One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
What do you think about Dancing Dervish which has even stricter restrictions on the offhand? PFS doing it wrong?
_Ozy_ wrote: What do you think about Dancing Dervish which has even stricter restrictions on the offhand? PFS doing it wrong? Honestly, partly yes, but there is also a difference between attacking with an off-hand and holding an object in your other hand. Those are fairly different things by Pathfinder rules.
Calth wrote: One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
In this case, we return to my original proposition.
Please lay out your evidence proving that casting Haste is a weapon attack.
Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What do you think about Dancing Dervish which has even stricter restrictions on the offhand? PFS doing it wrong? Honestly, partly yes, but there is also a difference between attacking with an off-hand and holding an object in your other hand. Those are fairly different things by Pathfinder rules. Wait just a minute, now you're claiming that you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand, but you're not holding it in that hand while you're attacking with it?
Holy crap dude, I don't know how you keep it all straight.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
In this case, we return to my original proposition.
Please lay out your evidence proving that casting Haste is a weapon attack. How has haste come back into this? I just said when I answered Ozy asking about Burning hands being focusable I was wrong because I brainfarted and thought it was ranged touch instead of a cone.
_Ozy_ wrote: Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What do you think about Dancing Dervish which has even stricter restrictions on the offhand? PFS doing it wrong? Honestly, partly yes, but there is also a difference between attacking with an off-hand and holding an object in your other hand. Those are fairly different things by Pathfinder rules. Wait just a minute, now you're claiming that you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand, but you're not holding it in that hand while you're attacking with it?
Holy crap dude, I don't know how you keep it all straight. Again, there is a difference between an off-hand attack and your physical hand.
Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
In this case, we return to my original proposition.
Please lay out your evidence proving that casting Haste is a weapon attack. How has haste come back into this? I just said when I answered Ozy asking about Burning hands being focusable I was wrong because I brainfarted and thought it was ranged touch instead of a cone. The exact restriction on Precise Strike is this:
Precise Strike wrote: To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler You have agreed with this statement:
Quote: 1. Precise Strike states that you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand, so it doesn't work with Spell Combat at all Thus, by your own admission you believe that "casting a spell" and "attacking with a weapon" are synonymous terms. If you deviate from this position, then you no longer believe that Spell Combat's casting of a spell includes "attacking with a weapon in her other hand", and as such you would be admitting that Spell Combat is legal with Precise Strike.
I thus ask you support this position, that the casting of Haste (you specifically supported the "all spells" position rather than just weapon-like spells) is attacking with a weapon.
Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What do you think about Dancing Dervish which has even stricter restrictions on the offhand? PFS doing it wrong? Honestly, partly yes, but there is also a difference between attacking with an off-hand and holding an object in your other hand. Those are fairly different things by Pathfinder rules. Wait just a minute, now you're claiming that you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand, but you're not holding it in that hand while you're attacking with it?
Holy crap dude, I don't know how you keep it all straight. Again, there is a difference between an off-hand attack and your physical hand. And precise strike cares about your physcal hand, not an off-hand attack.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
In this case, we return to my original proposition.
Please lay out your evidence proving that casting Haste is a weapon attack. How has haste come back into this? I just said when I answered Ozy asking about Burning hands being focusable I was wrong because I brainfarted and thought it was ranged touch instead of a cone. The exact restriction on Precise Strike is this:
Precise Strike wrote: To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler You have agreed with this statement:
Quote: 1. Precise Strike states that you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand, so it doesn't work with Spell Combat at all Thus, by your own admission you believe that "casting a spell" and "attacking with a weapon" are synonymous terms. If you deviate from this position, then you no longer believe that Spell Combat's casting of a spell includes "attacking with a weapon in her other hand", and as such you would be admitting that Spell Combat is legal with Precise Strike.
I thus ask you support this position, that the casting of Haste (you specifically supported the "all spells" position rather than just weapon-like spells) is attacking with a weapon. No, I do not agree that casting a spell and attacking with a weapon are synonymous. I believe that casting a spell as part of Spell Combat is attacking with an off-hand weapon, as the rules for spell combat call out that the spell is the off-hand weapon.
