|
For a concept like that, I'd refer to the Spellblade archetype. It doesn't allow spell combat and dual wielding in the same round. It does a lot of what you're talking about though.
Using spell combat requires a full round action.
Using TWF requires a full round action.
They are therefore mutually exclusive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
no
Design Manager
|
If spell combat requires a full round action, and TWF adds one attack to your full round action, then wouldn't using Spell combat, alongside TWF work in concert? In other words, TWF grants another attack, but doesn't necessarily mean that holding a second weapon automatically makes it a full round, only that "you can get one extra attack per round", therefore TWF does not automatically constitute a full round action, only that it adds to a full round action.
On the other hand, with Spell combat, as a full round action the magus is allowed to cast a spell, as well as "make all of his attacks" at a -2, therefore, wouldn't the integration of a 2nd weapon as a free action, increase the number of attacks within the full round action?
Spell Combat is one specific type of Full Round Action. TWF requires a Full Attack Action, another type of Full Round action. The two are mutually exclusive.
|
The rules for two-weapon combat do not call for a 'full attack action'; but if you get more that one attack (such as with TWF) you must use a 'full attack action' to get them all.
Does that mean that you can only get more than one attack if you use the 'full attack action'? No. Pounce allows you to make a full attack without taking the 'full attack action'! You are using the 'charge' action!
So, are there any other ways to get a full attack without using a 'full attack action'? Yes:-
Spell Combat (Ex): ... a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.... As a full-round action, 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...
Spell Combat is another way to absolutely, certainly get a full attack without using a 'full attack action'. The rules for two weapon combat do not require the specific full round action called 'full attack action', any more than Pounce does!
|
|
No problem! It's what I do.... : )
Another way to do it is, instead of the Glove of Storing (good idea, BTW!), use a spiked gauntlet as your off-hand weapon. That hand counts as 'free' and doesn't inhibit spell-casting or anything else.
Note that then combining TWF with Spell Combat that the penalties stack, so you'd be at a minimum of -4 to attack with both weapons and spell, even with a light off-hand weapon and the TWF feat.
|
|
^ This. Also, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast..." You're already using some kind of TWF, but with your off-hand weapon being the spell. You even get the -2 TWF penalty by doing so. Its obvious that the designers intended this to be the same as twf but using spells intead of second weapons, so the two doesnt stack either by RAW or RAI.
@Malachi, pounce is an explicit exception to the rules allowing for a full attack as part of a charge. It doesn't set a precedent for how TWF works normally.
...there is nothing in the text that dictates that the two cannot be stacked.
Except this...
...but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast...
How many off hand attacks does a character get in one round? Correct answer is 1. Off hand attacks don't even exist except in the context of TWF and Spell Combat.
Thus using spell combat cannot be used with TWF.
You might have a case if said character has improved two weapon fighting/greater two weapon fighting, though I doubt such would be RAI.
You only get one off hand attack with TWF/Spell Combat. Trying to combine the two would give you two off hand attacks. Casting the spell uses up your off hand attack - it IS your off hand weapon as stated directly in the spell combat rules. You can't ignore this and still be in compliance with the RAW.
|
|
You only get one off hand attack with TWF/Spell Combat. Trying to combine the two would give you two off hand attacks. Casting the spell uses up your off hand attack - it IS your off hand weapon as stated directly in the spell combat rules. You can't ignore this and still be in compliance with the RAW.
On the subject of RAI, There was obviously no intent, when Monte Cook was writing the section on Two Weapon Combat back in the last millennium, to decide whether or not it would stack with the Spell Combat special ability of magi. We can forgive him for this, as Spell Combat wouldn't appear in that game, and it only appeared in a splatbook for an evolution of that game, and there is about a 13-year gap in time before the latter first appeared.
Reading Spell Combat, we must conclude that the intent of Spell Combat is to emulate TWF, by replacing the off-hand attack with a spell. When writing Spell Combat, the designer had choices to make regarding how it actually worked rules-wise. For example, he could have chosen to emulate TWF with a spell replacing the off-hand attack like this:-
Spell Combat: When a magus uses two weapon combat, he may cast a spell (with a casting time of 1 standard action or less) instead of making an off-hand attack with a weapon...
