Atlatl Jones |
First of all, well done! The revised Magus sounds like tons of fun, and fixes almost all the problems I had with the first playtest version.
However, it occurs to me that there is never any reason to use Spellstrike with Spell Combat. Using spell combat alone gives the extra free touch attack. Since spellstrike doesn't give an additional attack, it only makes that touch attack carried by one of the normal attacks. That it, it gives it a much lower chance to it, with no discernable benefit.
IMO it would be better if spellstrike gave an additional attack, at a -2 penalty, when combined with spell combat. The lowered chance to hit with the spell attack is worth the potential for extra damage, IMO.
xevious573 |
First of all, well done! The revised Magus sounds like tons of fun, and fixes almost all the problems I had with the first playtest version.
However, it occurs to me that there is never any reason to use Spellstrike with Spell Combat. Using spell combat alone gives the extra free touch attack. Since spellstrike doesn't give an additional attack, it only makes that touch attack carried by one of the normal attacks. That it, it gives it a much lower chance to it, with no discernable benefit.
IMO it would be better if spellstrike gave an additional attack, at a -2 penalty, when combined with spell combat. The lowered chance to hit with the spell attack is worth the potential for extra damage, IMO.
You can hold a touch spell as a charge in your hand.
1st round: cast vampiric touch (or other touch spell) and move up to full attack next turn.
2nd round: full attack with Spell Combat, unleashing the vampiric touch with your first hit then casting another spell to continue the beatdown.
Seems like that would work to me.
Fnipernackle |
From what I read and interpreted, when using spell combat, u can cast a spell and full attack in the same round, but spell combat doesn't say u have to cast a touch/combat spell. You could cast any spell you wanted to. You can also use spellstrike to deliver ur combat damaging spell in a standard action, instead of having to have a full attack, and u don't have to make 2 different rolls to get the spell off.
JRutterbush |
You can also take your free touch attack when you cast the spell, and have your weapon attacks available to deliver the spell if the touch attack misses. It's not something that'll happen a lot, but Spellstrike is more for single attacks, I don't think it's really meant to be used with Spell Combat. But even then, there's still a slight boost there.
YuenglingDragon |
You can hold a touch spell as a charge in your hand.
1st round: cast vampiric touch (or other touch spell) and move up to full attack next turn.
2nd round: full attack with Spell Combat, unleashing the vampiric touch with your first hit then casting another spell to continue the beatdown.
Seems like that would work to me.
This is a nice idea for a strong blitz kind of attack.
But I agree that Spell Strike, when it's used, seems to be mostly valuable for when you can only make a single attack (movement, staggered, what have you).
Quandary |
As Rixx says, you´re gaining the benefit of the weapon crit range and multiplier, which are usually going to better than the standard touch attack stats.
And why not go ahead and make ALL your weapon attacks Touch Attacks:
Grab UMD with one of your INT bumps, and get a Druid wand of Flame Blade. Voila, all touch attacks with scimitar threat range, and can deliver any touch effects channeled via spellstrike. And grab the arcana letting you cast a spell when you crit, to take advantage of the flameblade scimitar crit range (with confirm rolls vs. touch ac). Flame Blade wands also seem nice because you should be able to add Magus weapon abilities on top of it.