Reread the bolded part you quoted again you kind of left out the "anytime you'd normally be allowed" qualifier for free actions. You can't for instance insert a free action in the middle of your spell cast. Nor in the middle of a weapon attack. Actions are whole and indivisible. When you do an iterative attack series, you can't say I'll take my first attack on target a and wait to see if it drops before I declare the targets on the rest of my iteratives. You have to declare them all at once.
This is actually very wrong. You can take free actions in between attacks for a full attack. You can take a five foot step in between attacks for a full attack. You can declare the target of each attack as you make it, not at the start of the full attack. In fact, after making your first attack, you can cancel the full attack all together and take a move action if you want. Read the section on full attacks in the Combat section, please.
|
Spell Combat (Ex): . . . . This functions much like two-weapon fighting but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. . . .
It seems pretty clear. Your off-hand can't do something that it couldn't do with a weapon in it while two-weapon fighting. Buckler on the arm? Yes. Pull an item from a belt pouch? No. Anything else you want to do with that hand you would have to drop the weapon/forgo spell combat for that round.
Since it is a full-round action the Magus can do nothing with that off-hand besides cast a spell with 1 standard action as it's casting time, irregardless of whether or not the spell has somatic components or not.
I would personally carry the two-weapon fighting comparison as far as possible. Gauntlet of the appropriate armor level? Yes. Locked Gauntlet? No. Brass knuckles? No. You're not allowed to wield a weapon at the same time and with that same hand that you are wearing them on. It is also clear by their description that they limit your manual dexterity in that hand.
Shane
That is allowed. But Wand Wielding is IN PLACE of Spell Combat not in addition to.
This confuses me greatly. The whole point of Wand Wielder is to modify the way Spell Combat works. It's not possible to use Wand Wielder without Spell Combat.
Reread the bolded part you quoted again you kind of left out the "anytime you'd normally be allowed" qualifier for free actions. You can't for instance insert a free action in the middle of your spell cast. Nor in the middle of a weapon attack. Actions are whole and indivisible. When you do an iterative attack series, you can't say I'll take my first attack on target a and wait to see if it drops before I declare the targets on the rest of my iteratives. You have to declare them all at once.
You can. Free actions can be done anytime between anything you do in your turn. Take the 5' step for example.
That is allowed. But Wand Wielding is IN PLACE of Spell Combat not in addition to.This confuses me greatly. The whole point of Wand Wielder is to modify the way Spell Combat works. It's not possible to use Wand Wielder without Spell Combat.
Curiously, it is also not possible to use spell combat with wand wielder.
|
Curiously, it is also not possible to use spell combat with wand wielder.
What do you mean? here is the wording for Wand Wielder, which clearly says that it is about firing a wand instead of a spell DURING SPELL COMBAT:
"Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can
activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when
using spell combat."
|
|
...to sum up, and after a few days off partaking in holiday celebrations, I think people are over analyzing this whole spell combat thing. And wand wielder isn't complicated either. Lets you fire wand/staff instead of casting a spell. What is the big deal? Whether you like a sword or grip the other end of a staff is up to you. Same shyte.
Spell combat is about firing a spell as part of a full attack routine. Period. It's 3.0 with haste for spellcasters all over again but at the cost of higher level spells (i.e. magus stops at 6th level spells). Sure it's powerful, but hey, 6th level spells... nuff said. At high levels wizards would eat a magus raw, one to one. Whoever magus is best used in an established party as a 5th wheel, to fill the gaps when needed.
...to sum up, and after a few days off partaking in holiday celebrations, I think people are over analyzing this whole spell combat thing. And wand wielder isn't complicated either. Lets you fire wand/staff instead of casting a spell. What is the big deal? Whether you like a sword or grip the other end of a staff is up to you. Same shyte.
Spell combat is about firing a spell as part of a full attack routine. Period. It's 3.0 with haste for spellcasters all over again but at the cost of higher level spells (i.e. magus stops at 6th level spells). Sure it's powerful, but hey, 6th level spells... nuff said. At high levels wizards would eat a magus raw, one to one. Whoever magus is best used in an established party as a 5th wheel, to fill the gaps when needed.
everyone always totes on about high level wizards eating people for lunch at high level.
the problem with that is everyone knows this, so everyone rushes the wizard. (if they can tell who he is)
everyone who has ever posted a scenario always assumes the wizard has ALL his defensive spells set up and already in place, and then curiously has all these spell slots still available for offense.
no. I dont buy it.