_Ozy_ wrote: Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Calth wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What do you think about Dancing Dervish which has even stricter restrictions on the offhand? PFS doing it wrong? Honestly, partly yes, but there is also a difference between attacking with an off-hand and holding an object in your other hand. Those are fairly different things by Pathfinder rules. Wait just a minute, now you're claiming that you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand, but you're not holding it in that hand while you're attacking with it?
Holy crap dude, I don't know how you keep it all straight. Again, there is a difference between an off-hand attack and your physical hand. And precise strike cares about your physcal hand, not an off-hand attack. No, Dervish Dance cares about your physical hand, which is why it kinda works.
Precise Strike worries about your off-hand attack, which does not require the physical use of a hand.
It absolutely does not say off-hand attack, or mention two weapon fighting in any way. That's simply incorrect. It says attack with a weapon in your other hand, just like Dervish Dance says you can't hold a weapon in your other hand, although dervish dance calls it off hand while precise strike does not.
Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
In this case, we return to my original proposition.
Please lay out your evidence proving that casting Haste is a weapon attack. How has haste come back into this? I just said when I answered Ozy asking about Burning hands being focusable I was wrong because I brainfarted and thought it was ranged touch instead of a cone. The exact restriction on Precise Strike is this:
Precise Strike wrote: To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler You have agreed with this statement:
Quote: 1. Precise Strike states that you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand, so it doesn't work with Spell Combat at all Thus, by your own admission you believe that "casting a spell" and "attacking with a weapon" are synonymous terms. If you deviate from this position, then you no longer believe that Spell Combat's casting of a spell includes "attacking with a weapon in her other hand", and as such you would be admitting that Spell Combat is legal with Precise Strike.
I thus ask you support this position, that the casting of Haste (you specifically supported the "all spells" position rather than just weapon-like spells) is attacking with a weapon. No, I do not agree that casting a spell and attacking with a weapon or synonymous. I believe that casting a spell as part of Spell Combat is attacking with an off-hand weapon, as the rules for spell combat call out that the spell is the off-hand weapon. Justify your point. Explain how casting Haste as part of Spell Combat is attacking with an off-hand weapon.
Note that the only thing that Spell Combat explicitly labels is the off-hand part. Nothing in Spell Combat labels the spell as a weapon, nothing in Spell Combat labels the casting as an attack. Spell Combat simply labels it as "casting a spell". So you still have a great deal of ground to cover.
If you disagree with that assertion, feel free to provide quotes.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: One.
And while I accept the RAW on Spellstrike, I do not believe the RAI. Honestly, the problem is that Paizo made Precise Strike a deed instead of a class feature, which was a horrible design decision.
Edit: And sorry, for some reason I was mixing up burning hands with a ranged touch attack.
In this case, we return to my original proposition.
Please lay out your evidence proving that casting Haste is a weapon attack. How has haste come back into this? I just said when I answered Ozy asking about Burning hands being focusable I was wrong because I brainfarted and thought it was ranged touch instead of a cone. The exact restriction on Precise Strike is this:
Precise Strike wrote: To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler You have agreed with this statement:
Quote: 1. Precise Strike states that you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand, so it doesn't work with Spell Combat at all Thus, by your own admission you believe that "casting a spell" and "attacking with a weapon" are synonymous terms. If you deviate from this position, then you no longer believe that Spell Combat's casting of a spell includes "attacking with a weapon in her other hand", and as such you would be admitting that Spell Combat is legal with Precise Strike.
I thus ask you support this position, that the casting of Haste (you specifically supported the "all spells" position rather than just weapon-like spells) is attacking with a weapon. No, I do not agree that casting a spell and attacking with a weapon or synonymous. I believe that casting a spell as part of Spell Combat is attacking with an off-hand weapon, as the rules for spell combat call out that the spell is the off-hand weapon. Justify your point. Explain how casting Haste as part of Spell Combat is attacking with an... And I dont think I do. I think the Spell Combat Rule itself adequately prevents the use of Precise Strike, since it is pseudo-TWF. If a monk had precise strike would you let him Flurry with it? It has similar pseduo-TWF wording. I see no difference between the two.
