standard action) you'd be stuck with that ball of fire in your hands until the duration expired.

Cheliax

Because it's Two Weapon Fighting, Scrynor.

It's why you take a -2 penalty on all attacks that round when you do it.


Cheapy wrote:

Jason Bulmahn confirms as such here.

Confirms it again, here :)

So it combines with the basic Spell Combat class feature?

Why couldn't it just say that in the description? Because as it's written it looks awfully like you just make a sword strike that delivers a touch attack.

But then he says it's not. Should be on there is what I'm saying.


I've read all the things you are linking to. That is where I started and what caused me to make this post. I intimately understand how touch spells and the Magus work. I get that it is working as intended and devs have said as much. That isn't what I am trying to discuss.

I'm purely talking about the thematics of it all and wondering if anyone else has similar objections. I think perhaps putting this in the rules questions subforum was my mistake.

I get that anyone can punch with both fists. My objection is that nobody at level 2 is skilled enough to effectively swing a longsword twice in one round. If the Magus is skilled enough to do that why can't he do it all the time? Why does he have to be casting a spell when the spell says nothing about granting such skill. It feels thematically broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes...even the ability itself says how it works with spell combat...

Spellstrike wrote:
If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks.


It's not just two weapon fighting. They way they are using it they are only attacking with 1 weapon two times in a single round. Nobody else does that but a flurrying monk.

Also, thanks for the (D) thing Slim. Didn't know that. That was useful enough for me to bear with the grammar correction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is the magus using two different weapons? Because you have to use two distinct weapons to use Two Weapon Fighting.

Well, in monk threads you do, anyway.

Sczarni

I can't say either way on the second point (and can't be sure on the first one either-- I haven't looked much at the Magus) but from what I've seen, the idea is that the Magus is a Two-Weapon Fighter whose second weapon is a touch spell.

The way the spellstrike ability is worded, it definitely seems that they expect players to use it in combination with spell combat. However, spell combat specifically says you must have one hand free, and spellstrike says "any weapon you are holding" so using the two abilities together would suggest that you're not Two-Weapon Fighting, but just hitting them an extra time with the same weapon.

I agree that this feels like an abuse of the rules, but the rules for Magi look like this is in fact the intended means of using them. If spell combat allowed you to be holding a second weapon and let you deliver the touch spell through it instead of hitting twice with the same weapon, I'd have no problem, but I can definitely see how this strikes a chord.


The Magus isn't using two weapons the way people are using the abilities. He is swinging the same sword twice, once with a spell on it and once with a spell on it. Both swings can inflict the normal longsword damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, if the issue truly is just thematic, then here are some possible explanations.


  • The magus already is able to make a free touch attack with spell combat, so he's already getting past the number of "attacks" a level 2 character can normally do in a round. He can hit someone once, and then touch them once. If you need to wrap your head around how this works, it just works by him being able to swing the sword faster, or whatever.
  • He's already able to squeeze a full-attack (normally the full 6 seconds) and a standard action (normally some amount of time) into one round. He's obviously able to act faster than most when he's magically charged. He gains this increased speed by his spells which are modified in a certain way due to his magus studies (notice that it only works with magus spells). He feeds off this energy and is able to act faster.
  • Arbitrary game rule that doesn't necessarily make sense in the real world but is done to ensure some semblance of balance in a game that does not always reflect the real world.
  • Magic.


Ahh thanks Saturn. So you agree it feels odd. It is just like two-weapon fighting if you swing the sword and touch with the offhand. It doesn't feel like that if you swing the sword, cast with the offhand, and then swing the sword again. Which is what people are doing (and is legal and intended).

Totally feels wrong.


@Cheapy, but he isn't just attacking once, touching once, is he? That I'd be fine with. Magus training has let him blend his weapon into his casting gestures so he can attack for real once and poke them once.

But people are doing real physical damage twice, right? They are doing 1d8 (sword) + str once and 1d8 (sword) + str + spell once.

It all comes back to moving that weapon that fast and skillfully. If he can do that while casting a spell certainly he can do it while *not* casting one...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, people are doing real physical damage twice, since that's what the spellstrike ability lets you do. Lets magi get around that pesky "attack once with the weapon, unless with iteratives" rule.


Cheapy wrote:
Yes, people are doing real physical damage twice, since that's what the spellstrike ability lets you do. Lets magi get around that pesky "attack once with the weapon, unless with iteratives" rule.

