There are no rules saying you can deliver other charges trough your weapon.
Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."
Did you cast a spell?
Did that spell have a range of "touch"?
Was that spell from the magus spell list?
If all of those are true, then you can deliver that spell through any weapon you are wielding as part of a melee attack.
If a magus is holding the charge (of a touch spell, on the magus spell list, that he cast), then he can deliver it with a touch, or with an unarmed strike, or with a natural weapon. He can also deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack, because that's exactly what Spellstrike says he can do.
alright so,
IF you have held charges, but you havent CAST spell this round.
then technically, you only have ONE action, right?
Lets assume your BaB is +4. You have a standard and a move action available.
with a held charge, your choice now is to EITHER deliver a charge OR attack with the melee weapon.
Since BOTH spell combat and spellstrike state "CASTS" a spell. since there is no casting, you are severely reduced in actions, which basically chokes the magus's action economy,
Can a held charge be used in an AoO?
I don't think you are limited in that way Pendagast if you have a held charge from the previous round.
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.
Emphasis mine, with extra emphasis on the word can.
This should work like declaring a full attack, but after you make your first attack changing your mind and doing something else.
For example a TWF fighter could declare he is going to make a full attack, incurring a -2 penalty on all his attacks. His first attack hits and kills his target - he is immediately allowed to change his mind and take a move action, having only used a standard action to make his attack (albeit at a -2 penalty to hit). The same should should be the same functionality for the magus. Declares he is using spell combat, misses with his first attack (or all of his iteratives really) and decides he no longer wants to cast his spell at the end of the sequence.
Now technically spell combat isn't a full attack action, so it isn't a full attack and thus it isn't technically valid to start a spell combat action and change your mind after your first attack. But certainly the 'can' in spell combat should allow him to decide not to cast a spell if he hasn't discharged his held charge yet - even if he doesn't have the option to take a move action like breaking off a full attack would allow.
I don't think you are limited in that way Pendagast if you have a held charge from the previous round.
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.Emphasis mine, with extra emphasis on the word can.
This should work like declaring a full attack, but after you make your first attack changing your mind and doing something else.
For example a TWF fighter could declare he is going to make a full attack, incurring a -2 penalty on all his attacks. His first attack hits and kills his target - he is immediately allowed to change his mind and take a move action, having only used a standard action to make his attack (albeit at a -2 penalty to hit). The same should should be the same functionality for the magus. Declares he is using spell combat, misses with his first attack (or all of his iteratives really) and decides he no longer wants to cast his spell at the end of the sequence.
Now technically spell combat isn't a full attack action, so...
what im saying is lets sya you cast chill touch and you get three charges.
In round one you spell combat, attack with your blade, and then spellstrike and deliver your charge.You still have 2 charges left.
round 2, you dont cast a spell,
now what? you can make one attempt to deliver the charge? (since you arent casting the spell you cant activate/use spell combat?)
I think if you have this ability, you shuld be able to:
declare spell combat
cast the spell
deliver the "free" attack via spell strike
and deliver another charge you have via spell strike on your normal and subsequent attacks.
Spellstrike as intended, lets your spell channel through your sword, if you want, and shouldnt be restricted to only in the round you "cast" the spell as per RAW, i dont think that's its intent,
I think alot of the language assumed with 'casts' and some preexisting magic rules, have the magus all bottled up.
He should be able to expend as many charges as he has actions.
Spellstrike does give an action.
In round one, with multiple charges, he should be able to deliver two charges.
round two he should be able to deliver his third charge, then cast his spell and deliver that as he choses.
round three, he has held charges from round two.
NOW what? if he doesnt "cast" again he technically doesn't have additional actions.
Spell combat SHOULD let him release those charges since they were connected to spell casting, but by RAW there is the wording of "cast", I think held charges should be added to that wording.
If not, held charges are almost wasted with a magus and can only be used in certain freak situations.
IF you have held charges, but you havent CAST spell this round.
then technically, you only have ONE action, right?
You've got all the normal actions you would normally have, that you haven't taken yet. Standard, Move (or full-round), plus free and swift.
Lets assume your BaB is +4. You have a standard and a move action available.
with a held charge, your choice now is to EITHER deliver a charge OR attack with the melee weapon.