Yes? The monk explicitly says he can flurry with one weapon. Precise strike doesn't say anything about TWF, only that you can't attack with a weapon in your other hand.
Spell combat also never actually say it's an attack, it just says that the weapon in your other hand is instead a spell. It never says it's an attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So, correct me if I'm wrong here but...
1. You stated your belief (finally).
2. You outright refused to support your belief with any rules text.
Thus... your belief is unsupported by any kind of rules. It may become supported when you find those quotes, but until then what you have is not an actual argument, but an opinion. I will thus simply point you to the fact that this is the Rules Discussion Forum, not the Calth's Opinions Forum.
As for the Monk: assuming he's using a one-handed piercing weapon, yes, he's legal to use Precise Strike. Similarly, a Monk is explicitly allowed by RAW to use a two-handed weapon with Flurry of Blows-- something which explicitly requires the off-hand. Flurry's probably not the example you're looking for.
kestral287 wrote: So, correct me if I'm wrong here but...
1. You stated your belief (finally).
2. You outright refused to support your belief with any rules text.
Thus... your belief is unsupported by any kind of rules. It may become supported when you find those quotes, but until then what you have is not an actual argument, but an opinion. I will thus simply point you to the fact that this is the Rules Discussion Forum, not the Calth's Opinions Forum.
As for the Monk: assuming he's using a one-handed piercing weapon, yes, he's legal to use Precise Strike. Similarly, a Monk is explicitly allowed by RAW to use a two-handed weapon with Flurry of Blows-- something which explicitly requires the off-hand. Flurry's probably not the example you're looking for.
Again, my belief is that the Spell Combat rule, combined with the Off-hand attack FAQ are enough to justify that Spell Combat is a weapon attack that utilizes your off-hand. And your point with Flurry helps, not hurts me, you are using your off-hand and thus Precise Strike doesn't apply.
And I love how people resort to making ad hominem attacks. I freely admitted in the thread that its quite possible I may be wrong in my interpretation of the RAW and RAI, but I dont think I am. My opinion on what the RAW and RAI is just as valid as yours when it comes to unclear rules. If Paizo comes back during the erratta and says it all works, Ill shrug and move on, even if I dont like the decision.
"This functions like two weapon fighting, but the offhand weapon is the spell being cast."
I believe that right there "but the offhand weapon is the spell being cast" part that is the problem for them. And tbh that can be read both ways so it is iffy. Could be a situation where specific overrides general (casting haste isn't normally considered a weapon but can be considered as a weapon only with spell combat type of deal).
I do have a question about precise strike, is it like vital strike where u can only attack once or can u use it and continue all ur attacks?
Calth wrote: Again, my belief is that the Spell Combat rule, combined with the Off-hand attack FAQ are enough to justify that Spell Combat is a weapon attack that utilizes your off-hand. And your point with Flurry helps, not hurts me, you are using your off-hand and thus Precise Strike doesn't apply.
And I love how people resort to making ad hominem attacks. I freely admitted in the thread that its quite possible I may be wrong in my interpretation of the RAW and RAI, but I dont think I am. My opinion on what the RAW and RAI is just as valid as yours when it comes to unclear rules. If Paizo comes back during the erratta and says it all works, Ill shrug and move on, even if I dont like the decision.
Ad hominem is making a personal attack instead of attacking your argument. If someone says "your argument has no basis" it's not an ad hominem. If someone says "your argument has no basis, and not changing your mind reflects on you badly (or in not so many words, you look like a fool)" that's still not an ad hominem. It's an insult at best.
Your opinion is also not as valid as other, more supported opinions, since it's, you know, not supported by anything but your wishful thinking.
EDIT: let me continue. Forget the Magus. Lets say, there's a Swashbuckler. Let's say, he has TWF and Two Weapon Feint. Would you deny him Precise strike if he used two weapon feint? Despite him never making an attack with his other hand? If your answer is "yes", you either haven't read precise strike's text (which does not mention two weapon fighting at all), you misunderstood it, or you are willfully misinterpreting the "off hand FAQ".
