Precise Strike + Spell Combat


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 245 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Illum wrote:

Different abilities, different situations.

Hexcrafters are very powerful, the hex is a baseline thing for them. Seems to be the same for daring champions. The magus has to actively work to get this dubious ability. Don't be shocked if a gm says "this doesn't work".

I feel more confident with a developer posting the same argument. Feel free to make your own decision. Just don't kid yourself, this is the most powerful arcana the magus can take if it works as you say.

Yeah, you're not talking about RAW at all now, just how powerful you think precise strike is. Which, FYI, is an actual strawman argument.

A Hexcrafter can also take precise strike. If I built a Hexcrafter, I would never take it because those two feats would be more powerful if invested in various hex abilities, such as prehensile hair & combat reflexes, or debuffing hexes.

Btw, do you think the two feat precise strike chain is more powerful than the two feat Dervish Dance chain?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Illum wrote:
He can spend points, just doesn't have them in reserve. Thus he could spend points to parry, but would have the reserve panache to riposte.

The magus can use that deed by using points from his arcane pool as the panache points required for that deed.

Precise Strike (Ex)
: At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt.

He can use(not spend!) points from his arcane pool AS the panache points required for that deed.


Also, you could just take amateur swashbuckler feat. It's not even a bad choice, since it gives you a regenerating pool, so you don't need to be as stingy with your arcane pool.

Grand Lodge

In terms of damage it is. But dervish dance also had the benefit of coming online earlier, and making the class less mad. Two very powerful attributes, I'd tend to learn more towards dervish in terms of raw power, especially early to mid levels. Precise strike might win late levels.

I agree I'm making two different points. One being legality and one being power. It is powerful, but I still don't think it is legal. Though I admit my judgement may be clouded in this matter, it helps having a developer reinforce my opinion.

I think there is a difference between stopping a dubious combo and stopping a clear class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
noretoc wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new.
Curious as where this is made clear?

James Jacobs replies to a thread here stating exactly that in relation to touch attack spells.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kpxu?Dervish-DanceWeapon-Finess-Questions

He specifically calls out spells that give you some sort of weapon though, like flame blade, so that wouldn't work.

I think taking that into account would probably be considered enough in most circumstances, since the requirements for dervish dance are more strict (you aren't allowed to have an off hand weapon at all, let alone have attacked with it).

That being said, is there a reason (sorry if I missed it) that the lines

Quote:
To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand

do not allow for this to work.

I can agree that ray's and other such attacks may be considered weapon attacks, but at the same time I have difficulty in seeing said ray being a weapon in your "other hand."

As far as I am aware you aren't holding onto it or grasping it or physically wielding it or anything like that. There isn't as far as I am aware a magical ray firing weapon in your hand. In many cases I don't think there is even text that says it originates from your hand. Though you may have to wave your hand about for the spell, the weapon attack might as well come out of your mouth or your eyes or what have you). If all of these are the case then I don't see how that quote is violated, since the origin of the attack doesn't in many cases, have to come from your hand (so you're really making a weapon attack with whatever part of your body the ray originates from ... say your knees, or perhaps your pelvis).

Even if it doesn't work though, this combo should still work for all spells that aren't classified as being weapons.


Tell me something:

Why take precise strike if you can't use whith spellstrike and spell combat?

I mean, if this is in the arcana stuff, you use two arcanas and can't use with your abilities?

Look, the magus can cast spells and attack in the same round, but to do this they got a penalty of -2 "like" two-weapons. His mind is concentrate and his body work.

And look that: "If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check."

Just think about it, why arcane deed is there?


Because Precise Strike isn't the only Swashbuckler Deed? It's not even the only good one. Their Bleed option is pretty much a strict upgrade over the Magus', for example (though it comes in later).

I mean, I maintain my stance on Precise Strike being legal with Spell Combat, and there's no way in hell you can argue that it doesn't work with Spellstrike, but the arcanas have their place regardless.


Caosbot wrote:

Tell me something:

Why take precise strike if you can't use whith spellstrike and spell combat?

I mean, if this is in the arcana stuff, you use two arcanas and can't use with your abilities?

Look, the magus can cast spells and attack in the same round, but to do this they got a penalty of -2 "like" two-weapons. His mind is concentrate and his body work.

And look that: "If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check."

Just think about it, why arcane deed is there?