But Ki is magic

This forum makes me cry


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Think of it as the magic of the spell he's casting is what he's feeding off of to be able to attack faster with the same weapon.

Spells don't say they have nifty floating particle effects all around you, but almost every piece of art of someone casting a spell in PF has those particle effects. Same thing :)


Yeah... that's what I object to. That feels very off thematically and like it took a very literal rule interpretation to get to at the expense of the world making sense. It seems my first post should have been much shorter...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Yes, people are doing real physical damage twice, since that's what the spellstrike ability lets you do. Lets magi get around that pesky "attack once with the weapon, unless with iteratives" rule.

But Ki is magic

This forum makes me cry

Wrong kind of magic :)


Scrynor wrote:
I've read all the things you are linking to. That is where I started and what caused me to make this post. I intimately understand how touch spells and the Magus work. I get that it is working as intended and devs have said as much. That isn't what I am trying to discuss.

This doesn't really belong in the rules forum then. What may be thematically wrong to you may be perfectly fine for another. And vice versa for other things.

Thematically I'd probably be at least slightly in agreement with you. From a balance perspective I think the intended way of it working works well.


Hah. Good effort but inferred flavor visuals will never be the same as inferred mechanical abilities. If they want me to accept that Magus training allows you to enhance speed and skill by feeding off of the residue that results while harnessing the mystical energies of the universe to cast spells (but only touch spells) then they need to put that down in writing.


I'd just like to point out too, that casting a spell within melee range of enemies provokes attacks of opportunity. So attacking, then casting a touch spell (unless cast defensively, which itself requires a check), then attacking again, could be interrupted by a slurry of melee weapon attacks from enemies.

EDIT: These AoOs would not happen if you were simply wielding two weapons, so there is a decided combat balance for the attack, cast, attack option. Especially if the GM is mean and builds their enemies with combat reflexes and other such niceties. :)


Cheapy wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Yes, people are doing real physical damage twice, since that's what the spellstrike ability lets you do. Lets magi get around that pesky "attack once with the weapon, unless with iteratives" rule.

But Ki is magic

This forum makes me cry

Wrong kind of magic :)

*Sobs violently*

Andoran

Scrynor wrote:
It all comes back to moving that weapon that fast and skillfully. If he can do that while casting a spell certainly he can do it while *not* casting one...

This is where your logic fails. A Magus does not get TWF for free. Hence to do his 2-attacks trick, he NEEDS to do 1 of the attacks with magic (ie, a spell).

It is the power of his casting that allows him to act again. Not his mastery of the blade.


Quote:
It is just.. wrong. Your character has the speed and skill to swing a weapon competently once per round (with BaB below 6). The magic you are casting does something in particular (creates an electrical charge if Shocking Grasp). It does not enhance your speed to let you swing the sword again. Claiming it does is absurd. Thematically broken. If you want to make 2 attacks in one round swing the sword and put the energy on your hand instead of the sword and poke them just like a regular touch spell.

Sorry, you're wrong. Completely wrong.

Cheliax

Scrynor wrote:
Hah. Good effort but inferred flavor visuals will never be the same as inferred mechanical abilities. If they want me to accept that Magus training allows you to enhance speed and skill by feeding off of the residue that results while harnessing the mystical energies of the universe to cast spells (but only touch spells) then they need to put that down in writing.

It is in writing. The Magus' training allows him to, instead of casting the spell and delivering a touch attack with his free hand, cast the spell with his free hand and deliver it with his weapon, either before or after making a normal attack.

Thematics don't come into it, at all. If you don't like it, feel free not to play a Magus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scrynor wrote:
Hah. Good effort but inferred flavor visuals will never be the same as inferred mechanical abilities. If they want me to accept that Magus training allows you to enhance speed and skill by feeding off of the residue that results while harnessing the mystical energies of the universe to cast spells (but only touch spells) then they need to put that down in writing.

Well, let's think of the two scenarios here. :)

Scenario One: the magus full attacks without using spell combat. He only gets his one attack with the longsword, barring weird exceptions.

Scenario Two: the magus uses spell combat, and full attacks. At some point, he casts a spell and then makes an extra attack with his longsword, either before his Full-attack attack, or after.

What's the key factor that changed between these two scenarios? The magic spell he cast. So whatever he's doing to make it work out that he gets more attacks with that one weapon than anyone else is related to the magic.

