| 24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recently found the FAQ that Spellcombat is no Full Attack Action and thus does not grant Haste. But this argumentation leads me to the question: Does it, as written, even grant iteratives?
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty
So, what are "all his attacks"? One would think, that would be the iteratives, but wait:
When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action.
So, when using a full-attack action one receives additional attacks for high BAB.
But as long as I haven't missed any other rule, one does that ONLY on a Full-attack action and Spellcombat does not include anything removing that constraint.On the other hand, if one would say Spellcombat implies to receive those "Full-attack action attacks", then the same would be true for the Haste Attack, as like high BAB, Haste grants more attacks on a Full Attack Action, noting more, nothing less.
As I see it, the FAQ as it stands right now means either:
A normal character only ever gains one attack (+ the spell) when using Spellcombat. (probably the strictest RAW)
The argumentation in the FAQ does not prevent Haste from being used, meaning it is more of an Errata, not an FAQ, as it deliberately changes the rules. Also, it not being a full attack doesn't mean anything in that case, it is more an arbitrary ruling.
Why?
If "all his attacks" implicitly allows iteratives, why doesn't it allow Haste etc. attacks? Both are just additional attacks you get on a Full Attack Action, the rules at no place differentiate between them.
BAB attacks and Haste attacks are handled the same by the rules as written, they both are additional attacks you get on a full attack with the specified attack bonus.
Don't understand me wrong, I know what they WANT with the FAQ, but the way it is formulated right now, it just doesn't work that way and should thus be changed to account for it.
My only intention here is to get the rules an a firm base.
Spell Combat takes the attacks allowed from the unaltered base of the Full-Attack action.
That is the intent, sure. But please show me where in Spellcombat it actually says that?
Dead Shot etc. actually say you get as many rolls as according to your BAB, Spellcombat does not. Spellcombat only says "all your attacks", without specifying.Thus (per RAW at least) only leaving the interpretation "all attacks" (thus including Haste) or "all attacks one has unconditionally" (which excludes iteratives as defined under BAB, since they are only granted on a Full Attack, leaving only 1).
Thus not allowing Haste has to be an additional ruling. Which is fine, but should he noted as such.
Haste affects the Full-Attack action specifically in regards to the bonus attack. You don't get the bonus attack when you use the Two-Weapon Warrior's Doubleslice ability nor does it count towards your potential rolls with Dead Shot or Deadly Shuriken.
You don't get to make your iterative attacks with Doublestrike, so I fail see the relevance. Dead Shot and Dealy Shuriken specify only extra attacks from Bab, so they're not really relevent either.
Spell Combat allows for iterative attacks only as clarified in the FAQ.
FAQ? Which FAQ? Surely not this FAQ (i.e. the FAQ the OP mentioned) it makes no mention of iterative attacks whatsoever.
It also lacks the specific qualifier present in Fast Bombs that allows it to count as if it were the Full-Attack action despite being a Use Special Ability action.
Hence the OPs argument: If it's a not a Full-Attack, you don't get iterative attacks either.
Haste, Fight Defensively, Combat Expertise, et. al. alter the Full-Attack action. But Spell Combat takes the attacks allowed from the unaltered base of the Full-Attack action.
Huh? Base Full-Attack action? What's that? I don't see that term anywhere in the CRB.
Are you saying that iterative attacks (and only iterative attacks) are the base attacks, and any other attack you can make with a full attack (natural, off-hand, Haste, Rapid Shot, Ki, FoB, etc.) are additional attacks? Do you have any precedent for this interpretation? Are there any other abilities that differentiate between base attacks and additional attacks?
The FAQ says "No Haste because it doesn't use the full attack action", implying that anything else that modifies the full attack action is out.
It in no way implies that the Magus otherwise does not receive ALL of his attacks. If it did, Spell Combat would not use the language ALL of his attacks, because the only way to achieve more than one attack with a weapon (barring some weird corner case I'm missing) is by full attacking.
If it did not intend for iterative attacks to work, it would simply say make AN attack.
The FAQ says "No Haste because it doesn't use the full attack action", implying that anything else that modifies the full attack action is out.
It in no way implies that the Magus otherwise does not receive ALL of his attacks. If it did, Spell Combat would not use the language ALL of his attacks, because the only way to achieve more than one attack with a weapon (barring some weird corner case I'm missing) is by full attacking.
If it did not intend for iterative attacks to work, it would simply say make AN attack.
The question is, where are these iterative attacks coming from?
Normally they come from a full-attack action.
But this is not a full attack action.
The ability does not say that he gets extra attacks with his weapon.
It does say he gets 'all his attacks'.