It would still work with spell strike as spell strike leaves your off hand free...


And it would still work with Spell Combat because you're not "attacking with a weapon in your other hand".


I think its work to.

Why not? They have all pre-recs for.

Or people need Errata?


Hey people i found this post from Sean:

Click here!

"The "TWF" aspect of spell combat is that your "off hand attack" is actually a spell you're casting, and isn't a weapon attack, and therefore is irrelevant (and distracting) to the question about how many weapon attacks you get when using spell combat."


Someone?


Caosbot wrote:

Hey people i found this post from Sean:

Click here!

"The "TWF" aspect of spell combat is that your "off hand attack" is actually a spell you're casting, and isn't a weapon attack, and therefore is irrelevant (and distracting) to the question about how many weapon attacks you get when using spell combat."

That was in response to a question asking if your cast spell counts as a weapon attack, regarding how many attacks you can make during Spell Combat. Basically, there was a question whether a Magus with BAB+6 (2 iteratives) could make those two iteratives plus the free attack to deliver a touch spell (3 attacks total at +4/+4/-1), or if the free attack to deliver a touch spell counted against your iteratives (2 attacks total at +4/-1). It was the latter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Either way, Sean clarified that Spell Combat's so-called "off hand attack" in his own words, "isn't a weapon attack."

The language in Precise strike specifically says "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand"

Spell =/= Weapon

Spell Combat + Precise Strike = Legal


Kaouse wrote:

Either way, Sean clarified that Spell Combat's so-called "off hand attack" in his own words, "isn't a weapon attack."

The language in Precise strike specifically says "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand"

Spell =/= Weapon

Spell Combat + Precise Strike = Legal

Taking a quote out of context when discussing a decision that has been reversed is probably not the best idea, especially when its non-binding. And especially when we know that spells can be weapon attacks, so taking the quote to mean that is demonstrably wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DesolateHarmony wrote:

We are getting into that slippery definition of 'hands' again. If you are two weapon fighting, as you are with spell combat, you have a main hand and an off hand. if you use longsword and armor spikes, one is your main hand, and the other is your off hand.

Delivering the touch spell with your main-hand weapon is the province of Spellstrike, learned at 2nd level.

You deliver the touch with your main hand after casting with your (free) off hand. Which means your off hand is too busy to be free enough for Precise Strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The off-hand for precise strike doesn't have to 'do' anything, it's not called out as two weapon fighting, like spell combat or flurry of blows, you just can't be holding a weapon in it.

Casting a spell is not holding a weapon, precise strike works, dervish dance works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

How is this thread still even a thing? You can do this, RAW.

1) Dervish dance precedent. Dervish dance has harsher restrictions, and still allows combining with spell combat/spell strike. If precise strike doesn't work, then clearly neither does Dervish Dance. On the other hand, if Dervish Dance does work with Spell Combat and Spell Strike, then it must be true that Precise strike does as well.

2) Precise strike's actual, real, textual limits do not say anything about having to have an "empty hand" or a "free hand" or anything like that. This is objective fact - the limits as stated in the rules are that you cannot make a weapon attack with that off hand, and you can't use a shield other than a buckler. Any other reading is inserting language that simply isn't in the rules, no matter how much you want it to be.

As a request, from now on, if you are going to argue about the RAW of precise strike, please quote the exact text of the rules where it makes the claims you are making. To help, I have put the text for precise strike below: (copied from the PRD and cross checked against my physical copy)

Quote:

Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit.

As a swift action, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to double her precise strike's damage bonus on the next attack. This benefit must be used before the end of her turn, or it is lost. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the amount of panache points a deed costs (such as the Signature Deed feat).

I have bolded the only part that provides a limit on use in terms of what the off hand is doing, and it does not say anything about needing a free hand, or anything like that. RAW a character could use precise strike while holding on to a swinging chandelier with his off hand and shouting "What-ho?!", so he could certainly do it while wiggling his fingers.


_Ozy_ wrote:

The off-hand for precise strike doesn't have to 'do' anything, it's not called out as two weapon fighting, like spell combat or flurry of blows, you just can't be holding a weapon in it.

Casting a spell is not holding a weapon, precise strike works, dervish dance works.

Precise Strike doesn't work when you attack with your off-hand, Spell Combat calls out that the spell functions as an off-hand attack.

