|
Spell Combat (Ex): A phantom blade can cast spells and wield her phantom weapon at the same time. This functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability (Ultimate Magic 10).
So it works like a magus.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a ight or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
Looks like you can't.
Nope. Spell combat itself requires a free hand, it makes no mention of requiring a free hand because of spell components. Actually quite the opposite, it explicitly mentions spells that don't require somatic components still require the free hand.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). 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. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. 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.
Nope. Spell combat itself requires a free hand, it makes no mention of requiring a free hand because of spell components. Actually quite the opposite, it explicitly mentions spells that don't require somatic components still require the free hand.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). 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. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. 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.
So this appears to be technically correct according to RAW, but I doubt it's what was intended.
If that was the intent, it seems likely they would have limited the Phantom Weapon to light or one-handed weapons, but the only limit is that you must choose a weapon you're proficient in.
In my games, I intend to allow Phantom Blades to use Spell Combat with whatever they choose for their Phantom Weapon, even if it is two-handed.
After all, if we want to be strictly literal in our interpretation of the rules, then the Phantom Blade is also limited to using Spell Combat and Spellstrike with spells on the Magus spell list, and I hope we all can agree that's obviously not right.
I think the creator of the archetype said they intended it to be able to use any weapon, but I can't find the post.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can a Phantom Blade Spiritualist use their Spell Combat ability and a 2H weapon? I'm asking because the magus Spell Combat requires a hand free for casting, but psychic spells don't have somatic components.
The Phantom Blade cannot use spell combat with Spiritualist spells.
Spell Combat specifies Magus spells cast from the character's Magus spell list. Spiritualist does nothing to change this.
can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action
This functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.
Can a Phantom Blade Spiritualist use their Spell Combat ability and a 2H weapon? I'm asking because the magus Spell Combat requires a hand free for casting, but psychic spells don't have somatic components.The Phantom Blade cannot use spell combat with Spiritualist spells.
Spell Combat specifies Magus spells cast from the character's Magus spell list. Spiritualist does nothing to change this.
can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard actionThis functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.
Mmmph... I've laughed at that while thinking "lol he's right, per RAW it's true"... :p
Can a Phantom Blade Spiritualist use their Spell Combat ability and a 2H weapon? I'm asking because the magus Spell Combat requires a hand free for casting, but psychic spells don't have somatic components.The Phantom Blade cannot use spell combat with Spiritualist spells.
Spell Combat specifies Magus spells cast from the character's Magus spell list. Spiritualist does nothing to change this.
can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard actionThis functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.
A phantom blade has exactly 0 magus spells. There may be some overlap in spells on the magus spell list and the spiritualist spell list, but a spiritualist (of whatever archetype) has spiritualist spells, and not magus spells.
I think it is safe to say when it says this works like the magus spell combat ability that we should be replacing all instances of "magus spell" with "spiritualist spell" and "magus spell list" with "spiritualist spell list". Only an overly pedantic reading suggests otherwise. When one reading says "this ability does absolutely nothing" and one reading says "this works just like a magus would work, but with a spiritualist instead", the intended reading is pretty clear.
Neither of those however change the requirement of a free hand during spell combat. A two-handed phantom blade cannot be used with spell combat, but could still be used with spellstrike.
On the other hand, mindblade magi must wait until 13th level to spell combat with a two-handed weapon. It seems unfair for the phantom blade to get it 13 levels earlier.
The less suited spell list and class features would compensante in some measure
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's standard practice that when you borrow mechanics from another class (which archetypes do all the time) that you Find-Replace all mentions of the class you borrowed from with the class/archetype that does the borrowing. So a Phantom Blade would substitute "spritualist spells" for "magus spells" and so forth.
On the other hand, mindblade magi must wait until 13th level to spell combat with a two-handed weapon. It seems unfair for the phantom blade to get it 13 levels earlier.