He could have chosen to do this, and if he had then a magus with Improved TWF and/or Greater TWF could replace any one of the extra attacks granted by those feats with a spell. That is, unless further text was provided to disallow this otherwise completely legal combination. If he had chosen this method, then the type of action consumed by Spell Combat would be the full-round action called the 'full attack action'.
The designer didn't write Spell Combat that way. Instead, he chose to make it its own special full-round action called 'Spell Combat', which is not a 'full attack action'!
So, in order to make a full attack, you have to use the 'full attack action', right? I mean, it says so in the combat chapter, right?
The combat chapter also says that an 'attack' is made using the standard action called the 'attack action', so we can safely conclude that the only time we can make an 'attack' is as a standard action, right?
We know this to be untrue. An 'attack' may be taken as a standard action or as part of a full attack or at the end of a charge or as an attack of opportunity, despite the rulebook initially stating that 'making an attack is a standard action'!
We also know that a 'full attack action' is not the only action-type that may be used to make a full attack! Pounce is a full-round action which allows you to make a full attack, but it does not use the 'full attack action', it uses the 'charge' action. This is incontrovertible. A pounce allows a full attack on a partial charge, which uses a standard action!
What is also incontrovertible is that Spell Combat allows a magus to make 'all of his attacks' with a melee weapon in addition to casting the spell, and RAW, to make 'all of your attacks with a weapon' you must make a full attack, regardless of whether that full attack is taken as a 'full attack action' or a 'charge' or 'Spell Combat'.
Spell Combat already allows the magus to take a full attack!
Although the rules for two weapon combat don't mention it, the rules as a whole only allow you to take the extra attack granted by two weapon combat if you make a full attack. We've just seen that using a 'full attack action' is only one of several ways to be allowed to take a full attack. Since Spell Combat also allows you to take a full attack, it combines with two weapon combat rather nicely!
The 'attack action' (as a standard action) is the default way to take an attack, but taking an attack is not limited to the standard action called the 'attack action'. Remember the full attack/charge/AoO?
The 'full attack action' (as a full-round action) is the default way to take a full attack, but taking a full attack is not limited to the full-round action called the 'full attack action'. Remember Pounce/Spell Combat?
If you have the TWF feat, you can't do it twice at the same time; you can't have two off-hand attacks by taking the -2 penalty twice. This is because, in RAW, you cannot stack the same ability with itself. That doesn't stop the feats ImprovedTWF and GreaterTWF from granting extra off-hand attacks, because those are different abilities.
But Spell Combat is the same thing as TWF, right? It's the same ability twice, but one time you swap the off-hand attack for a spell, and the other time you don't, right?
No. We established at the beginning of this post that, although the designer could have written it that way (allowing Improved and GreaterTWF to swap a single off-hand attack with a spell), but he chose not to!
...This functions much like two-weapon fighting...
Of course, the designer of Spell Combat knew all about TWF, and could easily have written text that would disallow this otherwise completely legal combination.
The writer may or may not have intended this, but RAW it's legal. You still have to satisfy the conditions of both TWF and Spell Combat, and the -4 penalty to all attacks means it's not optimal, but it is legal.
this was already gone through during the play test, was tried by play testers and the play testers were told 'no'. Please read the magus play test.
|
|
this was already gone through during the play test, was tried by play testers and the play testers were told 'no'. Please read the magus play test.
I'd be interested in reading that, and I don't think I'm the only one!
Would you provide a link, please? I'm rubbish at computers, and my search-fu is laughable. : )
As written, Spell Combat is not a full-attack. It doesn't work with Haste. You are only granted attacks with that one specific weapon. You don't get secondary attacks with natural weapons. You can't make ranged attacks or use rapid shot.
To find out if this is actually the intent, there's a FAQ request thread here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading Spell Combat, we must conclude that the intent of Spell Combat is to emulate TWF, by replacing the off-hand attack with a spell. When writing Spell Combat, the designer had choices to make regarding how it actually worked rules-wise. For example, he could have chosen to emulate TWF with a spell replacing the off-hand attack like this:-
Spell Combat: When a magus uses two weapon combat, he may cast a spell (with a casting time of 1 standard action or less) instead of making an off-hand attack with a weapon...
There are plenty of things the designers could have written about all kinds of things. Speculation on this is kind of pointless.
The combat chapter also says that an 'attack' is made using the standard action called the 'attack action', so we can safely conclude that the only time we can make an 'attack' is as a standard action, right?
