"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat"

[Rudy2]

NOTE: This is *not* about Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows is its own special full attack action, which I fully agree cannot be combined with Spell Combat. Flurry of Maneuvers lets you *modify* a full-attack action. Different questions.

The question is: can you combine a Flurry of Maneuvers with Spell Combat? I started thinking about it seeing the FAQ on the haste spell:

"Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes."

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9qhe

As far as I can tell, both haste and Flurry of Maneuvers are modifiers to full attacks. Reading the FAQ, it would seem to me that the Flurry of Maneuvers modification would fit into "other effects". Am I wrong? If so, what is the difference between haste and Flurry of Maneuvers in this regard?

Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon."

Flurry of Maneuvers: "At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action."

I don't think that it's valid to say the FAQ response only applies to haste, since it says "haste and other effects".

Thanks for all thoughts and input.

[wraithstrike]

Since FoM is not its own action, and only modifies a full round action this idea should work.

[Cap. Darling]

I agree that it is RAW but with Multiclassing somthing with FoM i would be carefull to invoke RAW if i Got in a argument about it because it also say:"The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers"
Mening unless you look at FoB for guidiance a multiclassed FoM is gonna suck.
But in my game, yes no problem.

[Nefreet]

Spell Combat, at this time, is only considered to be a full attack action with regards to how it interacts with Haste. Nothing more has been decided since that FAQ.

[Rudy2]

Cap. Darling wrote:

I agree that it is RAW but with Multiclassing somthing with FoM i would be carefull to invoke RAW if i Got in a argument about it because it also say:"The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers"

Mening unless you look at FoB for guidiance a multiclassed FoM is gonna suck.
But in my game, yes no problem.

It's also not clear it could be any good; it would take a lot of investment to set up, which would lose you a lot of BAB. I asked because I didn't want to take the time to even try and build the character if I was only going to be told at the end "no, can't do that"

Nefreet wrote:

Spell Combat, at this time, is only considered to be a full attack action with regards to how it interacts with Haste. Nothing more has been decided since that FAQ.

That's not what the FAQ actually says, since the actual text which I quoted says "haste and other effects". Is there a basis for you saying that it's *only* haste? Did the FAQ misquote the decision?

[Nefreet]

Grr.

Yes, there is*. During the discussion that generated that FAQ the Design Team clarified that, at this time, it only applied to Spell Combat and Haste.

*The problem being that, according to the "Stephen quote" that keeps being used, that clarification is likely no longer valid.

[Rudy2]

Nefreet wrote:

Grr.

Yes, there is*. During the discussion that generated that FAQ the Design Team clarified that, at this time, it only applied to Spell Combat and Haste.

*The problem being that, according to the "Stephen quote" that keeps being used, that clarification is likely no longer valid.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to be rude if I came across that way, I was just wondering what the other side of the argument was.

I'm not so convinced either way, but based on what you say it seems there is a high chance that it will be eventually clarified so that they do *not* work together. At the very least, it's clear I can't count on this combination being usable in PFS, given that many other GM will no doubt share your view on the matter. Ah, well; it's not a particularly amazing combination in any case, once you run the numbers.

[Nefreet]

Sorry. My "Grr" was not in annoyance with you, but rather the issue of us relying on Developer commentary to clarify previous rulings, and our current inability to do so now.

I've been trying to find that discussion for you, and I've come across a comical discovery. About a year ago, when Haste and Spell Combat did not work together, I provided links to the FAQ that stated as such.

It's the same link that today says the two work together.

Then about 6 months ago, when people were still unaware that Haste had been changed to work with Spell Combat, I provided links to the new FAQ.

I believe, but don't quote me, that there was additional text in the FAQ that also stated the Design Team was considering whether to open up Spell Combat to things like Fighting Defensively, and I suppose FoB, since those required a full attack action.

Perhaps it is intended for them all to work together now.

But whether or not it is intended, I say go with it. We are only supposed to rely on official FAQs or errata for "official rulings", according to SRM. And, as you pointed out, nothing in the current FAQ refutes using things like FoB with Spell Combat.

[Nefreet]

Datestamping the original FAQ, when it is posted, and datestamping all following edits, and probably the text they included, would help with these sorts of discussions immensely.

[Rudy2]

Huh; sounds like a mess, you have my sympathies.

Maybe you meant to say Flurry of Maneuvers, but Spell Combat will definitely not work with Flurry of Blows (FoB), because Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows are both Full Attack actions. So, I would not feel comfortable combining those two without something more explicit from the developers/FAQ.

On the other hand, Flurry of Maneuvers is a special case, since it modifies a full attack action, as opposed to being its own full attack action. It would not shock me if they decided they did not combine, though. Nor would it shock me if they never really "decided" one way or the other.