Hexcraftrer with prehensile hair can do it at first level (ok just one time per day for one minute at level 1 but it can :p )
A phantom blade has exactly 0 magus spells. There may be some overlap in spells on the magus spell list and the spiritualist spell list, but a spiritualist (of whatever archetype) has spiritualist spells, and not magus spells.
I don't dispute the RAI, but you never know.
It is the exact same situation that Arcane Deed is in, and the FAQ cleared up the fact that Arcane Deed never allowed for the use of Magus Levels as Swashbuckler levels or Arcane Pool as a Panache Pool.
End result, Magus can use Arcane Deed to get Swashbuckler deeds, but cannot use them as he has no Swashbuckler levels and never counts as having a Panache Pool.
Phantom Blade never changes Spell Combat, which only allows for Magus spells cast from a Magus spell list. By strict RAW, a spiritualist needs Broad Study before can use Spell Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A phantom blade has exactly 0 magus spells. There may be some overlap in spells on the magus spell list and the spiritualist spell list, but a spiritualist (of whatever archetype) has spiritualist spells, and not magus spells.I don't dispute the RAI, but you never know.
It is the exact same situation that Arcane Deed is in, and the FAQ cleared up the fact that Arcane Deed never allowed for the use of Magus Levels as Swashbuckler levels or Arcane Pool as a Panache Pool.
End result, Magus can use Arcane Deed to get Swashbuckler deeds, but cannot use them as he has no Swashbuckler levels and never counts as having a Panache Pool.
Phantom Blade never changes Spell Combat, which only allows for Magus spells cast from a Magus spell list. By strict RAW, a spiritualist needs Broad Study before can use Spell Combat.
I think your example of Arcane Deed is actually counter to your argument.
Arcane Deed received an errata:
Page 104—In the Arcane Deed magus arcana, after the
second sentence, add the following sentence: “Even if he
gains a panache pool through another means, the magus
is not considered to have at least 1 point in his panache
pool for the purpose of deeds selected with arcane deed,
and his effective swashbuckler level for determining
such a deed’s effect is 0.”
The fact that multiple classes have abilities that "borrow" from another class, without spelling out the need to replace class X with class Y in the wording exist - and have not received erratas, suggests that this exception made in arcane deed is an exception to an otherwise general practice.
Further, arcane deed in its original version still actually did something. PDT decided that something it did, without that later errata, was to powerful for the magus class, so toned it back with the errata. So its not even a comparable example to you suggesting there is an ability that literally does nothing for a character.
ALL abilities in the game are intended to have some affect (pre-fixed prone shooter aside). What you are suggesting is the RAW for phantom blade is an ability granted to the class that actually has zero game effect without requiring the character to take additional options (broad study). No such abilities, feats, spells, etc, exist like that in the game.
(Yes, I could build a character with the TWF line of feats, then insist on using a bow for the life of the character, but that is entirely different scenario of having 'no effect').
So given that a 'no effect' reading is unambiguously wrong, claiming it is RAW is not correct. The PDT is of course free to limit (or enhance) the ability at any time they please, but it will always have 'some effect'.
|
Phantom Weapon
A phantom blade begins play with an ectoplasmic sentient weapon known as a phantom weapon whose weapon type is chosen by the phantom blade. The weapon type must be one with which the phantom blade is proficient. A phantom weapon functions similarly to the black blade of the bladebound magus archetype except as noted on the Phantom Weapon Progression table. A phantom blade with this class feature can’t have a phantom of any kind, even from another class.
Black Blade (Ex): At 3rd level, the bladebound magus' gains a powerful sentient weapon called a black blade, whose weapon type is chosen by the magus. A magus with this class feature cannot take the familiar magus arcana, and cannot have a familiar of any kind, even from another class.
So both archetypes can choose the type of their sentient weapon.
But lets look the rules further:
Phantom Weapon Ability Descriptions
nothing about the weapon type, so nothing change from what say the description of a black blade.
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane.
So "a black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane" and a phantom weapon follow exactly the same rules for its weapon type.
As both abilities say that the weapon type is chosen by the character, but the black blade has special limitation on the type and the phantom blade inherit them, a phantom blade can't be a two handed weapon.
