Flurry of Blows with Spell Combat. Why not?

Spell Combat FAQ:
If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon...

Unchained monk:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus...

You can make all your attacks with this weapon that you could make with a full attack action. Flurry of Blows makes it possible to make one more attack with a full attack action. You can make one more attack within Spell Combat.

Spell combat is its own specific full-round action.

Flurry of blows is also its specific full-attack action.

A full-attack action is a kind of full-round action.

They simply can't be combined, because it's already taking up (almost) all of your actions (doesn't include swift/immediate actions).

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.

let me start with saying that if an ability is said to work or not with 'flurry of blows'. you need to quote the original flurry of blows 1st, not the changed version in the unchained book.

now lets look a the original spell combat. and then at the original flurry of blows (which may or may not work the same in this case with the magus's spell combat)

and for the chained monk's

if you look at the bold part you would see both are full round action that work like 2 weapon fighting. which by itself is also specific full round action.

you can't charge (a full round action) and two weapon fight (a full round action) without a very special ability since you can't use 2 difrent kinds of full round action in a turn. same for casting a spell with casting time of full round and say withdrawing which again is a full round action. and the same here.
you are trying to use two different types of full round actions at once. while both take into account the normal number of attacks your entitled to and add to them ,using ether represent taking a specific full round action.

The unchained monk is a valid class and as such its abilities can be discussed on the boards. Saying you have to use the unchained monk is false. Just because your group does not use it does not mean that other people do not. That does not mean your conclusion is wrong, but your premises that you have to use the original description of flurry of blows is.

Claxon has already given the answer. Jut to two citations:

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

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).

Thanks everyone for the answers. However, i do not see what you are talking about.
SC allows me to cast a spell, and also make a full attack with my weapon. I really don't see why FoB is a separate action: it is clearly signed as a full attack.

Can i use pounce with FoB? If so, does that mean FoBs are a normal full attack action? And if so, why can't you use it as "You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon".

Sorry, I'm not very good at interpreting the rules, but it seems the intent of the FAQ SC was to allow a full attack along with the casting of the spell. But FoB is a complete attack, as Spell Combat wants it to be?

The unchained monk is a valid class and as such its abilities can be discussed on the boards. Saying you have to use the unchained monk is false. Just because your group does not use it does not mean that other people do not. That does not mean your conclusion is wrong, but your premises that you have to use the original description of flurry of blows is.

I never said he cant use unchained. I said that the rule he was refering was talking about flurry without singling the unchained so in general when refering to the ability you go to the original one.

To the op
You get number of attacks for full attack. Which is a specific full round action.
2 weapon fighting is a different full round action.
And spell comat is a 3rd full round action that use the rules of the 1st.

If you use your full round action for spell combat you are out of fulk round actions for 2 weapon fighting. Or flurry

To the op
You get number of attacks for full attack. Which is a specific full round action.
2 weapon fighting is a different full round action.
And spell comat is a 3rd full round action that use the rules of the 1st.

If you use your full round action for spell combat you are out of fulk round actions for 2 weapon fighting. Or flurry

There is no such difference in the rules: twf or FoB, and just getting all your attacks for a high BAB is a full attack action. Why can't I use the number of attacks for SC that I have thanks to FoB?

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Chapter 3), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks

Sorry, I'm not very good at interpreting the rules, but it seems the intent of the FAQ SC was to allow a full attack along with the casting of the spell.

There's a difference between active and triggered/conditional abilities. Active abilities normally say "as an X action", whereas triggered/conditional abilities usually contain language like "when making X".

Short version: You can't use two abilities that say "as an X action" in the same round. Unless one is a swift action or at least one is a move action, obviously.
­

let me start with saying that if an ability is said to work or not with 'flurry of blows'. you need to quote the original flurry of blows 1st, not the changed version in the unchained book.

If Ann4beth is asking for a Jistkan Artificer's Flurrying Arm arcana, you're correct. If she is asking for a multiclass, the unMonk version is viable.