Ive seen things come really close before, and wizards ARE nasty, but certainly not the holy grail.
something just came to mind, could a magus counterspell as part of spellcombat? (say he holds his action, counterspells and then gets the rest of his full attack, or say he holds his action, attacks to try to ruin spell and counterspells as his spellcombat spell, giving him to opportunities to ruin the spell?) could be curious to see but the circumstances would be unlikely.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Curiously, it is also not possible to use spell combat with wand wielder.What do you mean? here is the wording for Wand Wielder, which clearly says that it is about firing a wand instead of a spell DURING SPELL COMBAT:
"Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can
activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when
using spell combat."
You must hold the wand to use it, similarly the staff.
If you wield a weapon and a wand, you no longer have a hand free to use the Spell Combat action, since Wand Wielder never lets you bypass that requirement. Same deal for staves, unless you want to wield the staff itself(the two statements about double weapons are conflicting on that, too).Yes, it's pedantic. Yes, it's ridiculous and obvious. No, that doesn't mean the RAW works as intended; it is enough of a big deal as the game matures, so if this issue isn't fixed, it will be a bother on some game tables. A single statement can fix the problem, so it's only expected that it must be fixed before releasing, instead of erratas and FAQs.
Curiously, it is also not possible to use spell combat with wand wielder.What do you mean? here is the wording for Wand Wielder, which clearly says that it is about firing a wand instead of a spell DURING SPELL COMBAT:
"Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can
activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when
using spell combat."You must hold the wand to use it, similarly the staff.
If you wield a weapon and a wand, you no longer have a hand free to use the Spell Combat action, since Wand Wielder never lets you bypass that requirement. Same deal for staves, unless you want to wield the staff itself(the two statements about double weapons are conflicting on that, too).Yes, it's pedantic. Yes, it's ridiculous and obvious. No, that doesn't mean the RAW works as intended; it is enough of a big deal as the game matures, so if this issue isn't fixed, it will be a bother on some game tables. A single statement can fix the problem, so it's only expected that it must be fixed before releasing, instead of erratas and FAQs.
Something like this you mean:"Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when
using spell combat. This arcana allows the wielder of the wand to use spell combat without needing a free hand." ?
Or "Instead of having a free hand, the magus must hold the wand or staff"
Or, to allow for both casting and wands, "A hand holding a wand or staff is considered free for spellcasting and spellcombat purposes."
LazarX... Always assuming the worst...
I was curious about this myself, wondering if it's Kosher to wear a Buckler...
You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm
...despite the fact that the Magus rules seem to exclude it:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
(emphasis mine)
However, my take on the Magus Spell Combat is that the Magus has become adept at multi-tasking a single attack with a single spell cast. Basically he's waving his hand or speaking the incantation as he's thrusting, slicing, lassoing, stabbing, throwing, what-have-you (And it takes a little extra time because of it). Thus, he's using both hands at the same time. Basically, if he has to use the off-hand to activate or complete some other action during the round, he can't be using it to twirl his fingers or flip the bird, or whatever the somatic component of his spell requires.
Furthermore, I think Verbal only spells, and Still Spell should allow a Magus to occupy his other hand and still use Spell Combat (although deafening or Silence would be a big fear).
This would open up the TWF and 2H Weapons* while using Spell Combat that everyone seems to want, although with the Magus' apparently limited survivability(currently), I would aim for a Sword n Board approach.
* Without full attacks, you Mongrels!
I consider all of this perfectly reasonable, with little room for waffle, but it's not in the playtest. This is why we question.
LazarX... Always assuming the worst...
I was curious about this myself, wondering if it's Kosher to wear a Buckler...
You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm...despite the fact that the Magus rules seem to exclude it:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.(emphasis mine)
The solution here is simple. The buckler does not occupy the hand, so when you aren't using the buckler, the hand is free. If you want to spell combat with a buckler, you just won't get its AC and enchantments until the next round. Same deal for wielding 1hs with two hands.
Agreed, that is a simple ruling. But the root question brings up other questions, namely, all those things I thought should work: would they?
Furthermore, I think Verbal only spells, and Still Spell should allow a Magus to occupy his other hand and still use Spell Combat.
This would open up the TWF and 2H Weapons* while using Spell Combat
Removed some posts and their replies. Keep your discussions civil please.
"But, but...civil is no fun!" grumbles about gninja's ruining a good fight
It's complicated because we have the usual rules lawyers here trying to find a way to use the ability to get melee attacks, wand use, and spellcasting all in the same round....to sum up, and after a few days off partaking in holiday celebrations, I think people are over analyzing this whole spell combat thing. And wand wielder isn't complicated either. Lets you fire wand/staff instead of casting a spell. What is the big deal? Whether you like a sword or grip the other end of a staff is up to you. Same shyte.