Can a Phantom Blade Spiritualist use their Spell Combat ability and a 2H weapon? I'm asking because the magus Spell Combat requires a hand free for casting, but psychic spells don't have somatic components.The Phantom Blade cannot use spell combat with Spiritualist spells.
Spell Combat specifies Magus spells cast from the character's Magus spell list. Spiritualist does nothing to change this.
can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard actionThis functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.
<sigh> It seems I spoke too soon in my earlier post...
So basically, you think the Archetype was designed to offer useless class abilities?
|
|
The only sentence you didn't bold, Diego.
The weapon type must be one with which the phantom blade is proficient.
And? It is part of "whose weapon type is chosen by the phantom blade.", but it don't override the rules about black blades.
Or you think that the Phantom weapon can be a bow, or even a catapult, if the phantom blade take the Siege Engineer feat?Maybe the creator of the archetype meant exactly that, but, as written, you need to stretch and bend plenty of other rules, without any indication of how you do that.
Without clear indications, the more straightforward and limited interpretation is the most reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could say the general rules for a black blade are overridden by the specific rule that is that sentence. It's flimsy as a piece of old string though.
So "a black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane" and a phantom weapon follow exactly the same rules for its weapon type.
As both abilities say that the weapon type is chosen by the character, but the black blade has special limitation on the type and the phantom blade inherit them, a phantom blade can't be a two handed weapon.
The cited part doesn't completely satisfy the question because for example he could pick a Longsword and hold it with two hands for the Str and Power Attack +50%
The restriction on spell combat itself is still the crux
You can't use a two handed weapon with spell combat, but you can with spell strike. The author's intent was to allow two handed weapons as phantom blades, but they make no exception for spell combat. Besides it's balanced fine using the extra damage of a two handed weapon instead of spell combat.
Can a Phantom Blade Spiritualist use their Spell Combat ability and a 2H weapon? I'm asking because the magus Spell Combat requires a hand free for casting, but psychic spells don't have somatic components.The Phantom Blade cannot use spell combat with Spiritualist spells.
Spell Combat specifies Magus spells cast from the character's Magus spell list. Spiritualist does nothing to change this.
can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard actionThis functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.<sigh> It seems I spoke too soon in my earlier post...
So basically, you think the Archetype was designed to offer useless class abilities?
No, RAI I think it was intended it to work exactly as a bladebound magus.
RAW, I think they messed up.
Why is RAI and RAW always thought of as separate things?
What is intended and what is written are not always the same.
Why is RAI and RAW always thought of as separate things?What is intended and what is written are not always the same.
But when what is intended can be easily determined based on what is written, they are.
Why is RAI and RAW always thought of as separate things?
Maybe because we've seen plenty of instances of them being separate? Authors coming in and say as much. We have FAQ's that that reverse themselves, like monk flurry, that shows that intent isn't immutable: It shifts and changes because there is a team isn't a monolithic hivemind with a single idea of the rules. Add to that the fact that the material goes through many hands before print and innocent edits, possibly several, can unintentionally shift the meaning.
Then there are plain old screw-up, where it sounds good at the time but it doesn't convey what they think it does. It happens. For instance, I'm sure the person that wrote the first prone shooter intended it to actually DO something but they failed to make a feat that did so.
But when what is intended can be easily determined based on what is written, they are.Why is RAI and RAW always thought of as separate things?What is intended and what is written are not always the same.
Look at the Bow and magic arrow FAQ: The VAST majority of the posters thought the intent was "easily determined based on what is written". Turns out we where told the "easily determined based on what is written" wasn't the intent. Who knew we've all been doing it wrong this whole time... :P
Look at the Bow and magic arrow FAQ: The VAST majority of the posters thought the intent was "easily determined based on what is written". Turns out we where told the "easily determined based on what is written" wasn't the intent. Who knew we've all been doing it wrong this whole time... :PBut when what is intended can be easily determined based on what is written, they are.Why is RAI and RAW always thought of as separate things?What is intended and what is written are not always the same.