There's a difference between active and triggered/conditional abilities. Active abilities normally say "as an X action", whereas triggered/conditional abilities usually contain language like "when making X".

Flurry of Blows is an active ability, as indicated by the "as a full-attack action" in its description. An active ability is an ability (from the "actions in combat" rules, or a racial trait, feat, trait, item, or class feature) that you chose to use independently of other actions. Most active abilities require spending one or more of the limited action that a character has per round (standard, move, and swift).

Now I understand that. Thank you!

Thanks everyone for the answers. However, i do not see what you are talking about.

SC allows me to cast a spell, and also make a full attack with my weapon. I really don't see why FoB is a separate action: it is clearly signed as a full attack.

Can i use pounce with FoB? If so, does that mean FoBs are a normal full attack action? And if so, why can't you use it as "You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon".

Sorry, I'm not very good at interpreting the rules, but it seems the intent of the FAQ SC was to allow a full attack along with the casting of the spell. But FoB is a complete attack, as Spell Combat wants it to be?

It looks like DerkLord got you straightened out, but I just want to comment on the pounce and flurry of blows question.

No, normally you cannot pounce and make a flurry of blows. For similar reasons as to why you can't spell combat and make a flurry of blows. Pouncing requires you to charge, and charge is another kind of full-round action.

You can replace individual melee attacks normally allowed by flurry of blows with weapon based combat maneuvers like disarm or trip. There are many things allow for the substitution you have in mind, but generally speaking abilities like flurry of blow, spell combat, and charge are all actions that can't be combined/replaced due to their action economy.

With regards to charges, there are some feats and abilities that change that kind of behavior but you'd have to look at the specific wording of the ability to understand how it behaves. And I don't think there's anything similar for FoB or Spell Combat.

Esoteric Magus should have made Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat work together, but didn't. If it had, it wouldn't be such a terrible archetype (although the explicit restriction against using Spellstrike with weapons still seems unnecessary, especially since it doesn't have an exception for Monk weapons). Although arguably what you'd really want would be a d10, full BAB, 4/9 spellcasting Magus-Unchained-Monk hybrid (might be possible to do as an Unchained Monk archetype) Arcane Fist.

Ann4beth wrote:

Thanks everyone for the answers. However, i do not see what you are talking about.

SC allows me to cast a spell, and also make a full attack with my weapon. I really don't see why FoB is a separate action: it is clearly signed as a full attack.

Can i use pounce with FoB? If so, does that mean FoBs are a normal full attack action? And if so, why can't you use it as "You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon".

Sorry, I'm not very good at interpreting the rules, but it seems the intent of the FAQ SC was to allow a full attack along with the casting of the spell. But FoB is a complete attack, as Spell Combat wants it to be?

It looks like DerkLord got you straightened out, but I just want to comment on the pounce and flurry of blows question.

No, normally you cannot pounce and make a flurry of blows. For similar reasons as to why you can't spell combat and make a flurry of blows. Pouncing requires you to charge, and charge is another kind of full-round action.

You can replace individual melee attacks normally allowed by flurry of blows with weapon based combat maneuvers like disarm or trip. There are many things allow for the substitution you have in mind, but generally speaking abilities like flurry of blow, spell combat, and charge are all actions that can't be combined/replaced due to their action economy.

With regards to charges, there are some feats and abilities that change that kind of behavior but you'd have to look at the specific wording of the ability to understand how it behaves. And I don't think there's anything similar for FoB or Spell Combat.

You absolutely can combine pounce and flurry of blows. Pounce allows you to make a full-attack at the end of a charge and Flurry of Blows is a special kind of full-attack.

In simplest terms possible…

Flurry of blows is performed as part of the full attack action. The full attack action is a specific full round action. Spell combat is also a specific full round action. You do not perform a full attack action when you spell combat and as such cannot apply effects that require the use of the full attack action during spell combat.