Spellstrike is a little harder to figure out. With non-somatic spells, it works for sure. With somatic spells, its a little less clear on whether or not using a hand for spell casting consumes your off-hand. I think it does, and I think that is RAI as well. Precise Strike is worded poorly, but the intent is clearly meant to give a boost to attacking with and only with a single weapon at a time without an additional attack mechanic. It shouldn't work with Flurry of Blows, Spell Combat, or any other pseudo-twfing actions.

Beyond what the rules say, I dont think Magi are supposed to have the primary damage mechanics for two classes, as that is what is happening if precise strike works. Its equivalent to giving a barbarian fighter weapon training for the cost of 2 feats. Its better than power attack for 2-handers, even with the two feat(completely neglecting any benefit from flamboyant arcana) cost (+1 damage/level versus +.9 damage level and -.3 attack/level).


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

How is this thread still even a thing? You can do this, RAW.

1) Dervish dance precedent. Dervish dance has harsher restrictions, and still allows combining with spell combat/spell strike. If precise strike doesn't work, then clearly neither does Dervish Dance. On the other hand, if Dervish Dance does work with Spell Combat and Spell Strike, then it must be true that Precise strike does as well.

2) Precise strike's actual, real, textual limits do not say anything about having to have an "empty hand" or a "free hand" or anything like that. This is objective fact - the limits as stated in the rules are that you cannot make a weapon attack with that off hand, and you can't use a shield other than a buckler. Any other reading is inserting language that simply isn't in the rules, no matter how much you want it to be.

As a request, from now on, if you are going to argue about the RAW of precise strike, please quote the exact text of the rules where it makes the claims you are making. To help, I have put the text for precise strike below: (copied from the PRD and cross checked against my physical copy)

Quote:

Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit.

As a swift action, a

...

Let me ask you a question. You are trying to spellstrike shocking grasp. You are holding a weapon in one-hand with which you intend to deliver it. Can you make that attack without using your other hand?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell combat does not say that you are attacking with a weapon in the off hand in any way. Casting a spell is not attacking with a weapon. Again, use RAW to support your claims.

The reason they are giving the extra damage to Magi is, the same reason they are giving it to the Swashbuckler, one-handed style melee attacking sucks balls, hard. There is no way you're going to keep up with a two-handed power attacking barbarian without something like precise strike. People have done the math one this already. You're neglecting the x1.5 str damage that is available to the two handed style, as well as the higher base weapon damage.

And burning two feats for it is not a small investment either.

The Magus is supposed to be a front line fighter, and precise strike gives them a reasonable shot at it.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Spell combat does not say that you are attacking with a weapon in the off hand in any way. Casting a spell is not attacking with a weapon. Again, use RAW to support your claims.

The reason they are giving the extra damage to Magi is, the same reason they are giving it to the Swashbuckler, one-handed style melee attacking sucks balls, hard. There is no way you're going to keep up with a two-handed power attacking barbarian without something like precise strike. People have done the math one this already. You're neglecting the x1.5 str damage that is available to the two handed style, as well as the higher base weapon damage.

And burning two feats for it is not a small investment either.

The Magus is supposed to be a front line fighter, and precise strike gives them a reasonable shot at it.

Are you seriously claiming that magi are significantly behind in damage?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:
Let me ask you a question. You are trying to spellstrike shocking grasp. You are holding a weapon in one-hand with which you intend to deliver it. Can you make that attack without using your other hand?

Yes. Spellstrike says nothing at all about the off hand (and in fact explicitly says that the normal touch attack is delivered with the weapon instead) meaning on face I don't have to use my "off hand" for anything in terms of "making the attack". You lose there.

But wait! I guess you probably mean to refer to Spell Combat here, because spell combat requires that I have a hand free to cast a spell, even if the spell doesn't have somatic components (which already shoots your argument down since the need for somatic components isn't the reason the hand has to be free). Thus, as long as his hand stays free, I am perfectly free to describe my magus as standing in a classic fencing pose trading precise blows with enemies while sketching the arcane runes of his spell in the air with the glowing tip of his magical rapier, before unleashing that energy in a well delivered strike. Please prove that I can't.