There is still a difference between that example and this one though.
Regardless of how you thought magic bows and magic arrows worked, no one thought: "These do absolutely nothing".
A reading of RAW that leads to a result of "This does absolutely nothing" (again prone shooter aside as I mentioned up thread) means you are not reading and understanding RAW - you are projecting a meaningless interpretation onto the RAW.
Could the language be more precise? Sure. But that does not mean its meaning isn't already clear.
I mean, when the rules tell us
An arcanist casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
Is anyone confused about whether an arcanist can use feats or abilities that require 'Such and such spell must be on your spell list'. Do arcanists even have a spell list? Only the most forced interpretation of the above quoted text suggests they do not have a spell list (because it is the wizard/sorcerer spell list, and not the arcanist spell list) and thus do not qualify for such feats and abilities.
It is this type of forced (and incorrect) interpretation on the RAW that is being discussed here.
That's simply one example I found in 30 seconds of looking for one. There are plenty of other examples in rule books about "borrowing" a feature from another class that would be 'problematic' by forcing incorrect interpretations on them. Yet nobody honestly has any difficulty with understanding these rules. Saying the RAW and RAI don't align in these instances is incongruous.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is RAI and RAW always thought of as separate things?
What is RAI?
The RAI of the author of the rule?The RAI of the Developers of the game (that often aren't the people that write the new feat/ability/archetype/etc.)?
The RAI of the people that read a rule and want it to do what they want from the game?
RAI is extremely malleable.
Regardless of how you thought magic bows and magic arrows worked, no one thought: "These do absolutely nothing".
I don't recall talking about anything doing nothing. Could you please point out where I did that? Last time I looked, I was talking about RAI vs RAW and someone else was talking about what weapon you could use.
Though I will reply to the post. Just because you think you know what the rules are meant to say, that doesn't alter what's written. I can make a houserule to make the rules say what I think they should but it's still a houserule.
As to the ability in question, there really NEEDS to be guidelines for transplanted abilities. Some standardization would go a LONG way in letting people know how they work. Since they seem to be 'winging' it, it's not inconceivable that a useless ability could sneak in.
So to clarify:
I wasn't talking about useless abilities.
Useless abilities can happen.
Making the rules run how you think they should be instead of how they are written is a house-rule.[my ability to handwave away the inconsistencies in the rules doesn't excuse the crappy writing]
If you've followed the conversation between Snowlilly and I, Snowlilly is purporting that the phantom blade ability which grants the spiritualist an ability that works like the magus spell combat doesn't actually do anything for the spiritualist because the spiritualist does not have magus spells or a magus spell list.
So when I stated
But when what is intended can be easily determined based on what is written, they are.
It was in the context of that previous conversation. Obviously the phantom blades ability transfers it over to the phantom blades spell list and spells.
You then referenced the bow/arrow FAQ. In general I agree with your statement there, but in context of what I have been discussing in this thread - the phantom blade - I do not.
So I made an assumption you understood that context, and were commenting within that context, my error. Your error for not clarifying your statements were not in that context. Or were you speaking in that context? If so then are you also purporting that the phantom blade ability actually does nothing at all? In which case:
I wasn't talking about useless abilities.
Isn't actually a true statement from you?
As to the ability in question, there really NEEDS to be guidelines for transplanted abilities. Some standardization would go a LONG way in letting people know how they work. Since they seem to be 'winging' it, it's not inconceivable that a useless ability could sneak in.
Some abilities could use better clarification (see Arcane Deed which did get that clarification). Some, like the phantom blade spell combat ability, really do not (not that it wouldn't be a helpful reminder to add extra clarification, but it really is not necessary).
A phantom blade can cast spells and wield her phantom weapon at the same time. This functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.
Is there really any doubt, question, or confusion about how that bolded part interacts with the spiritualist? When an ability says "This works/functions just like class X ability of the same name" - and doesn't spell out ANY differences, then can't we safely assume it works just like that ability, but applied to the new class? And that it actually functions without requiring extra feats, multi-classing, or anything else?