Redneckdevil wrote: "This functions like two weapon fighting, but the offhand weapon is the spell being cast."
I believe that right there "but the offhand weapon is the spell being cast" part that is the problem for them. And tbh that can be read both ways so it is iffy. Could be a situation where specific overrides general (casting haste isn't normally considered a weapon but can be considered as a weapon only with spell combat type of deal).
I do have a question about precise strike, is it like vital strike where u can only attack once or can u use it and continue all ur attacks?
I fully agree that the rule passage is questionable, and I have no issue with people claiming that precise strike works because the passage is questionable. I have issue with people pretending the passage isnt questionable.
As for your question, Precise Strike can be combined with full-attacks, unlike Vital Strike.
Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: So, correct me if I'm wrong here but...
1. You stated your belief (finally).
2. You outright refused to support your belief with any rules text.
Thus... your belief is unsupported by any kind of rules. It may become supported when you find those quotes, but until then what you have is not an actual argument, but an opinion. I will thus simply point you to the fact that this is the Rules Discussion Forum, not the Calth's Opinions Forum.
As for the Monk: assuming he's using a one-handed piercing weapon, yes, he's legal to use Precise Strike. Similarly, a Monk is explicitly allowed by RAW to use a two-handed weapon with Flurry of Blows-- something which explicitly requires the off-hand. Flurry's probably not the example you're looking for.
Again, my belief is that the Spell Combat rule, combined with the Off-hand attack FAQ are enough to justify that Spell Combat is a weapon attack that utilizes your off-hand. And your point with Flurry helps, not hurts me, you are using your off-hand and thus Precise Strike doesn't apply.
And I love how people resort to making ad hominem attacks. I freely admitted in the thread that its quite possible I may be wrong in my interpretation of the RAW and RAI, but I dont think I am. My opinion on what the RAW and RAI is just as valid as yours when it comes to unclear rules. If Paizo comes back during the erratta and says it all works, Ill shrug and move on, even if I dont like the decision. Okay... let's start with Flurry.
We have an explicit rule that a Monk may use their off-hand attack as part of a Flurry, for purposes impossible by normal TWF rules (using a two-handed weapon)
Thus, I responded that due to this rule, a Monk using a legal weapon with Precise Strike qualifies. Simple as that.
I would love to know how you contend that a rule saying the Monk isn't using the off-hand as part of a Flurry means that the Monk is attacking with his off-hand as part of a Flurry.
Next, your belief.
Having a belief is fine. You may believe what you like. I believe a great many things.
However, the moment you choose not to support your belief with fact, you in effect admit that it's not actually backed by any fact, and thus it's an opinion. Your opinion has no bearing in this thread. Mine doesn't either, which is why I never posited a contention as RAW without backing it up. Of course, my core position has basically boiled down to "casting a spell is not attacking with a weapon", which is sort of a default assumption so there's not a lot to support. If you really like I can break that full statement down, but I hope it speaks for itself.
Finally, ad hominems: I don't think that means what you think it means. What it means is making an attack on your person instead of an attack on your argument. I didn't do that. I allowed you to tell me that your argument was an opinion, and then called it such.
Calling your argument unsupported by fact is an attack on your argument, which is not an ad hominem.
I then informed you that this was not the place for your opinions. That is not an attack on your person, that's a statement of fact supported by the words at the top of your screen. As such, not an ad hominem.
LoneKnave wrote: Calth wrote: Again, my belief is that the Spell Combat rule, combined with the Off-hand attack FAQ are enough to justify that Spell Combat is a weapon attack that utilizes your off-hand. And your point with Flurry helps, not hurts me, you are using your off-hand and thus Precise Strike doesn't apply.
And I love how people resort to making ad hominem attacks. I freely admitted in the thread that its quite possible I may be wrong in my interpretation of the RAW and RAI, but I dont think I am. My opinion on what the RAW and RAI is just as valid as yours when it comes to unclear rules. If Paizo comes back during the erratta and says it all works, Ill shrug and move on, even if I dont like the decision.