We can also see that, even by themselves, spell combat and spellstrike are Supernatural abilities, so they are magical. This isn't something mundane going on. It's not extraordinary. This is "I'm altering reality to better suit me".

And the differences between the two scenarios is that some spell is being cast. So...whatever is allowing him to do that is occurring in the spell, by the rules. Hence my comment about special magus mumbojumbo spell variation hoodoo above.

Before this post, I just didn't even think of how it worked "in the game world", but now I've rationalized it away for myself. +100 XP :D


@Bbangerter, I love that you quoted my explanation of what I was discussing but didn't quote the "I shouldn't have put it in the rules questions subforum" from the same post.

Do you think taking away the double-physical would unbalance it? Damage would go down slightly but it wouldn't be too bad. What if you let them hold a charge on both the weapon and the hand?

We've been doing that in my campaign (no double-swing, hold on both) and it has basically resulted in the Magus keeping chill touch or frostbite on the weapon most of the time and delivering stronger touch spells with the offhand. I haven't run the numbers but the damage doesn't seem too off and it feels a lot better thematically...


Scrynor wrote:
What if you let them hold a charge on both the weapon and the hand?

What does that mean?

Cheliax

Scrynor wrote:

@Bbangerter, I love that you quoted my explanation of what I was discussing but didn't quote the "I shouldn't have put it in the rules questions subforum" from the same post.

Do you think taking away the double-physical would unbalance it? Damage would go down slightly but it wouldn't be too bad. What if you let them hold a charge on both the weapon and the hand?

We've been doing that in my campaign (no double-swing, hold on both) and it has basically resulted in the Magus keeping chill touch or frostbite on the weapon most of the time and delivering stronger touch spells with the offhand. I haven't run the numbers but the damage doesn't seem too off and it feels a lot better thematically...

That's a houserule, and will remain a houserule. The books are very specific about how Spellstrike and Spell Combat are supposed to interact, and it is the complete opposite of your opinion on the subject.

It's not at all thematically unsound to me, my group or anyone else I've ever heard speak about it, save you. So I don't see why there should be any need to change it.


@Seranov - Thematics comes into everything. It's the difference between playing a roleplaying game and just rolling a crapload of dice, adding them up, and declaring a winner. "If I don't like it, don't play a Magus?" Seriously guy? Well then, if you don't like the discussion I'm trying to have then don't post on the thread I started. Right back at ya champ ;).

@Cheapy - I follow the logic but that is definitely inferring. I agree it can work though if explained in that light. It leads to so many questions though... why does it only work with touch spells? Is it just because that's what the Magus specializes in? Could someone else learn it in a different way? If you can rip a physical benefit by altering reality off of the latent energy involved in spellcasting could someone learn to get something other than speed? Strength? Heightened senses? Hmmmm...

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scrynor wrote:

It's not just two weapon fighting. They way they are using it they are only attacking with 1 weapon two times in a single round. Nobody else does that but a flurrying monk.

Also, thanks for the (D) thing Slim. Didn't know that. That was useful enough for me to bear with the grammar correction.

Actually, flurrying monks can't do this.


@Grick - I mean you could cast chill touch and deliver and have it on your weapon. You could then be doing spell combat and delivering physical attacks bolstered by chill touch with your sword (because it gets multiple deliveries) while you are spellcombating and casting shocking grasp and delivering it with your free hand.

@Seranov - Nobody is trying to change anything. I am polling opinion and having a conversation I find interesting. You have replied 5 times and said, "I disagree and like it just fine" all 5 times. Noted. Thank you for your response.

Cheliax

All I'm saying is that the Magus is not a particularly strong class as-is, except in 15 minute adventuring days, so there is no reason to weaken them for thematic reasons, especially since it's not even a widely-held opinion on those thematics.

I'm sorry if you don't like me disagreeing with you, but that won't stop me from doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thematic.... That's really just a matter of opinion. Are you trying to get people to agree with your opinion? Because that really not something for the rules forum.

You are more then welcome to dislike how the Magus feels but you opinion is no more or less valid then the next persons.


I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I started this thread to find out what people not me thought and if there was an interpretation that would make me happy that I could adopt. You haven't engaged on the actual topic a single time.

Cheapy has been playing along and trying to make it make sense thematically. It's been fun.

I'm hoping Grick or Bbangerter will take the bait and knowledge me up on what having a many-touch touch spell and a one-off touch spell going off each round would do balance-wise. I think it'd be fun.