If there is no doubt, question, or confusion, is it crappy writing? Some of the rules are crappy, yes, some should be thrown out, rewritten, cleared up, etc, yes. But you can't hide behind that in this case, anymore then you could hide behind "Improved Trip gives a +2 to your trip attempts" being poorly written, unclear, or vague in its meaning.
The magic bow/arrow thing, that was crappy writing. This is not.
The magic bow/arrow thing, that was crappy writing. This is not.
Crappy editing, not writing. They added the part about enchantment bonuses bypassing DR's and printed the rest unedited.
Is there really any doubt, question, or confusion about how that bolded part interacts with the spiritualist?
I know how I think it should work. I just wish it actually explained it so I could be reasonably sure that the next person thinks the same as I do.
For instance, take the Dandy:
"Dandy Spells (Su): At 4th level, the dandy gains a different sort of spellcasting than most rangers. A dandy uses his Charisma instead of his Wisdom to determine spells per day, DCs, and other factors related to spellcasting. He casts spells spontaneously from the bard spell list (rather than the ranger spell list) with the same number of spells known and spells per day as a medium (Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures 30) of his ranger level."
Seems simple doesn't it. It's spelled out MUCH more that the ability in question doesn't it. Even so, it's not fully explained: it uses the mediums spell list and spells per day, so does that mean this ranger gains 0 level spells? I've seen opinions on both sides.
And this also brings things into questions when you see abilities go into such detail and then abilities like phantom blade that leave it 100% up to the user to assume what the writer wanted.
|
|
...
For instance, take the Dandy:
"Dandy Spells (Su): At 4th level, the dandy gains a different sort of spellcasting than most rangers. A dandy uses his Charisma instead of his Wisdom to determine spells per day, DCs, and other factors related to spellcasting. He casts spells spontaneously from the bard spell list (rather than the ranger spell list) with the same number of spells known and spells per day as a medium (Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures 30) of his ranger level."
Seems simple doesn't it. It's spelled out MUCH more that the ability in question doesn't it. Even so, it's not fully explained: it uses the mediums spell list and spells per day, so does that mean this ranger gains 0 level spells? I've seen opinions on both sides.
And this also brings things into questions when you see abilities go into such detail and then abilities like phantom blade that leave it 100% up to the user to assume what the writer wanted.
As it say "and spells per day as a medium". A medium know and cast 0 level spells, so a Dandy will know and cast them.
Interesting archetype, thanks for pointing it out to me.
...
For instance, take the Dandy:
"Dandy Spells (Su): At 4th level, the dandy gains a different sort of spellcasting than most rangers. A dandy uses his Charisma instead of his Wisdom to determine spells per day, DCs, and other factors related to spellcasting. He casts spells spontaneously from the bard spell list (rather than the ranger spell list) with the same number of spells known and spells per day as a medium (Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures 30) of his ranger level."
Seems simple doesn't it. It's spelled out MUCH more that the ability in question doesn't it. Even so, it's not fully explained: it uses the mediums spell list and spells per day, so does that mean this ranger gains 0 level spells? I've seen opinions on both sides.
And this also brings things into questions when you see abilities go into such detail and then abilities like phantom blade that leave it 100% up to the user to assume what the writer wanted.
As it say "and spells per day as a medium". A medium know and cast 0 level spells, so a Dandy will know and cast them.
Interesting archetype, thanks for pointing it out to me.
You're welcome! I like it and it's been a fun change from your average ranger. ;)
And I thought the same as you for cantrips. The sticking point was the fact that medium lists knacks as a separate class feature from spells and dandy doesn't say anything about gaining it.
|
|
Cantrips and Orisons were nice to have when transitioning to Pathfinder, and Knacks followed suit for psychic casting. It's more of an annoying hang-on now that can be overlooked in design.
As for whether or not they should get 0-level spells, the bloodrager has the same exact framework without 0-level spells. The reason to use the medium is to include them. To be most correct, the Dandy archetype should have included a Cantrip class ability, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the creator of the archetype said they intended it to be able to use any weapon, but I can't find the post.