Flurry of Blows = Full Attack Action
Full Attack Action = Full Round Action
Spell Combat = Full Round Action
Spell Combat =\= Full Attack Action
Full Round Action =\= Full Attack Action

While you can combine multiple abilities that use the Full Attack Action, you cannot combine multiple abilities that use a Full Round Action. Nor can you combine an ability that uses a Full Round Action with an ability that uses the Full Attack Action (unless said full round action ability specifically states that you perform a full attack action as part of it)

Spell combat grants the same number of attacks as a standard full attack action with two weapon fighting, but it does not function as a full attack action.

Flurry of blows is performed as part of the full attack action. The full attack action is a specific full round action. Spell combat is also a specific full round action. You do not perform a full attack action when you spell combat and as such cannot apply effects that require the use of the full attack action during spell combat.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. You're just described Flurry of Blows as a conditional ability when it's actually an active one, and what you wrote about Spell Combat is false since this FAQ.

If FoB were "as performed as part of the full attack action", i.e. a conditional ability (e.g. "Starting at 1st level, when the monk uses the full-attack action, he may make one additional attack <bla>"), that FAQ would make it compatible with Spell Combat. Meanwhile, if Spell Combat would be a full-attack action, it would still be incompatible with FoB, because you can't combine two active abilities using the same or overlaping action types.

Also, your use of equal signs makes me crinch. The way you've used them, they work both ways, i.e. the first one also says "Full Attack Action = Flurry of Blows", which is clearly wrong.

DERKlORD

Thanks, that made me smile!

The rest of your post didn't, though. What VoodistMonk does with his frequent insulting of anyone who dares to play differently (and of the writers, devs, and editors) is essentially bullying. What is wrong with you that you want to just ignore it, and criticise me for strongly speaking out against that?

Well, as an aside, some of the rulings the Dev team made are suspect. The "hands of effort" ruling specifically flew in the face of something that was allowed in 3.5, and wasn't even all that broken, really. Oh no, someone swung a two handed sword and threw an armor spike attack in there.

And the specific stated thing they were worried about balancing was "level 1 characters". If you could find a way to do something like that at higher levels, why, that's perfectly fine then.

And let's not forget the whole weapon cords ruling- whether it was a joke or not, saying "man I tied a mouse cord to my hand and I, a non-adventuring character, who probably does not have the 16+ Dexterity of the average Gunslinger, couldn't make this work" was just silly.

And, relevant to this topic, remember when they created a specific exception for Haste to work with Spell Combat, even though, by their own rules, it didn't, and that "wasn't intended"?

There is a long list of things they changed their minds about that were perfectly fine and legal...until they weren't. Many rulings, like Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, Divine Protection (I think that's the name of the Feat), and Crane Wing were specifically changed/nerfed because of how they affected PFS, not the base game. I made the mistake of buying actual paper books, only to have them retcon what was in them for the sake of PFS. And I had PDF's of books that were stealthily changed on me, so that I no longer had original versions.

I fully agree that, by the way Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat are written, no they do not work. But the actual reasons why, ultimately, came down to "the Dev team said so". And they were perfectly fine changing those opinions, like using SLA's to qualify for bad Prestige Classes, at any time. So we can't look at the almighty RAW as a reason something is balanced or isn't.

But this is a rules question, and you are correct to state, Derklord, that this is what the rules say. Any discussions about why or why it shouldn't be allowed should be placed in a different subforum. Why anyone cares at this point, when PF1 has been all but abandoned, is beyond me. Every GM and group will have to decide what is balanced for their own games, and they are better off to do so.

^ . . . Which reminds me that I would like to see a revival of Kirthfinder . . . .

Claxon wrote:

DERKlORD

Thanks, that made me smile!

The rest of your post didn't, though. What VoodistMonk does with his frequent insulting of anyone who dares to play differently (and of the writers, devs, and editors) is essentially bullying. What is wrong with you that you want to just ignore it, and criticise me for strongly speaking out against that?