Counter question - I hold a baby giraffe in my off-hand. Can I precise strike? If no, why not (and remember, use actual rules text in your answer, not what you think the rules should say)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People have run the numbers already. Sure, the Magus can spike up his damage with spells, but the 3/4 BAB (with the reduced iterative attacks), one-handed weapon 1d6, x1 str, lack of power attack, all adds up to a fairly mediocre DPR unless you're burning through your spell slots. 2H power attack alone roughly makes up the difference, the extra .5 str adds another 2-6, larger weapon adds another 3 or more, and then you have the extra iterative attack which itself is a big win for the barbarian.

So yeah, without precise strike the Magus is significantly behind in damage.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

Yes. Spellstrike says nothing at all about the off hand (and in fact explicitly says that the normal touch attack is delivered with the weapon instead) meaning on face I don't have to use my "off hand" for anything in terms of "making the attack". You lose there.

But wait! I guess you probably mean to refer to Spell Combat here, because spell combat requires that I have a hand free to cast a spell, even if the spell doesn't have somatic components (which already shoots your argument down since the need for somatic components isn't the reason the hand has to be free). Thus, as long as his hand stays free, I am perfectly free to describe my magus as standing in a classic fencing pose trading precise blows with enemies while sketching the arcane runes of his spell in the air with the glowing tip of his magical rapier, before unleashing that energy in a well delivered strike. Please prove that I can't.

Counter question - I hold a baby giraffe in my off-hand. Can I precise strike? If no, why not (and remember, use actual rules text in your answer, not what you think the rules should say)?

No, I meant Spellstrike. How exactly are you casting the spell without using the hand not holding the weapon?

_Ozy_ wrote:

People have run the numbers already. Sure, the Magus can spike up his damage with spells, but the 3/4 BAB (with the reduced iterative attacks), one-handed weapon 1d6, x1 str, lack of power attack, all adds up to a fairly mediocre DPR unless you're burning through your spell slots. 2H power attack alone roughly makes up the difference, the extra .5 str adds another 2-6, larger weapon adds another 3 or more, and then you have the extra iterative attack which itself is a big win for the barbarian.

So yeah, without precise strike the Magus is significantly behind in damage.

So youre saying if a magus isnt using their main damage mechanic, they fall behind in dpr? Wow, thats as surprising as a barbarian falling behind if they don't rage. Of course the magus cant keep up if they arent using spell combat/spellstrike, thats why those abilities exist. That doesnt mean they need a whole other damage mechanic on top of it. If a magus wants to pick up precise strike for times when hes out of spells, thats fine and of course works. But dont claim that since a non-casting magi does poor damage a casting magus needs precise strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:
No, I meant Spellstrike. How exactly are you casting the spell without using the hand not holding the weapon?

No, you didn't, you meant Spell Combat, because Spellstrike says nothing at all about the requirements to cast the spell, it only talks about how to deliver the charge from a touch spell once you do cast it. If you disagree, please quote the text of Spellstrike which talks at all about needing to have a hand free, etc. Since I'm actually looking at the text now, I can promise you that search will be futile.

As far as your question about how I'm casting the spell in the first place, that has already been answered - I am keeping a hand free (as Spell Combat requires) but not using it for somatic components (because nothing in Spell Combat says that I have to), and indeed Spell Combat makes it clear that the free hand requirement is independent of the somatic component requirement. Thus, casting the spell my making the required gestures and sketching the required arcane glyphs with the tip of my sword. Again, prove that I can't describe my character this way.

You are assuming you have to use the free hand to cast the spell. You don't. You are assuming that casting a spell is the same as attacking with a weapon. It isn't. You are assuming that precise strike requires that your hand stay completely empty and unused. It doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I was comparing a Magus not using his limited spells with a Barbarian not using his limited rage. What's your point? That both can spike their damage higher for a limited number of times per day? Yeah, everyone knows that.

You can use Spellstrike without casting a spell if you're holding a charge, or if you have wand wielder and used a wand. Furthermore, you can use spellstrike without using the off-hand to cast if you're using still spell, or if the spell has no somatic components.

But of course, all that is irrelevant since the devs have already confirmed that casting a spell is not making a weapon attack.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Yeah, I was comparing a Magus not using his limited spells with a Barbarian not using his limited rage. What's your point? That both can spike their damage higher for a limited number of times per day? Yeah, everyone knows that.

You can use Spellstrike without casting a spell if you're holding a charge, or if you have wand wielder and used a wand. Furthermore, you can use spellstrike without using the off-hand to cast if you're using still spell, or if the spell has no somatic components.