I believe that this may be of use to you. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips and Orisons were nice to have when transitioning to Pathfinder, and Knacks followed suit for psychic casting. It's more of an annoying hang-on now that can be overlooked in design.
As for whether or not they should get 0-level spells, the bloodrager has the same exact framework without 0-level spells. The reason to use the medium is to include them. To be most correct, the Dandy archetype should have included a Cantrip class ability, though.
Yeah, for the most part, cantrip is just thought of as part of spells but then you have archetypes that just trades out cantrips and leaves spellcasting alone: Spellslinger for example. So I agree, picking medium most likely means 0 level spells too but it's annoying to have it left up to us to figure it out. I can understand the need to condense abilities to fit them into the books but a standardised method of doing so would make it easier to figure out and I would prefer a way to to it where we don't have to assume anything.
Isabelle Lee: Thanks for the link! ;) Makes you wonder how a Phantom Blade Bow works with spellstrike/spell combat. Do they get to make ranged attacks as part of them? if so, I have new respect for the archetype.
|
|
The Phantom Blade has a lot to it, seeing as its entry is about as long as the bladebound magus entry. Here are some of the more exciting bits I wrote into the archetype:
1. You have no phantom at all, but have the phantom blade at 1st level. No waiting for 3rd level for your weapon.
2. The weapon is ectoplasmic, which means it is always a ghost touch weapon.
3. The weapon can be any weapon with which you are proficient. Are you an elf? Take an elven curved blade! Want a bow? Sure!
4. The ectoplasmic nature of the phantom blade means it's malleable. If you need to change damage types, you can eventually change the shape of your weapon to something better.
Sorry, but even if he is the creator of the archetype, this guy ha no idea of how a bladebound magus work.
If the Phantom weapon can be any kind of weapon with which the Phantom blade is proficient, it mean that a phantom blade is 1 feat away from taking any exotic weapon, like siege weapon (so catapult, cannon) or an advanced firearm, and use it as black blade, with spell combat and spellstrike.
Note that at level 7 he can change the type of his "black blade", so he has the proficiencies to make it anything.
The Phantom blade ability say:
Spell Combat (Ex): A phantom blade can cast spells and wield her phantom weapon at the same time.
Nice, so that overwrite all the limitations to spell combat. Artillery piece and spell combat? No problem.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, a phantom blade can deliver spells through her phantom weapon. This functions like the magus’s spellstrike class ability (Ultimate Magic 10) except the only weapon the spiritualist can use to deliver spells is her phantom weapon.
So you can deliver touch spells with your pepperbox rifle? How it work?
As spell combat count as a full attack for several things, you can use rapid shot, manyshot and haste to deliver 6 touch attack in a round at a range of 400' vs touch attacks AC as you are using an advanced firearm?Your ammunition are part of the ectoplasmic weapon or are something you can buy?
When you give an archetype the abilities of several archetypes of another class in one go, you need to specify how that work.
As a minimum this archetype include abilities that are part of the Bladebound and eldritch archer, but make them generally better.
Wonnerfull ...
You're thinking too small Diego! x-laser!!! 5d6 fire touch attack[200' range!] plus your spell... Or a plasmathrower for 4d6 fire and electricity touch attack [60' range]. Or is you go JUST firearms, a
Maxim M1910 machine gun, 2d8 x4 Range 120 ft.B and P; Special automatic
Misfire 1-2; Capacity 250
KingOfAnything: the archetype says "a phantom blade can deliver spells through her phantom weapon". This would override the melee part, replacing "any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" with "phantom weapon".
|
|
KingOfAnything: the archetype says "a phantom blade can deliver spells through her phantom weapon". This would override the melee part, replacing "any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" with "phantom weapon".
That's not actually the relevant rules text.
This functions like the magus’s spellstrike class ability (Ultimate Magic 10) except the only weapon the spiritualist can use to deliver spells is her phantom weapon.
This replaces "any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" with "her phantom weapon as part of a melee attack".