Ad hominem is making a personal attack instead of attacking your argument. If someone says "your argument has no basis" it's not an ad hominem. If someone says "your argument has no basis, and not changing your mind reflects on you badly (or in not so many words, you look like a fool)" that's still not an ad hominem. It's an insult at best.
Your opinion is also not as valid as other, more supported opinions, since it's, you know, not supported by anything but your wishful thinking.
EDIT: let me continue. Forget the Magus. Lets say, there's a Swashbuckler. Let's say, he has TWF and Two Weapon Feint. Would you deny him Precise strike if he used two weapon feint? Despite him never making an attack with his other hand? If your answer is "yes", you either haven't read precise strike's text (which does not mention two weapon fighting at all), you misunderstood it, or you are willfully misinterpreting the "off hand FAQ". Yes, I would probably disallow two-weapon feint and precise strike, by RAI but not RAW. RAW, if you only have one off-hand attack you would be able to Precise Strike. RAI, you are gaining an action economy advantage through the use of your off-hand, which I think is against the intent behind Precise Strike.
kestral287 wrote: Calth wrote: kestral287 wrote: So, correct me if I'm wrong here but...
1. You stated your belief (finally).
2. You outright refused to support your belief with any rules text.
Thus... your belief is unsupported by any kind of rules. It may become supported when you find those quotes, but until then what you have is not an actual argument, but an opinion. I will thus simply point you to the fact that this is the Rules Discussion Forum, not the Calth's Opinions Forum.
As for the Monk: assuming he's using a one-handed piercing weapon, yes, he's legal to use Precise Strike. Similarly, a Monk is explicitly allowed by RAW to use a two-handed weapon with Flurry of Blows-- something which explicitly requires the off-hand. Flurry's probably not the example you're looking for.
Again, my belief is that the Spell Combat rule, combined with the Off-hand attack FAQ are enough to justify that Spell Combat is a weapon attack that utilizes your off-hand. And your point with Flurry helps, not hurts me, you are using your off-hand and thus Precise Strike doesn't apply.
And I love how people resort to making ad hominem attacks. I freely admitted in the thread that its quite possible I may be wrong in my interpretation of the RAW and RAI, but I dont think I am. My opinion on what the RAW and RAI is just as valid as yours when it comes to unclear rules. If Paizo comes back during the erratta and says it all works, Ill shrug and move on, even if I dont like the decision. Okay... let's start with Flurry.
We have an explicit rule that a Monk may use their off-hand attack as part of a Flurry, for purposes impossible by normal TWF rules (using a two-handed weapon)
Thus, I responded that due to this rule, a Monk using a legal weapon with Precise Strike qualifies. Simple as that.
I would love to know how you contend that a rule saying the Monk isn't using the off-hand as part of a Flurry means that the Monk is attacking with his off-hand as part of a Flurry.
Next,... And I say I have supported my claims, you disagree with them, and then pretend they arent a possible valid conclusion. I don't need anything beyond the Spell Combat rule, the off-hand FAQ, and my interpretation of the intent of Precise Strike. That is completely self-contained.
1.) Precise Strike is intended to forbid the use of your off-hand making an attack.
2.) Off-hand is not a physical hand (per FAQ)
3.) Spell Combat is an attack that utilizes the off-hand
4.) Therefore Precise Strike and Spell Combat dont work together.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
No no no. I don't pretend they aren't a "valid possible conclusion".
Here's what I did.
1. I explained the core intermediate step that you must support (and is conveniently not on that list): that casting a spell as part of Spell Combat is making an attack with a weapon.
2. I watched you refuse to provide any rules to support that contention.
3. I watched you destroy the validity of your own conclusion through refusal-- because if your argument relies on a string of points, and you can't defend all of those links, you can't defend your argument.