You could:
* Make a touch attack as a standard action
* Make an attack action as a standard action (and have the option to use Spellstrike to deliver the spell if you hit)
* Full-attack as a full-round action (and have the option to use Spellstrike to deliver the spell if you hit)
* Spell Combat as a full-round action, attacking with your weapon (and have the option to use Spellstrike to deliver the spell if you hit) and then casting a spell
And all the normal options people generally have. Charge, cleave, total defense, etc.
Since BOTH spell combat and spellstrike state "CASTS" a spell. since there is no casting, you are severely reduced in actions, which basically chokes the magus's action economy,
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
If you met the requirements for Spellstrike when you cast that spell, then you can use Spellstrike to deliver it. If you're making a melee attack, you can choose to use Spellstrike to deliver that spell.
Spell Combat lets you cast a spell. If you cast a spell while holding the charge, the held charge dissipates.
Can a held charge be used in an AoO?
Of course. A wizard can make an AoO with a held charge, since he's considered armed.
If you have Spellstrike, and if the held charge is from a spell you cast, with a range of "touch" from the magus spell list, then you can use Spellstrike with an AoO as well (as long as you have a weapon and threaten, etc.)
The FAQ makes it clear a held charge can be delivered through spellstrike. A held charge by its very nature is a touch spell that was not delivered on the turn it was cast. That is a magus can deliver his touch spell at any time using spellstrike, not just on the turn he casts the spell.
Chill touch is an outlier case. It is not clearly defined if the additional charges in it are a held charge or not. So RAW it may or may not work with spellstrike on turns after it was cast (though RAI it really seems it should).
Personally I find the whole held charge thing ambiguous, it ought to read something like: casting a touch spell creates a held charge (or charges for a spell like chill touch). On the same turn you cast a spell you may also take a free touch attack. That eliminates the transitional point of casting on one turn and it becoming a held charge on the next. And clarifies that multiple touch spells are still a held charge - with multiple uses.
(Note: All of my responses here are ignoring James' ruling about holding the charge of chill touch.)
what im saying is lets sya you cast chill touch and you get three charges.
In round one you spell combat, attack with your blade, and then spellstrike and deliver your charge.
You still have 2 charges left.
round 2, you dont cast a spell,
now what? you can make one attempt to deliver the charge? (since you arent casting the spell you cant activate/use spell combat?)
That's kind of hard to follow.
Is this the scenario you're describing?
Round 1: Spell Combat, Attack with weapon, then cast Chill Touch, use free attack with weapon via Spellstrike, hitting and dealing the effects of chill touch.
If so, then options for round 2 include, but are not limited to,
* Touch attack as a standard action
* Attack as a standard action (option to use Spellstrike)
* Full-attack as a full-round action (option to use Spellstrike)
* Spell Combat as a full-round action, attacking first (option to use Spellstrike), then casting a spell (thus losing your held charge)
* Cleave as a standard action (option to use Spellstrike on the first 2 hits)
and so on.
I think if you have this ability, you shuld be able to:
declare spell combat
cast the spell
deliver the "free" attack via spell strike
and deliver another charge you have via spell strike on your normal and subsequent attacks.
Yes, that's what JB said in the post linked earlier.
Spellstrike as intended, lets your spell channel through your sword, if you want, and shouldnt be restricted to only in the round you "cast" the spell as per RAW, i dont think that's its intent,
Spellstrike is not limited to any particular round. If you cast the spell, it has a range of "touch" and it's from the magus spell list, you can deliver it with a melee attack through your weapon.
I think alot of the language assumed with 'casts' and some preexisting magic rules, have the magus all bottled up.
I'm not sure what you mean by bottled up.
Spellstrike does give an action.
Incorrect. Spellstrike just lets you do what you would be doing anyway in a different manner.
It does not grant any additional attacks. You make exactly the same number of attacks with Spellstrike as you would without it.
In round one, with multiple charges, he should be able to deliver two charges.
round two he should be able to deliver his third charge, then cast his spell and deliver that as he choses.
round three, he has held charges from round two.
NOW what? if he doesnt "cast" again he technically doesn't have additional actions.
He hasn't taken any actions yet in round 3, so he has all his normal actions available to him.
Spell combat SHOULD let him release those charges since they were connected to spell casting, but by RAW there is the wording of "cast", I think held charges should be added to that wording.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Spell Combat let you make your normal attacks with your weapon, and also cast a spell. In either order.
If not, held charges are almost wasted with a magus and can only be used in certain freak situations.