You can make a bow. It will be enchanted. But, you don't get ranged spellstrike.
The magic bow/arrow thing, that was crappy writing. This is not.Crappy editing, not writing.
Semantic difference IMO, but sure.
Is there really any doubt, question, or confusion about how that bolded part interacts with the spiritualist?I know how I think it should work. I just wish it actually explained it so I could be reasonably sure that the next person thinks the same as I do.
I suppose there is a 0.00001% chance that how you and I think the ability works (I'm pretty sure we think it works the same way) is wrong...
But let me rephrase the question then.
Do you think any reading/intepretation of the phantom blade spell combat ability which results in the ability actually granting nothing to a phantom blade character (without having to take broad study) is a correct reading of the RAW?
We can talk about vagueness in things like the Dandy being imprecise. But under any circumstance in which there are multiple ways of reading RAW, and one of those readings ends in a result of "no effect", like Snowlilly's reading of spell combat, don't you think we can categorically reject that as a valid reading of RAW? And thus pick from among those other readings that have "some effect"? We can then argue about which of those remaining readings is the correct one, but I have yet to see an alternate reading of the phantom blades spell combat that doesn't match what we both think it means - besides the aforementioned obviously invalid one. So with one possible meaning of the RAW, that matches the apparent RAI, then RAW and RAI in this instance match. It would take a FAQ or errata to correct this/change this to give a different RAW and RAI.
As to the Dandy itself, I can see why there might be some confusion on it, though I myself think it is pretty straightforward.
Take spells from the bard list (instead of ranger list), casting with Cha instead of Wis, spells per day/known as Medium, that includes 0-level since we aren't told otherwise.
Whether or not 0-level spells were intended to be included could be debated, but regardless of which of those proved correct ultimately, both interpretations had a "some effect" result.
But a reading which said something like "there are no medium spells on the bard spell list we are told to pull from, therefore they don't actually get any spells or spell casting abilities at all" could be instantly rejected as invalid as such a reading would have a result of "no effect" gained by the ability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why this is so ridiculous. I mean, spellstrike is still used only with a melee attack. You can just have your phantom blade turn into weird things. I suppose you could just use Spell Combat to cast and attack in the same round with a phantom blade revolver but Eldritch Archer has been doing that with a bow since 1st level. And with arcane spells too.
You can make a bow. It will be enchanted. But, you don't get ranged spellstrike.
You don't get melee OR ranged spellstrike. You get Phantom weapon spellstrike.
It's "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" changed to "he can deliver the spell through her phantom weapon". The type of weapon, melee, has been changed to phantom weapon much the same way "light or one-handed melee weapon" in spell combat changed to phantom weapon.
Now if we had some kind of framework for substituting class features with another classes features, it's would be easier to figure out what exactly you get.
Do you think any reading/intepretation of the phantom blade spell combat ability which results in the ability actually granting nothing to a phantom blade character (without having to take broad study) is a correct reading of the RAW?
It doesn't really matter what I think is right/reasonable. The point is will anyone I might run into think that. If the writing is bad/vague enough that you can read an ability doing nothing, that is the problem and not the person that reads it that way.
We can talk about vagueness in things like the Dandy being imprecise. But under any circumstance in which there are multiple ways of reading RAW, and one of those readings ends in a result of "no effect", like Snowlilly's reading of spell combat, don't you think we can categorically reject that as a valid reading of RAW?
RAW isn't RAI. I can infer the ability does something but that does little to alter the actual words. Me correctly guessing what they meant doesn't mean what they said was correct.
And thus pick from among those other readings that have "some effect"?
We might be able to do so. I can't prove it's the correct one though. The rules leave dots unconnected and want us to make it fit.
We can then argue about which of those remaining readings is the correct one, but I have yet to see an alternate reading of the phantom blades spell combat that doesn't match what we both think it means - besides the aforementioned obviously invalid one.
The flaw in this is assuming there is a correct reading from the existing rules. Having the rule printed/worded wrong IS a possible correct reading. they print errata all the time for mistakes like that.