So if it's not a full-attack-action, what rule are "all of his attacks" being generated from?
I have to use an argument like this next time my roommate gets mad at me for using ALL the milk
I'll just have him define the word all and show me in the definition where it has to do with milk
^^ --that would make no sense...am I right?
If your argument is that ALL means something other than your BAB given attacks then at your table what does it mean?
If you can give a credible argument I will concede and FAQ your post....although with the great work the design team has been doing I will feel silly doing it
@Kazaan
I believe you are mistaken. The character doesn't just "have" 3 iterative attacks. At BAB 11, he receives 2 additional attacks "when he takes a full attack action."
When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat).
http://paizo.com/prd/gettingStarted.html
I also believe that in every other instance where multiple attacks are made, the ability is either designated a full-attack action or specifically calls out making attacks as if making a full-attack action, or simply says to make more attacks. I can certainly be mistaken here. I don't have recall over the whole ruleset.
I believe it was probably RAI for Spellcombat to work like a full-attack action without gaining the benefits of other effects that enhance full-attack action, but the rules as written do not say that.
If your argument is that ALL means something other than your BAB given attacks then at your table what does it mean?
It means ALL the attacks you can make.
If a 20th level Monk were to declare "I'm making all of my attacks with my +1 Speed temple sword and I'm using a Ki point" how many attacks would you expect him to make?
I'm betting the answer isn't 4.
If your argument is that ALL means something other than your BAB given attacks then at your table what does it mean?
That's exactly the thing, either all means ALL, including everything that requires a full attack, like Haste etc. or it doesn't include those attacks that specifically call out for a full attack, in which case iteratives are also not included.
Everything else is an arbitrary distinction that is not supported anywhere else.If one follows the RAI of the FAQ its something like this:
"All" means the normal one attack + the attacks you only get in a full attack, but only some of them.
That, in my eyes, is in no interpretation all.
I again have to stress that the rules as written do not differentiate between BAB iteratives and haste attacks, both are additional attacks you receive on a Full Attack Action.
OK, Teller, you're right - the strictest definition of BAB iterative attacks requires them to be used in a Full Attack action and the Spell Combat rule doesn't explicitly include those attacks in its wording.
So ask for your FAQ.
However, it's abundantly clear what the RAI is.
1. As initially written, everybody thought things like Haste and even TWF would add attacks to Spell Combat due to the "all attacks" wording of that ability.
2. Later FAQ said that this is not the case for special reasons. That FAQ removes very specific things from what everybody thought "all attacks" meant, but it doesn't remove everything because it doesn't say it removes everything.
3. Ergo, "all attacks" now clearly means iterative BAB attacks (as written) and nothing else (per the FAQ clarification).
4. Sure, that leaves weird corner cases where you might think you could gain extra attacks that are not iterative BAB attacks but are not explicitly excluded by the FAQ - common sense should help you here.
Is that the perfect RAW reading? Nope, apparently not. But it's obviously the RAI, without room for much, or any, doubt.
Side note: Maybe the powers that be might want to spell this out in the FAQ, just to remove any lingering doubts - it wouldn't hurt. But it's probably not really necessary, either.
As I said, I never doubted the RAI. The thing I have a problem with is the reasoning given in the FAQ ("because its no full attack action"), as that reasoning, thought to the end, removes iteratives as well.
Something like "No, it's to strong and was not intended." would have been a far better formulation, but more of an errata than an FAQ.
|
The FAQ says "No Haste because it doesn't use the full attack action", implying that anything else that modifies the full attack action is out.
It in no way implies that the Magus otherwise does not receive ALL of his attacks. If it did, Spell Combat would not use the language ALL of his attacks, because the only way to achieve more than one attack with a weapon (barring some weird corner case I'm missing) is by full attacking.
If it did not intend for iterative attacks to work, it would simply say make AN attack.
The question is, where are these iterative attacks coming from?
Normally they come from a full-attack action.
But this is not a full attack action.
The ability does not say that he gets extra attacks with his weapon.
It does say he gets 'all his attacks'.
So if it's not a full-attack-action, what rule are "all of his attacks" being generated from?
Verbatim it say "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).".
The "all of his attacks" part can mean "his single attack, plus any attack he would get for the spell he is casting (in conjunction with spellstrike) plus any eventual attack he would get from using spell strike with a quickened spell".
The FAQ says "No Haste because it doesn't use the full attack action", implying that anything else that modifies the full attack action is out.
It in no way implies that the Magus otherwise does not receive ALL of his attacks. If it did, Spell Combat would not use the language ALL of his attacks, because the only way to achieve more than one attack with a weapon (barring some weird corner case I'm missing) is by full attacking.