But of course, all that is irrelevant since the devs have already confirmed that casting a spell is not making a weapon attack.

I already admitted it works with a still spell, and if you don't take the free action attack and hold the charge it would work as well by raw.

As for the quote, you mean that out of context post from SKR that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is again, demonstrably false in the context you are using it in, since we have official rules that say that spells can be weapon attacks?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:

I already admitted it works with a still spell, and if you don't take the free action attack and hold the charge it would work as well by raw.

As for the quote, you mean that out of context post from SKR that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is again, demonstrably false in the context you are using it in, since we have official rules that say that spells can be weapon attacks?

You have (as far as I know) an equally "out of context" quote that says SOME spells can SOMETIMES be LIKE weapon attacks. That doesn't mean what you think it means, and the quote from SKR is only "not relevant" versus your quote insofar as the part where he explicitly and in no uncertain terms says that you are wrong to equate casting spells with weapon attacks makes your entire argument fall apart.

Also, the fact that you think still spell matters again proves that you have no idea what the rules actually say, since explicitly the requirement for a free hand is NOT tied to having somatic requirements.


Check the FAQ:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

This comes from a 3.5 rule that any spell with an attack roll qualifies as a weapon attack, which as far as I know still applies in total. Its the same reason shocking grasp can crit, its a weapon.

And how about this SKR quote in reference to weird words:

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:

Also can we clarify if these are magical?)

Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

And please, don't misstate my argument then claim I don't understand the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Yeah, I was comparing a Magus not using his limited spells with a Barbarian not using his limited rage. What's your point? That both can spike their damage higher for a limited number of times per day? Yeah, everyone knows that.

You can use Spellstrike without casting a spell if you're holding a charge, or if you have wand wielder and used a wand. Furthermore, you can use spellstrike without using the off-hand to cast if you're using still spell, or if the spell has no somatic components.

But of course, all that is irrelevant since the devs have already confirmed that casting a spell is not making a weapon attack.

I already admitted it works with a still spell, and if you don't take the free action attack and hold the charge it would work as well by raw.

As for the quote, you mean that out of context post from SKR that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is again, demonstrably false in the context you are using it in, since we have official rules that say that spells can be weapon attacks?

No, James Jacobs actually.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kpxu?Dervish-DanceWeapon-Finess-Questions#2

Quote:
A touch spell won't negate the benefit of the feat, unless that touch spell specifically gives you a weaponlike attack, such as flame blade does.
Quote:
You can certainly still cast spells with your off hand and make touch attacks, but making touch attacks with spells is generally not something you can do with two weapon fighting.

According to him you can even attack with a touch spell in your off-hand and it won't count as a weapon attack.

Because it's not a weapon. And just casting a spell is even moreso not attacking with a weapon.

Attacking with a spell can be a weapon-like attack, casting a spell is not.


Calth wrote:

Check the FAQ:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

This comes from a 3.5 rule that any spell with an attack roll qualifies as a weapon attack, which as far as I know still applies in total. Its the same reason shocking grasp can crit, its a weapon.

And how about this SKR quote in reference to weird words:

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:

Also can we clarify if these are magical?)

Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

And please, don't misstate my argument then claim I don't understand the rules.

Attacking with a ray is attacking with a weapon-like attack (though not actually attacking with a weapon).

Casting a ray spell is not. Furthermore, if a ray is exactly like a weapon, then all spellcasters would take a non-proficiency penalty for attacking with it. Agreed?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Calth wrote:

Check the FAQ:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

This comes from a 3.5 rule that any spell with an attack roll qualifies as a weapon attack, which as far as I know still applies in total. Its the same reason shocking grasp can crit, its a weapon.

And how about this SKR quote in reference to weird words:

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:

Also can we clarify if these are magical?)

Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

And please, don't misstate my argument then claim I don't understand the rules.

Attacking with a ray is attacking with a weapon-like attack (though not actually attacking with a weapon).

Casting a ray spell is not. Furthermore, if a ray is exactly like a weapon, then all spellcasters would take a non-proficiency penalty for attacking with it. Agreed?

There is no difference between weapon and weapon-like. And again, it may be carried over from 3.5 or dev post, but spells grant their own proficiency.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:

Check the FAQ:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

This comes from a 3.5 rule that any spell with an attack roll qualifies as a weapon attack, which as far as I know still applies in total. Its the same reason shocking grasp can crit, its a weapon.