4. I pointed out said destruction.
Now, just to be fair:
Precise Strike has three core requirements for it to fail. If all are true, Precise Strike fails:
1. You must use your off hand
2. To make an attack
3. With a weapon
Plus the shield stuff, but we can safely ignore that. So, with Spell Combat:
1. Are you using your off hand? Yes. Spell Combat is explicit.
2. Are you making an attack? Not necessarily. You may be, but the odds are slim. An attack is "something that uses an attack roll", which the majority of spells don't. Of the spells that do, most that a Magus would use will actually make the attack roll with the main hand via Spellstrike. Spell Combat is explicit on this front via its use of the word "if"; that conditional makes it clear that, at the least, not all spellcasting is an attack with Spell Combat.
3. Are you using a weapon? Definitely not. Haste is not a weapon. The rules make not even the slightest notion that it is, ever. In fact, under Pathfinder rules the only spells I can find that explicitly are weapon-like are Rays.
I may have a hard time countering the notion that you can't cast a Ray spell with Spell Combat + Precise Strike (unless Close Arcana is in play, then it's easy), but anything else is very clearly covered by point #3.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote:
And I say I have supported my claims, you disagree with them, and then pretend they arent a possible valid conclusion. I don't need anything beyond the Spell Combat rule, the off-hand FAQ, and my interpretation of the intent of Precise Strike. That is completely self-contained.
1.) Precise Strike is intended to forbid the use of your off-hand making an attack.
2.) Off-hand is not a physical hand (per FAQ)
3.) Spell Combat is an attack that utilizes the off-hand
4.) Therefore Precise Strike and Spell Combat dont work together.
1. yes
2. yes
3. that doesnt make the off hand an attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: 1.) Precise Strike is intended to forbid the use of your off-hand making an attack. Unlike the PFS legal Dancing Dervish, Precise Strike nowhere uses the term off-hand. It quite literally refers to the physical other hand that can't attack with a weapon.
That pretty much invalidates your entire line of argument, regardless of the other leaps of logic.
It invalidates the RAW argument, but not the RAI argument. ACG is written badly enough it's not much of a stretch to say that they meant to use the term off-hand instead of other hand.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
StabbittyDoom wrote: It invalidates the RAW argument, but not the RAI argument. ACG is written badly enough it's not much of a stretch to say that they meant to use the term off-hand instead of other hand. Perhaps, perhaps not, but the 'attack with a weapon' is pretty clear, and casting a spell ain't that. You could scratch your balls with your off-hand, drink a potion (if you had the ability to do it as a move action), or cast shocking grasp with it. As long as that hand doesn't make a weapon attack, you're good to go with Precise Strike.
Furthermore, it certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that Dervish Dance has been legal for ages now.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
StabbittyDoom wrote: It invalidates the RAW argument, but not the RAI argument. ACG is written badly enough it's not much of a stretch to say that they meant to use the term off-hand instead of other hand. Problem is, that logic could be used to invalidate anything in the ACG. It's very easy to say "I know that's not what the rules say, but obviously that's just an editing error and the devs really agree with me."
Barring errata/dev clarification, there's no way to know RAI beyond what's written down and occasional no-brainer like dead people taking actions.
We're on page 5. Minds have already been made.
I go with RAW or (my thoughts on) RAI at my own table, depending on whats more interesting, so I see no reason to judge others for advocating the same. Though they could perhaps do so in a more transparent and polite manner. And not in the rules forum.
I will admit that even the RAI argument is weak given that dervish dance is allowed and is also intentionally a one-weapon style.
My stance is: This is the rules forum, so use of Spell Combat + Precise Strike is legit so long as you either (A) do not use a spell that counts as an attack or (B) deliver the spell via spellstrike using the same weapon as you use for the full attack. RAI doesn't really have a place in this section of the forums, even if seemingly obvious. (Blindingly obvious RAI, like "dead people don't take actions", is allowed but discouraged :P)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Read 230 quotes! And no conclusion... this is a real rule forum.
hehehe
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You can't wait for complete consensus, you'll never see it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: You can't wait for complete consensus, you'll never see it. I know, i work in a university... of LAW! hehehe
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
And if a cast the spell at last?
"A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks."
And Spellblade magus?
The Force Athame use the free hand!
And the same hand that cast the spell can attack, not with another weapon.