Magus can use held charges just like everyone else (touch, unarmed, natural, and has one extra option for delivering it (weapon).
So, yes, Pendagast, any time you would make a melee attack you can discharge your held charges through the use of Spellstrike. Even AoO.
Also remember that your charges don't dissipate until you touch something other than your weapon or cast a new spell. Since, with Spell Combat, you can choose to cast a spell at the END of your normal attack routine, you can TOTALLY full-attack, discharging the held spell, then cast a new copy of it (getting a free action attack in that same round).
(Note: All of my responses here are ignoring James' ruling about holding the charge of chill touch.)
what im saying is lets sya you cast chill touch and you get three charges.
In round one you spell combat, attack with your blade, and then spellstrike and deliver your charge.
You still have 2 charges left.
round 2, you dont cast a spell,
now what? you can make one attempt to deliver the charge? (since you arent casting the spell you cant activate/use spell combat?)That's kind of hard to follow.
Is this the scenario you're describing?
Round 1: Spell Combat, Attack with weapon, then cast Chill Touch, use free attack with weapon via Spellstrike, hitting and dealing the effects of chill touch.
If so, then options for round 2 include, but are not limited to,
* Touch attack as a standard action
* Attack as a standard action (option to use Spellstrike)
* Full-attack as a full-round action (option to use Spellstrike)
* Spell Combat as a full-round action, attacking first (option to use Spellstrike), then casting a spell (thus losing your held charge)
* Cleave as a standard action (option to use Spellstrike on the first 2 hits)and so on.
I think if you have this ability, you shuld be able to:
declare spell combat
cast the spell
deliver the "free" attack via spell strike
and deliver another charge you have via spell strike on your normal and subsequent attacks.Yes, that's what JB said in the post linked earlier.
Spellstrike as intended, lets your spell channel through your sword, if you want, and shouldnt be restricted to only in the round you "cast" the spell as per RAW, i dont think that's its intent,Spellstrike is not limited to any particular round. If you cast the spell, it has a range of "touch" and it's from the magus spell list, you can deliver it with a melee attack through your weapon.
I think alot of the language assumed with 'casts' and some...
I know... thats a TYPO I SWEAR I fixed TWICE.... I HATE apples auto spell. Spellstrike DOES NOT add an action.
what I'm saying is, if you being the round with held charges from last round, it seems you can't attack, AND deliver a touch spell, but that you MUST CAST a spell to use spell combat (and thus benefit from the action economy)
Spellcombat isnt just about the free touch attack from a touch spell, it (unlike spell strike) adds to action economy (at the cost of -2) but requires that you actually cast a spell.
IT shouldnt't, if you have held charges from a previous spell, you should be able to use them, benefiting from spell combat.
so fi you being the round with two held charges, you should be able to attack with your sword as per normal (spell strike and use a charge) and then touch with your other held charge (in lieu of casting a new spell)
"you should be able to attack with your sword as per normal (spell strike and use a charge) and then touch with your other held charge (in lieu of casting a new spell)"
You can feel it "should" work this way, but it is not the way the rules are written (or IMO intended). Spell Combat works when you cast a spell, not while you are holding charges from a spell. You don't get "extra" touch attacks for holding a charge.
what I'm saying is, if you being the round with held charges from last round, it seems you can't attack, AND deliver a touch spell, but that you MUST CAST a spell to use spell combat (and thus benefit from the action economy)
If you're saying you can't attack with a weapon and also make a touch attack (as a separate attack, against touch AC), then yes, that's correct.
Spellcombat isnt just about the free touch attack from a touch spell, it (unlike spell strike) adds to action economy (at the cost of -2) but requires that you actually cast a spell.
Spell Combat lets you attack and cast a spell. It doesn't have to be a touch spell, you could cast shield and still make your normal weapon attack(s), for example.
IT shouldnt't, if you have held charges from a previous spell, you should be able to use them, benefiting from spell combat.
The benefit of Spell Combat is attacking and casting a spell. If you don't want to cast a spell, then don't use Spell Combat, just make a full-attack.
so fi you being the round with two held charges, you should be able to attack with your sword as per normal (spell strike and use a charge) and then touch with your other held charge (in lieu of casting a new spell)
It sounds like you're suggesting a modification to two-weapon fighting, allowing you to use a touch attack as an off-hand weapon.