As for Fighting Defensively, I'm afraid it didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it that Fighting Defensively might *not* combine with Spell Combat but, looking at the language now, it does indeed require that Spell Combat be a full attack action. I'll continue to assume for now that they do work together, though.

[Cap. Darling]

One of the reasons that crane style magi never ruled the World.

[James Risner]

Rudy2 wrote:

"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat"

"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat" = ?

This is the same as:

TWF + TWF = 2x TWF = MWF

[Cap. Darling]

James Risner wrote:

Rudy2 wrote:

"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat"

"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat" = ?

This is the same as:

TWF + TWF = 2x TWF = MWF

This makes very little sense to me. You make folks have -4 when using MWF? Or am i missing somthing?

[thorin001]

James Risner wrote:

Rudy2 wrote:

"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat"

"Flurry of Maneuvers" + "Spell Combat" = ?

This is the same as:

TWF + TWF = 2x TWF = MWF

How so? FoM =/= Flurry of Blows.

[Rudy2]

Cap. Darling wrote:

One of the reasons that crane style magi never ruled the World.

Heh; I'm actually working on such a build since yesterday. The change to the Crane Style prevents it from being *completely* absurd, but it still has a lot of potential.

[Cap. Darling]

Rudy2 wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

One of the reasons that crane style magi never ruled the World.

Heh; I'm actually working on such a build since yesterday. The change to the Crane Style prevents it from being *completely* absurd, but it still has a lot of potential.

Exept without defensive figthing it is nothing:(

[Rudy2]

Cap. Darling wrote:

Rudy2 wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

One of the reasons that crane style magi never ruled the World.

Heh; I'm actually working on such a build since yesterday. The change to the Crane Style prevents it from being *completely* absurd, but it still has a lot of potential.

Exept without defensive figthing it is nothing:(

As we've established in this thread, the FAQ (at least for now) says that Spell Combat is treated like a full attack action. So, you can spell combat defensively. Until they say otherwise, anyway. Fickle, fickle FAQ.

[Kazaan]

One thing that needs clarification: Flurry of Blows isn't its own special full-round action:

PRD wrote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Flurry of Blows is a modified full-attack so can be coupled with anything else that alters or relies on the full-attack action. If you had Pounce and FoB, you could make a FoB in your Pounce. However, specifically regarding Spell Combat, I had asked the devs back when the FAQ reversal was made and Haste was allowed to work with Spell Combat whether that implied a change to Haste effects to work with "full-attack and full-attack-like abilities" or if it was a change to Spell Combat to say that it "counts as" a full-attack. IIRC, it was SKR who said they'd look into that interaction possibility and get a clarification out, but I never saw any subsequent clarification on the matter so it's unclear whether you could make a Flurry of Blows/Spell Combat combo.

Same thing goes for combing Flurry of Maneuvers; since it is still unclear whether you just get "the attacks you could make if making a full-attack" or if Spell Combat straight up counts as a full-attack for general purposes, it's still unclear whether you can combine a full-attack-reliant ability like FoM with it.

If they clarify that Spell Combat "counts as" a full-attack generally, that means you can combine it with, among other things:

Pounce
Defensive Combat
Rapid Attack/Whirlwind Blitz
Flurry of Maneuvers
Flurry of Blows (possibly, presuming you don't also have a conflict between two different "kinds" of TWF)

Hence the delayed response as they wanted to decide if Pouncing Magi was a can of worms they were willing to open up.

[Rudy2]

I disagree with your analysis a bit. We need to distinguish between things that *are* full attack actions (FoB, and debatably Spell Combat) and things that modify or enhance full attack actions (haste, pounce, Flurry of Maneuvers, Fighting Defensively).

I don't think there is any basis at all for saying that you can combine two different full attack actions, like Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat. If Furry of Blows read "Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as part of a full-attack action.", then you could combine it with a full-attack action. But two full attack actions absolutely cannot be combined.

So, allowing the combination of Fighting Defensively and Spell Combat is no different than allowing the combination of Fighting Defensively and Flurry of Blows; both are combinations of a Full Attack action (FoB/Spell Combat) with something that modifies a full attack action (Fighting Defensively), which is extremely different than combining two Full Attack actions.

EDIT: Were it up to me, I would make Spell Combat unambiguously a full attack action, but also modify Flurry of Maneuvers so that it was also a full-attack action, and thus they could not be combined.

[Kazaan]

You can combine two different modifications to the full-attack action just as you can combine different modifications to the Attack action. Vital Strike, for instance, kicks in during an Attack action. This is why it doesn't work on anything that isn't an Attack action such as Cleave (standard Use Feat action) or Full-Attack (full-round Full Attack action). However, the 2-h Fighter archetype has the Overhand Chop ability which lets him do 2x Str when making a single attack with the Attack action or a Charge. It has been explicitly stated by the designer of the archetype that this ability was designed to be combined with Vital Strike by kicking in during the Attack action rather than being a standard Use Ability action. Overhand Chop (used on Attack actions) and Vital Strike work in conjunction because neither is its own Use Feat or Use Special Ability action.