And how about this SKR quote in reference to weird words:

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:

Also can we clarify if these are magical?)

Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

And please, don't misstate my argument then claim I don't understand the rules.

As soon as you start basing your argument on actual rules and not objectively untrue claims about what the rules actually say, I'll be happy to oblige you and stop pointing out how wrong you are (what you mistakenly characterize as me misstating your argument). Until then, you're just going to have to put up with me constantly exposing your misuse of the rules and sloppy logic, sorry.

As for these quotes, thanks for proving my point. 3.5 != Pathfinder, so if the SKR quote you disagree with is out of context because it's not directly addressing this specific question, then your "evidence" is a laughingstock.

Also, I was correct about the limitations about it - it says that SOME spells count in SOME ways as weapons. It does not literally say that spells are weapons, and any attempt by you to assert otherwise is frankly pathetic at this point. Just because you lazily assumed that "for some purposes" means all the time, always, doesn't mean that's a true, or even good, interpretation of the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:
There is no difference between weapon and weapon-like. And again, it may be carried over from 3.5 or dev post, but spells grant their own proficiency.

Except that there is a difference between weapon-like and weapon (and it's simply mind boggling that you even would attempt to argue otherwise).

Also, nowhere, ever, anywhere that I have ever seen, is there a rule that says that spells automatically grant their own proficiency. In fact, I'm pretty sure no such rule exists because many spells (such as those that grant natural weapons) will explicitly say that the caster gains proficiency with those weapons, which would be redundant if, in fact, your wholly fictional rule were actually true.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Calth wrote:

Check the FAQ:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

This comes from a 3.5 rule that any spell with an attack roll qualifies as a weapon attack, which as far as I know still applies in total. Its the same reason shocking grasp can crit, its a weapon.

And how about this SKR quote in reference to weird words:

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:

Also can we clarify if these are magical?)

Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

And please, don't misstate my argument then claim I don't understand the rules.

As soon as you start basing your argument on actual rules and not objectively untrue claims about what the rules actually say, I'll be happy to oblige you and stop pointing out how wrong you are (what you mistakenly characterize as me misstating your argument). Until then, you're just going to have to put up with me constantly exposing your misuse of the rules and sloppy logic, sorry.

As for these quotes, thanks for proving my point. 3.5 != Pathfinder, so if the SKR quote you disagree with is out of context because it's not directly addressing this specific question, then your "evidence" is a laughingstock.

Also, I was correct about the limitations about it - it says that SOME spells count in SOME ways as weapons. It does not literally say that spells are weapons, and any attempt by you to assert otherwise is frankly pathetic at this point. Just because you lazily assumed that "for some purposes" means all the time, always, doesn't mean that's a true, or even good, interpretation of the rules.

I remember why I stopped talking to you now.

Also, heres another question I bet you will not be able to answer without supporting my claim: What is Pathfinders definition for a weapon?


Calth wrote:
There is no difference between weapon and weapon-like. And again, it may be carried over from 3.5 or dev post, but spells grant their own proficiency.

They do? Link please. What kind of weapon is a spell, simple? melee? exotic?

If there is no difference, then why does weapon focus specifically call out the option of rays for spellcasters? Isn't that redundant with the 'choose any one weapon' criteria?

From the CRB:

Quote:
All weapons deal hit point damage.

There are plenty of touch spells, both ranged and melee that don't do hit point damage. Therefore they must not be weapons.

Also from the CRB:

Quote:
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).

So, if spells are weapons, then they too must fit in the defined categories: simple, martial, or exotic (which are they?)

light, one-handed, or two-handed (which are they?)

Small, Medium, or Large (which are they?)

Do spells that target weapons work on them? Keen, Greater Magic Weapon, Lead Blades, etc...

In short, there's a ton of information that would suggest that weapon-like spells != weapons, and just your word that they do.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Counter question - I hold a baby giraffe in my off-hand. Can I precise strike? If no, why not (and remember, use actual rules text in your answer, not what you think the rules should say)?

I assume you have something that counts as a light or one handed piercing weapon in the other hand, so as long as you're only holding it, and not wielding it as an improvised weapon. If you do wield it as an improvised weapon, not only do you not qualify for precise strike, you're also a terrible person.

Also, you must be pretty strong, baby giraffes weigh ~120 lbs when they're born.