I'm sorry you took it the way you have, which is clearly negative but I'm not sure exactly what beyond that. That wasn't intended.

What I'm trying to say is that VoodistMonk seems relatively intractable on this topic. Arguing with them will get us nowhere, and results generally in bad vibes all around.

VoodistMonk also needs to learn to tone it down too, but I guess I wrote to you because his post while indirectly insulting to the Paizo staff didn't directly insult people in this thread, which yours did. Again, VM needs tone it down, but we can't react to frothing rage to counter theirs. That's just a race to the bottom my dude, and we don't want to be there.

I hope this comes across in the spirit of friendliness that it's intended.

his post while indirectly insulting to the Paizo staff didn't directly insult people in this thread, which yours did.

I didn't insult him. I never even said a single thing about him. I only talked about his behaviour. Meanwhile, he directly insulted the author of Vital Strike and every editor that looked over it, as well as all the devs involved in the respective FAQs. But there's more, he actually threatened them with physical violence! This is literally cyberbullying what he's doing (as it's far from the first time, and often enough is directed at other players and posters). He should be banned from these boards!

I'm sorry you took it the way you have, which is clearly negative but I'm not sure exactly what beyond that. That wasn't intended.

You've critiziced me for speaking out against bullying. Damn right do I consider that "negative"! If that wasn't intedned, what was the intend? You literally said I am the one who should change his behaviour!

Arguing with them will get us nowhere, and results generally in bad vibes all around.

Ignoring bullying never makes it go away, it only make's the bullies think their behaviour is acceptable. If people would join me in speaking out against it instead of criticizing me, maybe he would get the message that his style of posting (which even the customer service representatives are sick of!) isn't welcome here.

Dreklord insulting someone directly and insulting their behaviour is a distinction with very little practical difference. If I said you were “behaving” like an overbearing tyrant would you feel any less insulted? (I’m not though just using this as an example) In the thread YOU linked to one of the posters called Voodistmonk out on his comments without insulting his behaviour and he issued an apology. Enough people must have flagged his comments that they came do the attention of the moderators and they rebuked him. They did the right thing here and I suggest you follow their example. If a post offends you then flag it; politely encourage others to do the same if you feel it necessary. Insulting another’s behaviour or encouraging others to “speak up” can be counterproductive. Flag the post and let the moderators do their job.

Removed a post that included profanity, advocated violence, and was personally harassing.

As noted, This FAQ makes Spell Combat count as a full-attack action for 'effects'. It might be arguable (as above) that the enhanced attacks from flurry don't count as 'effects', but I think that's a stretch.

Monk Flurry is a full-attack, "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." That makes it ineligible for use with Spell Combat.
Unchained Monk Flurry is a full-attack, and does not have that language. It's compatible, as long as they maintain the free hand and do not use it to attack.

As noted, This FAQ makes Spell Combat count as a full-attack action for 'effects'. It might be arguable (as above) that the enhanced attacks from flurry don't count as 'effects', but I think that's a stretch.

No. The FAQ makes Spell Combat count as a full attack for things that alter or are triggered by full attacks, but FoB is an active ability, it cannot possibly be an effect.

Monk Flurry is a full-attack, "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." That makes it ineligible for use with Spell Combat.

Unchained Monk Flurry is a full-attack, and does not have that language. It's compatible, as long as they maintain the free hand and do not use it to attack.

No. The line you quoted does absolutely nothing (not for Monks, not for Magi, not for anyone; it's an artifact of old text made obsolete by FAQ and erratum), and it's not the reason FoB doesn't work with Spell Combat.

Spell Combat and FoB are both active abilities. Examples for active abilities are feats like Cleave and class features like Undead bloodline's Grave Touch. Saying you can use FoB together with Spell Combat is like saying you can get the bonus attack from Cleave when you use Grave Touch. That is not how the game works!