We know this to be untrue. An 'attack' may be taken as a standard action or as part of a full attack or at the end of a charge or as an attack of opportunity, despite the rulebook initially stating that 'making an attack is a standard action'!
You are leaving out an important detail. The part where it says making an attack is a standard action is under the 'Standard Actions' part of the combat rules. And the part where full attack is described is under the 'Full Round Actions' rules. And the part where making an AoO is covered under the 'Special Attacks' rules. All of these are clearly defined as different options for different types of actions in the combat section. There really isn't any ambiguity what an 'attack' is or what it entails given different contexts.
TWF fighting requires a full attack to make use of. A full attack requires a full round action. This is the general rule. There are no other conditions that I am aware of in which a character may make a full attack except pounce.
Pounce need not be part of this discussion. It is an exception to the general rule. Can only be used with a charge, another type of full round action (or as a standard during a surprise round - which one might reasonably argue that RAI you cannot pounce during a surprise round).
Spell combat allows you to make all your attacks with a melee weapon (singular, not plural). It is not a full attack - it is the 'spell combat action'. Spell combat uses a full round action.
Until such time as you are able to take multiple full round actions in a single round you cannot spell combat and TWF at the same time.
As written, Spell Combat is not a full-attack.
Thanks for this tidbit Grick. This flat out denies the possibility as well of using spell combat with improved TWF/greater TWF.
People, this isnt even an argument. Spell combat says:
"As a full-round action, 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 with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."
Spell combat is its OWN ACTION. It is not an attack action, it cant be combined with other things that work with full attacks or attack actions, it is its own special kind of action. And since it is its own single action that takes a full round, you must meet its conditions for its entire duration. One of those conditions is an off hand must be free. That must remain the entire duration of the action, in this case, an entire round.
Rules as written and rules as intended its clear, you may full attack with a single one handed weapon and cast a spell, and thats it. No haste, no two weapon fighting, no vital strike, no nothing. This was deliberate to balance the attack and casting combo that is the magus.
That said. If you allow 3rd party material, you can SORT of bypass this restriction. You still cant two weapon fight and cast a spell, but you CAN dual weild.
In the super genius games product "Ultimate Options, New Magus Arcana" there is an arcana Enruned Dagger. If you take it you can spend an arcane pool point to treat a single light weapon as not there for the purpose of having a hand free to cast a spell. This means you dont have to worry about somatic components or having it free for spell combat but you still cant two weapon fight and use spell combat at the same time, the only thing you could do is two weapon fight on turns where you dont use spell combat.
|
|
As written, Spell Combat is not a full-attack. It doesn't work with Haste. You are only granted attacks with that one specific weapon. You don't get secondary attacks with natural weapons. You can't make ranged attacks or use rapid shot.
To find out if this is actually the intent, there's a FAQ request thread here.
Cheers, Grick. There seems to be plenty of ambiguity over whether taking 'all your attacks' is de facto a full attack.
Are you able to provide a link to, or quote, the playtest to which Pendagast referred?
@Bangerter: you can make a full attack using the 'full attack action', you can make a full attack at the end of a 'charge action' if you have pounce, and you can make a full attack as part of a 'Spell Combat action'.
As it stands, there is a dispute over whether Spell Combat includes a full attack. It doesn't use that phrase, it just says, 'he can make all of his attacks with a melee weapon'. If we were to ask the devs if making all our attacks with a melee weapon means we are making a full attack, are you certain that they would say no? If you were to ask the devs if haste gives a magus an extra attack when using Spell Combat, are you certain they would say no?
If we were to ask the devs if making all our attacks with a melee weapon means we are making a full attack, are you certain that they would say no?
I'm certain they would say yes.
If you were to ask the devs if haste gives a magus an extra attack when using Spell Combat, are you certain they would say no?
I'm certain they would say yes.
If we were to ask them if you can combine the off-hand attack from TWF with the off hand spell attack from spell combat I'm certain they would say no. Are you certain they'd say yes on this last one?
you can make a full attack using the 'full attack action'
Yes, because that's what the Full Attack action is.
you can make a full attack at the end of a 'charge action' if you have pounce
Yes, because that's what Pounce (Ex) says. ("When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack")
and you can make a full attack as part of a 'Spell Combat action'.