All you've done is say leave my Magus alone many times. That is a fine opinion. It just isn't adding anything to the conversation. I love the Magus class. I don't want it weakened. I'm just searching for a way to reconcile the mechanics with the world. I like consistent universes and I think back on DnD sessions as movies and right now this guy is all lurch-y to me. I'm looking for the mechanical tweaks or backstory and flavor effects that will have him seamlessly fitting into the pictures being the badass I know he is.

That may well be a conversation you have no interest in participating in. Which is fine. But you're kinda trolling me here and maybe not even realizing you are doing it.


@Stome - Ya, I know now rules forum was the wrong place. I had thought it would be the place to find people who knew the rules well enough to consider the topic I wanted but didn't realize how strictly rules clarification it was. Sorry about that.

Not trying to get people to agree with me. Trying to get people who don't have my objection to explain how it makes sense to them (other than just, the rules say so) hoping that one of their explanations will work for me and I can adopt it.


What I find amusing is that no one seems to have a problem with the idea that the magus can smash one orc in the face while also performing the intense concentration, agile hand motions, magical intonation and pouch-scrounging for components that constitute casting a spell - even a spell that involves sending a ray of flame zipping across the room (needing to be accurately aimed) or requires him to reach out a glowing hand to touch his smash-faced orc "buddy" that is trying to kill him.

A little magic involved and anyone can swing the same sword twice at a level that they only get one attack (it's called speed,it goes on your weapon) - but a little magic does a more limited version of the same thing and suddenly it's "out of theme."


Scrynor, I do understand your argument that "I swing my sword FASTAR with the power of magic!!!!" might seem a bit unrealistic, but I would like to point out that the whole number of attacks/round based on BAB is more ridiculous to begin with

Who do you think would make more attacks in a 6 second round: a conan-like warrior holding a massive sword in a fight against a dragon - where he knows he is toast if he makes one mistake - or a peasant trying to protect his family against the pillaging goblin?

In my head, I find the peasant more likely to go whack-a-mole against the goblin and try to hit it 3-5 times in a six second period

That's why I just describe attacks as it makes most sense to me and let mechanics work separately from the fluff. Sometimes it makes sense to describe multiple attacks (a sword thrust to each enemy if you are surrounded, attacks to the joints if you are dealing non lethal), sometimes it doesn't (like a full round the paladin unleashes on a demon is cooler if described as jumping and cleaving through the outsider)

My point is: Being more skilled with a blade does not necessarily mean you attack the enemy more times in the same amount of time.

Which means all the melee classes are "anti-thematic" and the magus is not doing any worse than the rest

That's my 2c, and I hope they don't come as confrontational. I find the topic incredibly interesting but regretably I'm not as smart as cheapy to describe the extra attack in a clever way

EDIT: Grammar

Cheliax

Scrynor wrote:
All you've done is say leave my Magus alone many times. That is a fine opinion. It just isn't adding anything to the conversation. I love the Magus class. I don't want it weakened. I'm just searching for a way to reconcile the mechanics with the world. I like consistent universes and I think back on DnD sessions as movies and right now this guy is all lurch-y to me. I'm looking for the mechanical tweaks or backstory and flavor effects that will have him seamlessly fitting into the pictures being the badass I know he is.

That's what you're doing, though.

Magic, ain't gotta explain s%!* is a completely acceptable thematic reason for the Magus' Spellstrike + Spell Combat to work exactly the way it does.

Hell, a Zen Archer can fire two arrows in a single round at first level. This is very much the same thing. The Magus gets a second swing because his combined martial and arcane training has allowed him to do so.


Scrynor wrote:

@Stome - Ya, I know now rules forum was the wrong place. I had thought it would be the place to find people who knew the rules well enough to consider the topic I wanted but didn't realize how strictly rules clarification it was. Sorry about that.

Not trying to get people to agree with me. Trying to get people who don't have my objection to explain how it makes sense to them (other than just, the rules say so) hoping that one of their explanations will work for me and I can adopt it.

I purpose this question to you then.

What is the difference between casting a Shocking Grasp spell(Standard Action) and getting a free action to use a touch attack with your hand and casting a Shocking Grasp spell(Standard Action) and getting a free action to use a melee attack with a weapon?

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Does the current most popular touch spell / Magus rule interpretation seem thematically broken to anyone else? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.