Spell Combat considers the hand in 'use' during the entire action, so the order has no bearing on Precise Strike working.
Just forget the Spellblade exists and you'll be better off for it, but you should re-read its core ability: the hand holding the athame is considered free for the puposes of Spell Combat, but if you do so it can't be used to attack (and vice versa). That's an explicit part of the Force Athame ability.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just curious Calth, if your interpretation of RAW is:
Calth wrote: 1.) Precise Strike is intended to forbid the use of your off-hand making an attack. (though you left out the part about "cannot attack with a weapon" but since your argument seems to be that all spells are weapons, we can leave that alone for now)
2.) Off-hand is not a physical hand (per FAQ)
3.) Spell Combat is an attack that utilizes the off-hand
4.) Therefore Precise Strike and Spell Combat dont work together.
If I'm a Magus with Spell Combat, and I've quaffed an Invisibility Potion, then drawn a one-handed melee weapon, on my next turn I cast a spell, let's say Shield (as part of Spell Combat) then take a five-foot step and swing my sword at an enemy, at which point do I become visible?
Valastaire wrote: Just curious Calth, if your interpretation of RAW is:
Calth wrote: 1.) Precise Strike is intended to forbid the use of your off-hand making an attack. (though you left out the part about "cannot attack with a weapon" but since your argument seems to be that all spells are weapons, we can leave that alone for now)
2.) Off-hand is not a physical hand (per FAQ)
3.) Spell Combat is an attack that utilizes the off-hand
4.) Therefore Precise Strike and Spell Combat dont work together.
If I'm a Magus with Spell Combat, and I've quaffed an Invisibility Potion, then drawn a one-handed melee weapon, on my next turn I cast a spell, let's say Shield (as part of Spell Combat) then take a five-foot step and swing my sword at an enemy, at which point do I become visible?
Precise strike: the attack with the off-hand can invalidate the ability for all attacks in the round?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Caosbot wrote: Valastaire wrote: Just curious Calth, if your interpretation of RAW is:
Calth wrote: 1.) Precise Strike is intended to forbid the use of your off-hand making an attack. (though you left out the part about "cannot attack with a weapon" but since your argument seems to be that all spells are weapons, we can leave that alone for now)
2.) Off-hand is not a physical hand (per FAQ)
3.) Spell Combat is an attack that utilizes the off-hand
4.) Therefore Precise Strike and Spell Combat dont work together.
If I'm a Magus with Spell Combat, and I've quaffed an Invisibility Potion, then drawn a one-handed melee weapon, on my next turn I cast a spell, let's say Shield (as part of Spell Combat) then take a five-foot step and swing my sword at an enemy, at which point do I become visible?
Precise strike: the attack with the off-hand can invalidate the ability for all attacks in the round? ???
Precise strike: the attack with the off-hand can invalidate the ability for all attacks in the round?
Some hint?
Caosbot wrote: Precise strike: the attack with the off-hand can invalidate the ability for all attacks in the round?
Some hint?
You need to work on how to say what you want to say clearly.
If you attack with a weapon in your other hand, no, you don't get Precise Strike for that round.
Lets see:
The magus can cast shocking grasp, move and attack via spellstrike and take de precise strike bonus.
Or
Cast Bladed Dash, Greater and make all attacks with precise strike.
A swashbuckler can precise strike with the weapon then bite, or other natural weapon.
But cant use precise strike via Spell Combat?!
If I'm a Magus 1/Swashbuckler 3, and I cast Shield (as part of Spell Combat) then 5' step to attack an enemy my light or one-handed piercing weapon (at a -2 because of Spell Combat), I should definitely get +1 damage per Swashbuckler level as I have not attacked with a weapon in my other hand or used a shield other than my trusty buckler.
If I had Quickdraw, I would even be able to hold a torch in my buckler-hand, cast Shield (as part of Spell Combat) Quickdraw my light or one-handed piercing weapon with my main hand, then 5' step to attack an enemy (at a -2 to hit), and I'd still gain the benefits of Precise Strike.
So did this question every get a solid answer?
nevermind i see there is an errata now that makes it so it doesnt work.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