So with one possible meaning of the RAW, that matches the apparent RAI, then RAW and RAI in this instance match. It would take a FAQ or errata to correct this/change this to give a different RAW and RAI.
The correct meaning may be neither reading in the end. Sometimes an errata totally alters even the basic meaning of the rule, like animal soul.
In the end, I know how I'd play this ability. I know how I'd suggest it be played. I, however, am not going to say the RAW is 100% clear. It's why I suggest a guideline be posted/blogged/printed/ect that for transplanted abilities. If there was a general way to read the abilities, then it's be clearer how the rule works and to exclude miswording/mistakes in the ability.
|
|
KingOfAnything: the archetype says "a phantom blade can deliver spells through her phantom weapon". This would override the melee part, replacing "any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" with "phantom weapon".That's not actually the relevant rules text.
This functions like the magus’s spellstrike class ability (Ultimate Magic 10) except the only weapon the spiritualist can use to deliver spells is her phantom weapon.This replaces "any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" with "her phantom weapon as part of a melee attack".
You can make a bow. It will be enchanted. But, you don't get ranged spellstrike.
While on my part being angry because I feel that this archetype is a Marty Stu character is a bit excessive, the archetype can be read as having ranged spellstrike plus melee spellstrike, plus damned modern artillery spellstrike. that is why I say "When you give an archetype the abilities of several archetypes of another class in one go, you need to specify how that work."
Essentially it is a better magus at almost anything a magus do. Sure, he don't get much in the field of evocation spells, but we all know how good those are if you don't have class abilities enhancing them. On the other hand he get save or sucks spells, save or die spells, long term boosts that the magus lack, more bonus feats, a better equivalent level as a fighter ... pound for pound I doubt that there is a field where a magus would be better.
|
|
You can make a bow. It will be enchanted. But, you don't get ranged spellstrike.You don't get melee OR ranged spellstrike. You get Phantom weapon spellstrike.
It's "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" changed to "he can deliver the spell through her phantom weapon". The type of weapon, melee, has been changed to phantom weapon much the same way "light or one-handed melee weapon" in spell combat changed to phantom weapon.
Now if we had some kind of framework for substituting class features with another classes features, it's would be easier to figure out what exactly you get.
The ability tells you exactly what to substitute. There is a single exception and that is that the only weapon they can use for spellstrike is your phantom weapon. Everything else about spellstrike is exactly the same as from the magus class. Any other changes you read into the ability is houseruling. This is one of those cases that isn't ambiguous.
Edit:
the archetype can be read as having ranged spellstrike plus melee spellstrike,
Many rules can be read a few different ways. This really isn't one of them. The text simply doesn't support ranged spellstrike.
The big flag is the "this functions" language. That tells you how the rules are supposed to work.
|
|
...
the archetype can be read as having ranged spellstrike plus melee spellstrike,Many rules can be read a few different ways. This really isn't one of them. The text simply doesn't support ranged spellstrike.
The big flag is the "this functions" language. That tells you how the rules are supposed to work.
A phantom weapon functions similarly to the black blade of the bladebound magus archetype (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic 47) except as noted on the Phantom Weapon Progression table on page 6 and in the descriptions below. A phantom blade with this class feature can’t have a phantom of any kind, even from another class.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, a phantom blade can deliver spells through her phantom weapon. This functions like the magus’s spellstrike class ability (Ultimate Magic 10) except the only weapon the spiritualist can use to deliver spells is her phantom weapon.
3. The weapon can be any weapon with which you are proficient. Are you an elf? Take an elven curved blade! Want a bow? Sure!
The author seem to think that you can use a bow without problems.
If you can use a bow to deliver your spellstrike, it implies that you can deliver your spellstrike when attacking at a range, not when hitting someone on the head with the bow used as an improvised weapon."A phantom blade can deliver spells through her phantom weapon" has already changed how the spellstrike ability work. It allow him to deliver the spells through the normal attack of his Phantom weapon, regardless of the weapon type.