If it did not intend for iterative attacks to work, it would simply say make AN attack.
The problem is that the magus can be easily constructed as being the "weird case".
This isn't rocket science, people. If you are at Bab +11, you have 3 iterative attacks. Now normally (that is to say, by default or generally), you must make a full-attack to get attacks beyond your first. You still have them, but it's a matter of action economy how you can use them. So when Spell Combat says "All your attacks", it's referring to those 3 iterative attacks you get at Bab +11. Using two-weapon fighting or the bonus attack from Haste or the extra attack for a Monk burning his Ki pool specifically add extra attacks to the Full-Attack action. When you make a Full-Attack, you get this extra attack is the general idea. Spell Combat is not a Full-Attack; it just uses the attacks normally granted by Full-Attack. It's called logical inference. If you have multiple attacks from high Bab and the ability says you get to use "all your attacks", it's logical to infer that it's referring to your iterative attacks, even if it isn't so explicit as to beat you in the face with it. So, whereas generally, you must use the Full-Attack action to get "all your attacks", Spell Combat is a specific exception that allows you to get "all your attacks" using an action that isn't Full-Attack. And, since it isn't Full-Attack, it doesn't qualify for any modifications that apply to Full-Attack. I don't know how much more clear I can make it; if you don't understand it at this point, just settle for "that's the way it is" and don't stress over it.
The way you word thing haste should also work in spell combat!
They problem is they decided to rule against haste in spell combat which i think is a b+$*~*~@ ruling!As it states "all of your attacks" is a poor wording.
As BAB+6 and BAB+11 and so on ALSO give additional attacks when you do a full attack action
As well as two-weapon fighting gives an additional attack when taking the full attack action
And also a natural attack gives an additional attack when taking a full attack action.
If haste does not include in "all your attacks" then none of the above count neither! And you are left with only 1 attack when declaring spell combat.
PS. I HIT FAQ
This is a wording they should have used for the magus!! and given a difrent drawback if it was to powerfull!!
Pounce (Ex)
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
FAQ
Pounce: If I have this ability, can I make iterative attacks with weapons as part of my full attack?
Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains the pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured melee weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.
The intent is clear, and FAQ'ing won't allow haste for spell combat. At best it will cause errata to be put out which says that spell combat still uses the full round attack iteratives, even though it is not a full round attack.
Please do not derail the thread into a discussion whether forbidding Haste is a good or bad thing. That it is what they intended is pretty clear to everyone who followed the discussion.
The FAQ request is only meant to clear up the rules and prevent possible misunderstandings if Spellcombat + FAQ are seen outside of the context of experience (for example by a new player who only information is: Does not gain Full Attack effects => it does not gain iteratives).
New players will make mistakes with the rules anyway. That is what the rest of us are here for. We can't have an FAQ on every possible mistake a new person might make. The FAQ that is already in place will be more than enough once they understood the basics of the game. We were new once and we understand it.
But do we understand it because we think that is how it should work, having used "all" as indeed meaning all for a long time or because the written rules actually support the use of iteratives?
I don't understand your question, but my point is that once you get to even a low level understanding of how the rules work this one is easy to figure out.
edit:Everyone does not come here to check the FAQ so I guess errata explaining it as a special use of a full round action would be nice for the next printing.
However I assuming they would come here to check the FAQ I don't think the concept is hard to grasp.
You only have 3 or 4 or 5 attacks When doing a full attack action
So if additional attacks like the one from haste is not included why are those of two weapon fighting/natural attacks and even additional attacks from high BAB! As the wording does not differentiate from those used in haste!
We know what they want them to say it's just that right now they don’t say what they want them to mean.
and again getting all your aditional atttacks as a magus I stil think that 1 attack from haste is BS now I'll never cast hase I'll just use that round to cast more intensefied shocking grasp and crit their asses for 30-100 damage (15-20X2) each turn at lvl 6
Full Attack, by itself, gives you three attacks at BaB +11.
This is where you keep missing the point. Full Attack does not give you 3 attacks. Having a Bab of +11 gives you 3 attacks, but only when making a Full Attack.
There are other things that let you make more than one attack on a Full Attack. Some of them, like Haste, could be considered 'Effects', but others, like Two-Weapon Fighting, aren't any more effects than Bab is.
I am sure everyone here understands the intent. We can also agree that the wording could be cleaned up. So instead of arguing over semantics when we all agree it is easier to hit the FAQ button. :)
You only have 3 or 4 or 5 attacks When doing a full attack action
So if additional attacks like the one from haste is not included why are those of two weapon fighting/natural attacks and even additional attacks from high BAB! As the wording does not differentiate from those used in haste!