Likewise, if you had the Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack ability, which modifies the Full-Attack action, you could combine it with Flurry of Blows or Flurry of Maneuvers to shuffle in a normal Move at the expense of your highest-BAB iterative attack. Pounce specifically states you make a Full-Attack at the end of your Charge instead of a single attack and both FoB and FoM "kick in" during a full-attack so, if you Pounce, you can use FoB or FoM.

Spell Combat, however, isn't a full-attack; it's a full-round Use Special Ability action. It's also ambiguous as to whether or not your attacks "count as a full-attack".

[Rudy2]

Kazaan wrote:

You can combine two different modifications to the full-attack action just as you can combine different modifications to the Attack action.

Absolutely true. What's also true is that you can't combine two full-attack actions. Flurry of Blows is not a *modification* to a full attack action, it *is* a full attack action itself.

Kazaan wrote:

Spell Combat, however, isn't a full-attack; it's a full-round Use Special Ability action. It's also ambiguous as to whether or not your attacks "count as a full-attack".

The FAQ (at present) says that it counts as a full-attack action. *shrug* I quoted it above.

[Nefreet]

Rudy2 wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Spell Combat, however, isn't a full-attack; it's a full-round Use Special Ability action. It's also ambiguous as to whether or not your attacks "count as a full-attack".

The FAQ (at present) says that it counts as a full-attack action. *shrug* I quoted it above.

Indeed. I say go with it. It's written in black and white.

That's certainly more official than our memories of the arguments that generated that FAQ.

[Kazaan]

Rudy2 wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

You can combine two different modifications to the full-attack action just as you can combine different modifications to the Attack action.

Absolutely true. What's also true is that you can't combine two full-attack actions. Flurry of Blows is not a *modification* to a full attack action, it *is* a full attack action itself.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. There's no difference between the two. Full-Attack is the name of a specific full-round action just as Attack is the name of a specific standard action and Stand Up is the name of a specific move action. You seem to be conflating the terms Full-Round action and Full-Attack action. The Flurry of Blows ability is like Power Attack; it isn't an "action" in and of itself, it's an effect that "kicks in" when certain actions are taken. When it says, you can make a flurry of blows "as a full-attack action", what it means is that it isn't a specific Full-Round Use Special Ability action but is a Full-Attack just as a normal, stock Full-Attack, but with extra benefits and a handful of limitations as to when you can "activate" the ability.

Rudy2 wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Spell Combat, however, isn't a full-attack; it's a full-round Use Special Ability action. It's also ambiguous as to whether or not your attacks "count as a full-attack".

The FAQ (at present) says that it counts as a full-attack action. *shrug* I quoted it above.

...count as a full-attack "in regards to haste and similar abilities". That can be parsed in three different ways:

1) Haste (and similar abilities) give you an extra attack when you make a full-attack. Spell Combat "counts as a full-attack" for the purpose of these abilities. In this case, while normally you'd need to make an actual full-attack, Spell Combat gets a special exception and you can get an extra attack via Haste and haste-like effects. However, Flurry of Maneuvers isn't adding attacks as a haste-like effect.

2) The Attacking portion of Spell Combat represents a full-attack action as a sub-unit of the larger full-round Spell Combat action. Just as Pounce makes full-attack a subordinate action to the Charge action, but the whole Charge action doesn't become a Full-Attack, Spell Combat is a single action to which Cast a Spell and Full-Attack (with limitations) are subordinate actions.

3) The whole Spell Combat action "counts as" a full-attack similar to the Fast Bombs ability so the whole action can "stand in" for any place you have a Full-Attack action; either as the subordinate part of a Pounce or when you just make a plain old Full-Attack.

In parsing 1, the implication is that the change was to Haste in that it works not just on Full-Attacks but also any other abilities that give you access to iterative attacks. In parsing 2, you have Spell Combat[cast a spell, full-attack] so abilities that "kick in" during a full-attack like Flurry of Blows or Flurry of Maneuvers can "kick in" during the full-attack portion of the Spell Combat action, but you can't subordinate the whole Spell Combat action to an ability like a Pounce-modified Charge action. In parsing 3, the whole Spell Combat action, while not a full-attack action, can stand in for a full-attack action in any applicable situation. In this case, it works in all circumstances, from FoB to Pounce to Rapid Attack. And, again, the jury is still out on which of these parsings is the correct one.