Le PRD wrote:
Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit.

Scarab Sages

LazarX wrote:
You deliver the touch with your main hand after casting with your (free) off hand. Which means your off hand is too busy to be free enough for Precise Strike.

Lazarx, I don't see where in the raw Precise Strike requires a free hand or a non-busy hand, only where it says you can't attack with a weapon in the other hand. If you're delivering the touch attack with your main hand, I don't see how you could be attacking with the off hand (assuming you're not two handing a one handed weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:

I remember why I stopped talking to you now.

Also, heres another question I bet you will not be able to answer without supporting my claim: What is Pathfinders definition for a weapon?

I wish you had remembered sooner, since clearly your argument has not gotten better, and you continue to follow your pattern of ignoring what has been said while repeating yourself and claiming it hasn't been answered.

Also, please note that while I have answered every question you have asked, you have not answered a single one of mine. I put it to you that in fact you cannot answer my questions, because doing so would make it obvious that you are guilty of being wrong on the internet.

Finally, with regards to your question about the definition of a weapon- _Ozy_ has already done that work, and, in fact, I was looking specifically at those same rules when I pointed out all the myriad ways in which spells do NOT meet the definitions of weapons, as well as the problems your interpretation would cause, which you haven't been able to respond to.

But please, stop being coy and actually quote the part of the rules that makes it clear that spells are, in fact weapons.


Lets see:

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Unhh. You need to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

The quote from SKR is still valid Click here!. Why not? They exchanged something? The FAQ date from the same time, and the FAQ came from the forums. Anyone can look from Sean or James answers. The rules don't change!

Sure is not from this context, but the quote came well to the question.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Calth wrote:

I remember why I stopped talking to you now.

Also, heres another question I bet you will not be able to answer without supporting my claim: What is Pathfinders definition for a weapon?

I wish you had remembered sooner, since clearly your argument has not gotten better, and you continue to follow your pattern of ignoring what has been said while repeating yourself and claiming it hasn't been answered.

Also, please note that while I have answered every question you have asked, you have not answered a single one of mine. I put it to you that in fact you cannot answer my questions, because doing so would make it obvious that you are guilty of being wrong on the internet.

Finally, with regards to your question about the definition of a weapon- _Ozy_ has already done that work, and, in fact, I was looking specifically at those same rules when I pointed out all the myriad ways in which spells do NOT meet the definitions of weapons, as well as the problems your interpretation would cause, which you haven't been able to respond to.

But please, stop being coy and actually quote the part of the rules that makes it clear that spells are, in fact weapons.

If you believe that rays aren't weapons after that FAQ, your understanding Pathfinder is so bad there's no point arguing with you. I have quoted the rules, you just don't understand them.

Caosbot wrote:

Lets see:

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Unhh. You need to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

The quote from SKR is still valid Click here!. Why not? They exchanged something? The FAQ date from the same time, and the FAQ came from the forums. Anyone can look from Sean or James answers. The rules don't change!

Sure is not from this context, but the quote came well to the question.

That is not the FAQ in question. The FAQ in that thread was if haste worked with spell combat. Originally it was no, spell combat only gave you the attacks granted by your BAB. Then it was asked if the spell consumed an attack. That is where the quote comes in. Then the ruling was reversed a page or two later. And the quote provides illustration of why dev posts aren't official, because if they are answering off-the-cuff, they can make mistakes, like claiming spells cant be weapons.


You still haven't provided the rules saying you have proficiency with spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:

If you believe that rays aren't weapons after that FAQ, your understanding Pathfinder is so bad there's no point arguing with you. I have quoted the rules, you just don't understand them.

If you believe these:

Quote:


Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:
Also can we clarify if these are magical?)
Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

Mean "Casting a spell = attacking with a weapon", then there really is nothing further to say. I'm right and you're wrong - it's pretty black and white. Moreover, again, your FAQs are (evidently, according to you) from 3.5, which is an older game edition, and the quote from SKR indicating explicitly that casting a spell was not an attack with a weapon is both more recent (indicating that if he ever believed what you think he did, he changed his mind), more relevant (because, you know, it's actually pertaining to the right game system, and even the right class and class ability), and more clear (in that it actually says explicitly what it's being claimed to say). Thus even if someone agreed with you (for some reason) that the quoted FAQs did actually say that casting a spell = attacking with a weapon, the more recent, more relevant, and more clear counter quote would still take precedence.