Spell Combat (Ex): "As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon... (etc.)"
If Spell Combat were a full-attack, you could not only make all of your attacks with your melee weapon, but also with your ranged weapon(s) and natural weapons.
By limiting the attacks to only your melee weapon (and presumably, specifically the light or one-handed melee weapon in your non-free hand), it's specifically not a full-attack.
As it stands, there is a dispute over whether Spell Combat includes a full attack.
No. There may be dispute over whether the intent behind Spell Combat is to be a full attack, but as written, it is not.
If we were to ask the devs if making all our attacks with a melee weapon means we are making a full attack, are you certain that they would say no?
It depends on if you give them context. When you use the attack action, you're making all of your attacks, which is limited to one by the nature of the attack action. When you use Cleave, you're limited to the number of attacks granted by the feat. If your BAB is less than 6 and you've only got one weapon and no special abilities, you can make all your attacks (one) without using a full attack.
If you were to ask the devs if haste gives a magus an extra attack when using Spell Combat, are you certain they would say no?
Someone already did:
Haste would grant the magus an extra weapon attack as it does normally. It does not allow the magus to cast an additional spell.Spellcombat is a full round action, haste give an extra attack when you use the full attack action.
Is it intended that magus will not get the extra attack when using spell combat or it is a unfortunate side effect of limiting the options available with spell combat than can be corrected with a FAQ?
You'll note that (thankfully) he doesn't say why. If haste works with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is a full-attack, that means natural weapons rapid shot ranged mayhem. But if haste works with Spell Combat because that's what haste is supposed to do, then that just means the magus can benefit from all the ways he has to cast haste along with his signature class ability.
|
|
If we were to ask the devs if making all our attacks with a melee weapon means we are making a full attack, are you certain that they would say no?I'm certain they would say yes.
If you were to ask the devs if haste gives a magus an extra attack when using Spell Combat, are you certain they would say no?I'm certain they would say yes.
If we were to ask them if you can combine the off-hand attack from TWF with the off hand spell attack from spell combat I'm certain they would say no. Are you certain they'd say yes on this last one?
No.
I'm confident that, as written, it works. But I think that if the devs were to consider the possibility of them stacking, they may want to errata Spell Combat to make sure that they don't stack.
I'd like them to rule on it. I'm not certain which way they would rule, but I would like the certainty of a ruling.
I'm confident that, as written, it works.
What works, specifically? Two-Weapon Fighting with Spell Combat and a Glove of Storing? Or something else?
In particular, how does any of that work, given the text of Spell Combat limits your type of attacks, which explicitly means it's not a full-attack because a full-attack doesn't have those limitations?
How can James come to the conclusion that Spell Combat benefits from haste unless a full attack is part of Spell Combat?
Ask him. But I would say it's because the point of Haste is to give an extra attack, so it should give an extra attack, regardless of using unarmed strikes or natural weapons or your normal sword with Spell Combat.
Basically, the problem is with Haste, not with Spell Combat. That's why Haste got changed in errata to be more clear about it, but not clear enough that we didn't need JB to recently clarify it's also supposed to work with unarmed strikes.
When making a full attack action..How can James come to the conclusion that Spell Combat benefits from haste unless a full attack is part of Spell Combat?
Logical extension of the intent of the haste spell? Haste doesn't care about what form of fighting you are using. TWF/THF/Sword & Board, etc. The intent is grant the user one extra main hand attack any time they get their iterative attacks.
Wouldn't it be possible to use Spellstrike to deliver touch spells as a part of one's TWF attacks? That isn't quite what the OP is asking about but if it works it's another way to get the same effect.
|
|
Logical extension of the intent of the haste spell? Haste doesn't care about what form of fighting you are using. TWF/THF/Sword & Board, etc. The intent is grant the user one extra main hand attack any time they get their iterative attacks.When making a full attack action..How can James come to the conclusion that Spell Combat benefits from haste unless a full attack is part of Spell Combat?
Whatever the rules of our little debate are, they apply to both sides of the argument equally.
If our debate is limited to RAW, then it hinges on whether 'making all your attacks' is de facto a full attack.
I see that our debate can now include 'logical extensions'! The RAW of haste means that the benefit of the extra attack only applies when making a full attack. How did James reach his conclusion? Yes, I agree! He used a logical extension! A logical extension of Spell Combat that interprets 'making all your attacks' as 'making a full attack'.