I think the designers tried to word it to get around these attempts but it made things complicated. I would just have a blurb that went
Designer's Intent: Designer goes on to say no TWF, no THF, you get to cast a spell and swing a weapon using one arm. If there is a loophole in what we wrote refer to this paragraph.
The above is not verbatim, but it would stop things from having to be written in legalese, and it is then on the DM if he wants to allow a player to tag him with a loophole. They have already said the intent was for no TWF or THF(Two handed fighting). If I as a designer tell you my intent and you want to go around it that is up to you.
PS:Lazar I was just using your post for a spring board.
Designer's Intent:...
They usually try to do that. With the rules. I'm pretty sure that they don't TRY to be vague.
However when the rules ARE vague, interpretation comes in. And I guarantee you no one is going to spot all the chinks in the armor. At the very least, we get to see 99.99% of them from the people trying to "break in", so to speak.
Out of curiosity, how would you handle spells with only Verbal components? Already the equipment rules don't try to hamper those (consider the humble buckler). And before you suggest that it doesn't come up, consider that Flare, Blur and Displacement are all without Somatics.
Designer's Intent:...They usually try to do that. With the rules. I'm pretty sure that they don't TRY to be vague.
However when the rules ARE vague, interpretation comes in. And I guarantee you no one is going to spot all the chinks in the armor. At the very least, we get to see 99.99% of them from the people trying to "break in", so to speak.
Out of curiosity, how would you handle spells with only Verbal components? Already the equipment rules don't try to hamper those (consider the humble buckler). And before you suggest that it doesn't come up, consider that Flare, Blur and Displacement are all without Somatics.
The book says
....The magus must have one hand free to use this ability, even if the spell being cast does not contain somatic components.
That is from the book. I can't do to much better than that. I don't think they are trying to be vague. They should have to write things in legalese either, but every once in a while if something is hard to write so at to not be "misinterpreted".
For this particular thread issue. I would have put:
The intent of these rules was to limit the magus to fighting with one weapon in one hand in melee. No other method was intended. If you find a loophole that allows you to use another fighting style know that it is a loophole, and it is up to your DM to allow it. <insert fake title> Wraithstrike.
|
|
Hi
I've got a Halfling (Dex 18, Int 14) Rogue/Magus. At 3rd lvl he's taking Dance of the Dervish (or some such) from the Qadira handbook.
Both Dervish Dance and Spell Combat require the off hand to be free, but can both abilities be used at same time?
Was thinking of Truestrike then hitting with the small Scimitar. So maxing out to-hit penalty his attack is now 8 -(2 +Int bonus) + (Truestrike). +24 to hit at lvl 3!
OK, only 2/Day, but is this allowed?
Need this for Conception
Thanks
Paul H
If a magus works heavily into THF and thus takes up still spell I can see this tactic working. However I think the intent was this class ability was supposed to be TWF for using dual weapon attacks would not work. You might be able to keep a weapon in both hands, but you would not get any extra attacks.
|
|
Hi
Some misunderstanding of my post....
I was looking at Spell Combat & Dervish Dance (Qadira book, Pg 23).
I need a definitive answer since I'll be using it in the PFS setting in couple weeks.
So can I use them both together please?
The rest was fluff staiting WHY I wanted that specific group of abilities.
@ Ushoran - afraid your maths is a bit out:
Wizards, whilst they have more spell slots, can't do Magic Missile as often as me striking every round. (Though I only get Truestrike 2/Day for big bonus to hit).
Barbarians can't rage all day long, only for a few rounds per day. (Though their damage during those few rounds is very good, but my AC is far superior).
Though thanks for the Duelist info.....
PFS is a 20 point buy setup, so I can't have Str 18, Int 18 at 3rd lvl :(
Thanks
Paul H
I am playing a Magus now. I think it's pretty obvious about spell combat, It would be entirely OP to swing 2HD using spell combat, that's what spellstrike is for. I alternate using SpellStrike holding my longsword 2HD and power attacking, for my touch spells, and the Spell Combat holding the sword 1HD and casting my ranged spells. The Magus is perfect as is imho
edit: seriously just read the pdf if you can't understand the abilities of the class don't play it, if you are new to the d20 system this is probably not a class for you.
I removed a post that got personal and the descending replies to it.
Flag it and move on, folks.