So it seems that the community consensus is that the previous FAQ\discussion on how Spellstrike, Spell Combat, and touch spells work is accurate, with the caveats that a touch spell with charges still counts as an active 'spell' as long as the charges are held, that those charges can be delivered via Spellstrike - and that casting a separate touch spell while there are still charges active dissipates those held charges (for balance purposes).
In regards to the follow-up question about where the charge is 'held', there are inherent contradictions within the RAW. For example, we know that touching a potion (even unintentionally) discharges the spell - but technically if you're wearing a ring, then shouldn't it discharge into the ring, since you are 'touching' it with the same part of the body as you would use to grab a potion? That apparently doesn't happen, since otherwise a magus would be limited to a single 'ring' slot but that isn't the case.
From a house-rule perspective - and I know this goes against RAW - I would prefer to treat discharging a 'touch' spell as a conscious act by the caster. Doing so renders the greater majority of all these corner situations irrelevant.
Spell Combat works when you cast a spell, not while you are holding charges from a spell. You don't get "extra" touch attacks for holding a charge.
Say I cast a touch spell on the previous round and didn't deliver it; I'm now holding the charge. I announce that I'm doing spell combat and make a full attack. On my first attack, I land a hit and deliver the touch spell from the previous round. I then (still in the same round) cast a new touch spell (maybe just Arcane Mark) and deliver it with a free bonus spellstrike attack. Is that OK?
There seems to be an unwritten rule regarding discharging of spells through touch as only counting for something that you were not touching at the time the spell was cast. So your clothes, your rings, etc, were all touching you when you cast the spell, so do not automatically discharge the spell when it switches to a held charge.
Grabbing that potion out of your bags is different, you weren't physically touching it at the time, so now your spell discharges.
Note that an enemy punching you in the face also doesn't trigger your spell, though certainly it wasn't intentional on your part to get punched in the face.
I agree that the whole 'unintentionally' part of held charges going off should be removed and it really should be any active action on the wizards part to touch something else while holding a charge triggers it.
IMO: Touch the wall, it goes off. Touch an ally, it goes off. Grab something out of your bag, it goes off. Enemy grapples you, you hold the charge. Friend touches you, you hold the charge. You get tripped and your natural instinct is to throw your arms out to catch yourself, you hold the charge.
Spell Combat works when you cast a spell, not while you are holding charges from a spell. You don't get "extra" touch attacks for holding a charge.Say I cast a touch spell on the previous round and didn't deliver it; I'm now holding the charge. I announce that I'm doing spell combat and make a full attack. On my first attack, I land a hit and deliver the touch spell from the previous round. I then (still in the same round) cast a new touch spell (maybe just Arcane Mark) and deliver it with a free bonus spellstrike attack. Is that OK?
My understanding is that this would work.
*Just to correct terminology, you cannot make a "full attack" and also use spellstrike\spell combat, as the latter is a full-round action. That's probably what you meant but to avoid any confusion... :)
Spell Combat works when you cast a spell, not while you are holding charges from a spell. You don't get "extra" touch attacks for holding a charge.Say I cast a touch spell on the previous round and didn't deliver it; I'm now holding the charge. I announce that I'm doing spell combat and make a full attack. On my first attack, I land a hit and deliver the touch spell from the previous round. I then (still in the same round) cast a new touch spell (maybe just Arcane Mark) and deliver it with a free bonus spellstrike attack. Is that OK?
Yes, with a minor clarification, spell combat is not a full-attack action. It is a full round action that grants all your iterative attacks + cast a spell.
There seems to be an unwritten rule regarding discharging of spells through touch as only counting for something that you were not touching at the time the spell was cast. So your clothes, your rings, etc, were all touching you when you cast the spell, so do not automatically discharge the spell when it switches to a held charge.
This does make sense.
However, I still raise the question: Why is it necessary that there be any unintentional discharging of the spell as long as the caster is conscious? Is it for balance purposes?
To me, it seems like it was only thrown in to add potential 'slapstick' flavor and just raises unnecessary complications (like the unwritten rule you mention above).
From a rules standpoint, I would prefer to see touch spells treated as readied actions. Just like a Fighter can say, "I ready my sword and if anyone I don't recognize steps within range, I'll stab them," a caster using a touch spell should be treated with an unwritten idea of, "I ready my spell and will discharge it when I touch an enemy."