You can't credibly say that 'logically extending' haste to treat Spell Combat as if it were a full attack is okay, but 'logically extending' Spell Combat to treat it as including a full attack is not!
Wouldn't it be possible to use Spellstrike to deliver touch spells as a part of one's TWF attacks? That isn't quite what the OP is asking about but if it works it's another way to get the same effect.
Sure, if you've got a held charge or cast a quickened touch spell.
Spellstrike lets you deliver the spell through any weapon you are wielding as part of a melee attack. It doesn't care about hands free, or two hands, or multiple weapons.
If our debate is limited to RAW, then it hinges on whether 'making all your attacks' is de facto a full attack.
Yes, by RAW, it's not a full-attack.
I see that our debate can now include 'logical extensions'!
You asked how James could say what he said. We gave you a couple ways he could have said that. Nobody is arguing that what James said is RAW.
RAW, as we've established, Haste doesn't work with Spell Combat.
The RAW of haste means that the benefit of the extra attack only applies when making a full attack.
It also doesn't apply to unarmed strikes, as they're neither natural attacks nor manufactured weapons. Yet we know the intent is otherwise.
How did James reach his conclusion? Yes, I agree! He used a logical extension! A logical extension of Spell Combat that interprets 'making all your attacks' as 'making a full attack'.
Possibly. Or he could have used a logical extension that doesn't completely change the core mechanic of a class but instead reflects the intent of a spell that we know is not correctly written.
You can't credibly say that 'logically extending' haste to treat Spell Combat as if it were a full attack is okay, but 'logically extending' Spell Combat to treat it as including a full attack is not!
Nobody is saying that.
We're saying that James could have said Haste works with Spell Combat because that's what Haste is supposed to do.
The only one saying that James is changing Spell Combat is you.
I'm saying That Spell Combat includes, de facto, a full attack.
In a full-attack, a character can attack with any weapon he likes. If his BAB is 6+ he can attack with a sword, drop it, quick draw a hand crossbow, and shoot someone with it.
Spell Combat limits him to making "all of his attacks with his melee weapon". He can't use a bow, he can't use Rapid Shot or Multishot, he can't use an off-hand weapon, he can't use natural weapons. It's specifically limiting him to melee attacks, and presumably specifically melee attacks with the weapon in that one specific hand.
If Spell Combat was a full-attack, this would not be the case. It's explicitly different than a full-attack. It might be designed to function "much like" a full-attack, since it functions "much like" two-weapon fighting, but it wouldn't be "much like" a full-attack if it actually was a full-attack.
By RAW, it's not a full-attack.
By RAI, it's also not a full-attack in the sense of multiple weapons and stuff, the concept of the magus is a guy with a spell in one hand, and a single manufactured weapon in the other hand. It's clearly not meant to work with a second off-hand attack.
If "much like" really meant "exactly like" then you still couldn't use TWF, because you would already be using TWF, and you're locked into your off-hand being the (empty!) hand used to cast the spell.
|
Design Manager
|
How about Jason Buhlman specifically saying Spell Combat isn't supposed to work with Two-Weapon fighting?
|
|
At last! Cheers, Ssalarn!
No two handed weapons for the magus. Just like with two weapon fighting, using a two handed weapon is not going to work. This was a very intentional design choice.
Now this is a credible contribution! I am now convinced that Spell Combat is not intended to stack with TWF, and I'll rule it that way in my home games.
It still requires an errata, though.
(sorry, CrownlessKing18) : (
|
|
Wouldn't it be possible to use Spellstrike to deliver touch spells as a part of one's TWF attacks? That isn't quite what the OP is asking about but if it works it's another way to get the same effect.Yes.
Nothing stops you from entering combat with a held charge and two weapons.
Hey, CrownlessKing, try this instead! There's more than one way to skin a cat!
(...other pets are available...)
|
Design Manager
|
At last! Cheers, Ssalarn!
No two handed weapons for the magus. Just like with two weapon fighting, using a two handed weapon is not going to work. This was a very intentional design choice.Now this is a credible contribution! I am now convinced that Spell Combat is not intended to stack with TWF, and I'll rule it that way in my home games.
It still requires an errata, though.
(sorry, CrownlessKing18) : (
1 and 1 now Malachi, see you in the next thread :)