We know what they want them to say it's just that right now they don’t say what they want them to mean.
and again getting all your aditional atttacks as a magus I stil think that 1 attack from haste is BS now I'll never cast hase I'll just use that round to cast more intensefied shocking grasp and crit their asses for 30-100 damage (15-20X2) each turn at lvl 6
You do not get additional attacks from TWF or natural attacks when using Spell Combat. Nor would you get extra attacks from Flurry of Blows, nor Haste, nor any other source of extra attacks. You have multiple attacks from BaB, even if you're not using Full-Attack; but you must use Full-Attack to execute those extra attacks. However, specific trumps general. Spell Combat allows you to make all those attacks despite the fact that you're not using the Full-Attack action.
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.Having BaB above certain thresholds automatically gives you the additional attacks; but by default, you must use the Full-Attack action to execute them. Using the Full-Attack action doesn't give you "bonus" attacks as a result of high BaB. Spell Combat is a specific ability that allows you to make "all your attacks" which is clearly referring to iterative BAB attacks.
Nothing in the phrasing of additional attacks from BaB suggest that it 'automatically gives you the additional attacks" but you can only normally access them through full-attack actions.
It says that when your BaB hits certain thresholds you make extra attacks when you perform a full-attack action.
Not that you 'get' extra attacks as a character. Not that it 'gives' you extra attacks as a special ability. Not that it locks them in a status where full-attack is one thing that unlocks them.
The entirety of what having a BaB of +6, +11, etc does in relation to additional attacks is allow you to make extra attacks when making a full attack action.
eta: I challenge you to find a rules statement that supports this assertion: You have multiple attacks from BaB, even if you're not using Full-Attack"
@Ximen: You literally quoted me quoting the passage that says you get multiple attacks per round because your BAB is high enough. It's BAB being high enough that gives you multiple attacks as stated right there; I even bolded it. "You must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." You have them, but you must make a full-round attack to use them. You not only issued the challenge, you simultaneously accepted it on my behalf and then successfully fulfilled it for me. That must be the fastest, most efficient rebuttal I've ever made; wait... it took 0 units of time to successfully refute your argument... that means divide by zero... oh sonuva... you divided by zero. Good going Ximen, you just destroyed the universe. I hope you're proud of yourself.
The passage you quoted does not refer to what you claim.
Your quote is from the combat section which is talking about every conceivable way to get multiple attacks in a round, and says that in order to get your multiple attacks in, you have to take a full-attack action.
eta: Then again, that rant didn't display you grasped what my actual objection was, so I will restate:
The number of attacks a character can make based on BAB is tied to making a full-attack action rather than being an intrinsic property or attribute of the character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I built my magus with full intent of using haste with spell combat until I found out about the FAQ. That being said, my number one argument behind disagreeing with the FAQ was "so why the hell did they make the magus arcana 'hasted assault' and what use is it now that it no longer applies to spell combat rounds."
In my opinion, should this class specific haste be exempt from this ruling? Yes. If not, then the arcana should be errata-ed to say that it does not work with spell combat so that this ruling is reflected in the book somewhere.
Is anyone arguing that RAI spell combat does not allow for iterative attacks?
Is anyone arguing that RAI spell combat does not allow for iterative attacks?
I'm about 70% sure RAI allows iteratives, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear the devs wanted to squish all iteratives, not just extras from haste.
Is anyone arguing that RAI spell combat does not allow for iterative attacks?I'm about 70% sure RAI allows iteratives, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear the devs wanted to squish all iteratives, not just extras from haste.
Is that a yes or no?
It seems that everyone agrees that it does, but the disagreement is on whether or not RAW is allowing Spell Combat to be a special case.
PS:The devs see the RAI as allowing Spell Combat to grant iterative attacks.
PS2: I don't think the ability states that intent was well as it should.
UM 1st printing, magus, spell combat: "As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."Core Rulebook: "Full Attack: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."
There is your intent everyone.
As for hasted assault
It's not like a magus doesn't gain any offensive benefit from haste... if he uses hasted assault, he'll probably stick to full attacks for its duration rather than use spell combat... but still has the option of using spell combat if it's better under the circumstances than gaining that extra weapon attack.
So no, hasted assault does not work with spell combat.
A link for your own convenience.
This was just made in May, so the ruling is not that old and dont go bashing SKR. He is the most vocal rules dev, but he is not even the guy in charge, and the "team" makes the rules together. Losing the FAQ for another 6 months is not something that is needed.