The current rules, at least in my view, are sort of akin to the overly-specific "jerk DM" who punishes a player by making him stab an ally because when readying an action all the player said was, "I ready my sword and if anyone moves within range I'll stab 'em," when that is an oversight on the part of the non-combat-hardened PLAYER (and is honestly just DM cheese to make trouble).
Spell Combat works when you cast a spell, not while you are holding charges from a spell. You don't get "extra" touch attacks for holding a charge.Say I cast a touch spell on the previous round and didn't deliver it; I'm now holding the charge. I announce that I'm doing spell combat and make a full attack. On my first attack, I land a hit and deliver the touch spell from the previous round. I then (still in the same round) cast a new touch spell (maybe just Arcane Mark) and deliver it with a free bonus spellstrike attack. Is that OK?
As several others have said, yes this is OK. I know others have also said this, but the best way to keep the magus clear is to stop thinking about "free" or "bonus" anything and to keep in mind that every round is a new set of actions.
So in any given round you can take your normal action choices. If you use spell combat it is a full round action. As part of that action you can cast any spell you want (at which point all other spellcasting rules come into play, if you were holding a charge when you cast, it is dissapated, if you cast a touch spell you can deliver it via Spellstrike, etc).
However, I still raise the question: Why is it necessary that there be any unintentional discharging of the spell as long as the caster is conscious? Is it for balance purposes?
Yes, pretty much.
Because, without it, someone could wake in the morning, cast whatever touch spell they wanted, and carry it all day until they didn't want it anymore (by casting another spell or using it).
So, first up, that person would, effectively, *always* be considered armed, so they would always threaten and be able to take an AoO (if not flatfooted). [Basically, using a single spell slot gets you most of the benefits of a full class feature (eg - Claws) or feat (Imp. Unarmed) -- although, more so, considering that most spells scale with level (an Intensified Shocking Grasp, for instance, would let you fry the first person you didn't like for up to 10d6 for a lowly L2 slot even hours after you first cast the spell)]
In addition, the "standard" tactic of swarming a caster (both for NPCs and PCs) is less useful if the mage can already have a multi-touch spell just waiting for you (instead of suddenly finding himself needing to step back or cast defensively).
Beyond that, allowing a spell to be cast off-camera and just delivered at will also becomes a rather nasty tactic - anyone you meet could potentially be holding a spell and just ready to blast you with a touch -- well, it creates a number of issues. Basically, any potential touch (even the most casual) would have to be considered under the frame of a real threat, which would certainly make crowd dynamics a very different sort of thing. [There would certainly be a lot less hand-shaking, especially in politics..]
And that doesn't even get into the fun you can have when you start thinking about multiclass combinations for that caster -- including, potentially, the ability for a barbarian to deliver a pre-cast touch spell while raging, for instance.
However...
From a rules standpoint, I would prefer to see touch spells treated as readied actions. Just like a Fighter can say, "I ready my sword and if anyone I don't recognize steps within range, I'll stab them," a caster using a touch spell should be treated with an unwritten idea of, "I ready my spell and will discharge it when I touch an enemy."
The current rules pretty much *do* allow this. If you're about to be in a dangerous situation, like jumping the pack o' goblins in the next room, you *can* cast your calcific touch or shocking grasp or whatever spell and hold the charge... and then ready to make your standard action (a touch attack) and blast the first bad goblin to step into range (as long as you don't cast anything else, or start opening doors).
Those are valid concerns, Tilnar - situations of which I had not thought previously.
There would still be a trade-off: Would it be necessarily worth it to cast a Shocking Grasp (or some other touch spell) and hold the charge when it would preclude any sort of spell-based combat preparation?
For instance, in my experience most casters who are getting ready to begin combat will preemptively cast spells to raise AC and such; this would effectively waste that Shocking Grasp.
Obviously, that wouldn't always be the case; having a pre-charged touch spell in an ambush would be very helpful, and you'd most likely burn that spell first, then move away and put up Shield, etc.
What if a touch spell were (unless otherwise noted) given a default duration in which it must be used? Just speculating; I feel like there are a lot of gray areas with how it works currently and wonder if there might be a better way to handle it.
Thanks for input!
I always run/play the charge as being on one hand, attacking with the other hand would be fine.
How do you handle the caster making unarmed strikes with kicks or headbutts? What about natural weapons that aren't on the hand, like bite or gore? All of those can be used to discharge a held touch spell.