Here's my parting shot to you, which I will predict you will ignore (as you have all the other examples I've attempted to use to educate you on this subject):

If you went into a restaurant, and ordered a steak, only to have the waiter tell you "What we will serve you will count as a steak for the purpose of nutrition and and texture, among other things", would you be confident that what you were getting was literally the same thing as a steak, or would you be suspicious? I'm certain that any reasonable person would think "Okay, so, it's LIKE a steak, but it's not exactly the same thing, eh?" Whereas you have decided "Well, since it is similar to a steak in at least some ways, it must for sure be a steak in all ways." That is an illogical assumption, and no amount of you repeating that it is what the rules say will make that so.


_Ozy_ wrote:
You still haven't provided the rules saying you have proficiency with spells.

Because I am not gonna waste 2 hours digging through this forum for a post when I dont need to. The FAQ is literally exactly on point and confirms my argument.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Calth wrote:

If you believe that rays aren't weapons after that FAQ, your understanding Pathfinder is so bad there's no point arguing with you. I have quoted the rules, you just don't understand them.

If you believe these:

Quote:


Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

(Jonenee Merriex wrote:
Also can we clarify if these are magical?)
Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).

Mean "Casting a spell = attacking with a weapon", then there really is nothing further to say. I'm right and you're wrong - it's pretty black and white. Moreover, again, your FAQs are (evidently, according to you) from 3.5, which is an older game edition, and the quote from SKR indicating explicitly that casting a spell was not an attack with a weapon is both more recent (indicating that if he ever believed what you think he did, he changed his mind), more relevant (because, you know, it's actually pertaining to the right game system, and even the right class and class ability), and more clear (in that it actually says explicitly what it's being claimed to say). Thus even if someone agreed with you (for some reason) that the quoted FAQs did actually say that casting a spell = attacking with a weapon, the more recent, more relevant, and more clear counter quote would still take precedence.

Here's my parting shot to you, which I will predict you will ignore (as you have all the other examples I've attempted to use to educate you on this subject):

If you went into a restaurant, and ordered a steak, only to have the waiter tell you "What we will serve you will count as a steak for the purpose of nutrition and and texture, among other things", would you be confident that what you were getting was literally the same thing as a steak, or would you be suspicious? I'm certain that any reasonable person...

Like I said, you misunderstand Pathfinder rules. The word "effects" in the question line means everything. So to use your analogy, if someone offered me something that was like steak in every possible way, yeah, I would be content calling it a steak.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote:
Like I said, you misunderstand Pathfinder rules. The word "effects" in the question line means everything. So to use your analogy, if someone offered me something that was like steak in every possible way, yeah, I would be content calling it a steak.

No, you misunderstand language, reality, etc. "Effects" doesn't mean that, and if you have an FAQ quote that says otherwise, the FAQ is objectively incorrect, just like it would be if is said "Bats are bugs". Moreover, the claim you are making that spells count as weapons "in all ways" is provably false. If spells are exactly the same as weapons, then:

They require proficiency to use effectively
They must all do hp damage
They must fall into one of the following categories: light, one-handed, two handed, ranged.
They must have a size (small, medium, or large) and that size must be affected by spells like Enlarge Person in the same way that other weapons are.
They must be able to be master-crafted and enchanted.
They must be physical, tangible objects, the mundane versions of which could be crafted by a level 1 expert through application of the "craft" skill.

And so on, and so on. Since we know that spells do not, in fact, require proficiency to cast effectively, and don't all do hp damage, and don't fit into any weapon category, don't have a size, aren't boosted/hindered by size altering spells like weapons are, and aren't able to be master-crafted nor enchanted (because they are not tangible objects at all), it simply cannot be true that spells count as weapons in all ways.


Calth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
You still haven't provided the rules saying you have proficiency with spells.
Because I am not gonna waste 2 hours digging through this forum for a post when I dont need to. The FAQ is literally exactly on point and confirms my argument.

Post? If it's not in the books, or not in a FAQ, then it's not a rule. And I don't recall seeing such a rule in either place.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray?


James Risner wrote:
Is this another thread saying you can't do Weapon Focus Ray?

Yep. Somehow a FAQ saying rays are weapons means rays arent weapons.

101 to 150 of 245 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Precise Strike + Spell Combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.