That quote, (as I understand it together with the linked post), was to show that spell combat is not a full attack (and thus does not get haste etc), not that it gets iteratives (since in that thread everyone just assumed without checking the rules as written).
Since we all agree that Spellcombat is a Full Round Action, not a Full Attack, it thus should not really be of any importance here.
Oh if one would replace the word Haste with the word iteratives, SKR's post would make exactly the same amount of sense, actually once again showing that the RAW does not support iteratives. And exactly that is what I have a problem with.
(The bolded full-round action under Full Attack is just a specification, that a Full Attack requires a full round action, not that a Full Round action gets additional attacks (otherwiese Haste would once again be included, as it is "some special reason").)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. By RAI, we're supposed to assume that by "all of his attacks with his melee weapon" means all iterative attacks absent haste and other affects that modify iterative attacks using the full attack action. It doesn't make a great deal of sense and completely eliminates the magus adding the speed special ability to his sword using his Arcane Pool. And that is pretty lame.
I think I'm going to go against the FAQ and SKR on this one. I don't think this was a very well thought out FAQ. I think if SKR and the other developers take more time to think about this in relation to the Magus abilities, they will allow haste and speed to function with Spell Combat. Otherwise why would they have bothered to allow a Magus to add it to his weapon via his Arcane Pool?
I think it was intended that a Magus could benefit from haste or speed while using Spell Combat, otherwise I don't think they would have made speed an option in the Arcane Pool or put haste on their spell list. That's how I'm going to play it from here on out.
That quote, (as I understand it together with the linked post), was to show that spell combat is not a full attack (and thus does not get haste etc), not that it gets iteratives (since in that thread everyone just assumed without checking the rules as written).
Since we all agree that Spellcombat is a Full Round Action, not a Full Attack, it thus should not really be of any importance here.
Oh if one would replace the word Haste with the word iteratives, SKR's post would make exactly the same amount of sense, actually once again showing that the RAW does not support iteratives. And exactly that is what I have a problem with.(The bolded full-round action under Full Attack is just a specification, that a Full Attack requires a full round action, not that a Full Round action gets additional attacks (otherwiese Haste would once again be included, as it is "some special reason").)
If you go to that link and read further down he gets into it with a poster trying to argue what you just said, and SKR basically says "stop being so difficult. They get all of the attacks".
Point is:They get the attacks RAI.
Hmm. By RAI, we're supposed to assume that by "all of his attacks with his melee weapon" means all iterative attacks absent haste and other affects that modify iterative attacks using the full attack action. It doesn't make a great deal of sense and completely eliminates the magus adding the speed special ability to his sword using his Arcane Pool. And that is pretty lame.
I think I'm going to go against the FAQ and SKR on this one. I don't think this was a very well thought out FAQ. I think if SKR and the other developers take more time to think about this in relation to the Magus abilities, they will allow haste and speed to function with Spell Combat. Otherwise why would they have bothered to allow a Magus to add it to his weapon via his Arcane Pool?
I think it was intended that a Magus could benefit from haste or speed while using Spell Combat, otherwise I don't think they would have made speed an option in the Arcane Pool or put haste on their spell list. That's how I'm going to play it from here on out.
Even if they errata it you still won't be getting haste. All they will do is make it a special use of a full round action that way everyone is clear on the intent, so if that is your goal you will be out of luck. If you only want the text to specify that it is a special use of a full round action then we might be able to make that happen.
they cant make spell combat into a full atack action as a full atack action is already defined!
what they could do is change "all of your attacks" into Your atacks only including those gained by your BAB.
If they wanted to hit the magus with the nerf bat then they should change somthing els.
you cast a spell and can stil attack, when you gain BAB+6 you gain an aditional attack in spell combat. And so on for BAB11 and 16
this would be alot simpler and stil solid abilety! I do think this is what they want it to be tho!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could also just rely on their readers not being anal pedants that refuse to understand what's clearly the intent.
But that may be too much to ask.
they could just not nerf the magus and fix the wording!
they could just "all of his attacks" is an error and it should be "his attack"
wich would nerf spell combat considereably but stil not a real problem as his main damage stil comes from spells
|
wich would nerf spell combat considereably but stil not a real problem as his main damage stil comes from spells
That depends on archetype. The kensai may already be better off forgoing spell combat and using haste.
they cant make spell combat into a full atack action as a full atack action is already defined!
Sure they could. The exact same way Flurry and TWF are defined as a full attack.
|
I have a question for Cheapy and Wraithstrike, according to the FAQ a magus no longer receives an extra attack when using Haste as part of a full attack when he is using his Spellstrike class ability. Does this mean he no longer gets the extra 30’ added to his movement as part of the haste spell or part of hasted assault?
•