[Rudy2]

Kazaan wrote:

Full-Attack is the name of a specific full-round action just as Attack is the name of a specific standard action and Stand Up is the name of a specific move action. You seem to be conflating the terms Full-Round action and Full-Attack action.

No; I fully understand that a full attack action is a type of full-round action; we don't disagree there.

Kazaan wrote:

The Flurry of Blows ability is like Power Attack; it isn't an "action" in and of itself, it's an effect that "kicks in" when certain actions are taken. When it says, you can make a flurry of blows "as a full-attack action", what it means is that it isn't a specific Full-Round Use Special Ability action but is a Full-Attack just as a normal, stock Full-Attack, but with extra benefits and a handful of limitations as to when you can "activate" the ability.

I suppose you could interpret it that way... I always took it more literally. That is, when it says "as a full-attack action", it means that flurry of blows is behaving as a full attack action would, and thus can be modified by things that modify full attack actions.

I think that if it was intended to be interpreted the way you are, then it would be worded like Flurry of Manuevers is instead: "as part of a full attack action", rather than "as a full attack action".

[Rudy2]

As far an intent goes, however, I will admit that I don't think it is intended for any of Spell Combat, Flurry of Blows or Flurry of Maneuvers to combine with each other. The first two say they are like two-weapon fighting, and since it's been made clear that Flurry of Blows doesn't combine with normal two weapon fighting, I think it's clear that Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat cannot combine. If the wording of Flurry of Maneuvers is such that it can be combined with Spell Combat, it's my belief that that is an oversight, and does not match intent. For that reason, I've decided not to try and use it.

However, I think the intent about combining fighting defensively and spell combat is much less clear. For that reason, given the FAQ, I will use them in combination until it's made clear that they cannot be so.

[Kazaan]

I can easily see not getting the extra attack from FoB because of a conflict between the "kinda-sorta" TWF of FoB and the "kinda-sorta" TWF of Spell Combat. But a Monk/Magus can definitely use the flurry BAB when making his Spell Combat attacks if the FAQ is referencing a change to the action economy classification of Spell Combat. As for FoM, it's hard to say because the maneuver(s) aren't phrased as being "kinda-sorta" off-hand attacks and Spell Combat explicitly states you make your attacks with the weapon in your other hand so I'm not entirely sure if all your maneuvers would qualify. Maybe weapon-based maneuvers like Disarm or Trip, but Grappling during Spell Combat is a much more tricky prospect in reconciling the ability restrictions. But a full-attack is a full-attack. If it were meant the way you're interpreting it, it would have been written as the alchemist Fast Bombs discovery and just flat-out say, "This ability counts as a full-attack".

[Rudy2]

I think we may end up having to agree to disagree, but let me make sure I've understood you correctly before we do that.

Flurry of blows says "a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action"

Fighting defensively says "You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action"

Is it correct to say that you believe the two bolded phrases are interchangeable?

[Kazaan]

Yes; both are abilities that you can have "kick in" when making a full-attack. You may use either one, both, or neither. It's the same as using Vital Strike with the Attack action; you can call it "a Vital Strike" referring to the Attack action modified by the Vital Strike feat just as we call the Full-Attack modified by the Flurry of Blows class ability "a Flurry of Blows", but it is distinctly different from making a Cleave which is a standard Use Feat action or various class abilities which may be standard or full-round Use Special Ability actions. To try and make a significant distinction between "as a full-attack action" and "when taking a full-attack action" is just splitting hairs. Mind you, there are some significant and slight distinctions in the rules like what you're thinking... but this isn't one of them.

[Rudy2]

Kazaan wrote:

To try and make a significant distinction between "as a full-attack action" and "when taking a full-attack action" is just splitting hairs.

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. Look at the same language in a different context:

I may go to the beach as a weekend trip.

I may go to the mountains as a weekend trip.

I may bring a book to read when taking a weekend trip.

Clearly bringing a book can be combined with the beach or the mountains, but the beach cannot be combined with the mountains.

More generally, X being a type ofY, as opposed to X being something that can be combined with Y, is not a semantic difference at all; it's a fundamental difference in subject.

[Mojorat]

They reference x because y is either a modification of x or in some way is consisideres to duplicate x.

For flurry this means it is mechanically identical to twf. It modifies things relates to the monk and damage but it is mechanically identical in the important thing. How many atttacks my lvl 8 monk gets.

Spell combat is a bit different in that you are not really duplicating much of twf at all. However it covers the important parts. Ie the spell is your "off hand" and you get your main melee attacks. In this case. Your two weapon fighting sword in one hand spell in the other. However in this case none of the mechanics require twf mechanics. But by giving you the -2 to hit saying as if using the twf feat.

Both abilities reference full attack so this tells you what modifies it and that you get more then 1 attack off your iterative attacks.