What makes my hand "free" for the purposes of Spell Combat?


Round 3: Revised Magus Discussion

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A lot of my attempts to poke holes in this new class haven't gone well due to differing views on what qualifies you as having a "free hand" when using Spell Combat.

If you are wearing gauntlets, brass knuckles, or similar items, is your hand "free" for the purposes of Spell Combat?

When, precisely, does your hand need to be free? When you cast the spell? Or during the entire full round action?

Discuss.


Your hand must be dedicated to casting spells that round. You cannot use it for anything else. I think it's reasonable to allow a player to wear a gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, or brass knuckles and still cast, but they certainly couldn't attack with it and still use Spell Combat.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
When, precisely, does your hand need to be free? When you cast the spell? Or during the entire full round action?

During the entire full round action, otherwise you can no longer use Spell Combat and you don't get the melee attacks which are part of that action.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
If you are wearing gauntlets, brass knuckles, or similar items, is your hand "free" for the purposes of Spell Combat?

edit: On reflection, it's probably not smart to argue for difficulty of casting in gauntlets beyond the Arcane Spell Failure chance (maybe of a full suit of medium armour, even if you're not otherwise wearing any, but that's another discussion).

Brass knuckles allow you to cast a spell with a concentration check.

The magus's hand only has to be sufficiently free to perform a spell's somatic component (even if the particular spell doesn't have one) so both would be OK.


Ravingdork wrote:

A lot of my attempts to poke holes in this new class haven't gone well due to differing views on what qualifies you as having a "free hand" when using Spell Combat.

If you are wearing gauntlets, brass knuckles, or similar items, is your hand "free" for the purposes of Spell Combat?

When, precisely, does your hand need to be free? When you cast the spell? Or during the entire full round action?

Discuss.

If the hand is being used* for something it is not free. They even further restricted it for this class to make sure people did not loophole around it?

Do you keep making these threads to try to stop future loopholes or to use the loophole?

I think they wrote this one well enough that no amount of rules lawyering is going to get you a TWF or two-handed fighting.

RAI is you get to attack with one hand, while casting a spell with the other. I know your group likes RAW, but since it is easy for people to twist words you won't ever have a RAW book that can't be perverted in some way.

*What I mean is that if you use that hand to cast a spell for the purpose of spell combat that hand can not be used for anything else that round.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Do you keep making these threads to try to stop future loopholes or to use the loophole?

Both. I am genuinely trying to help with the playtest, but at the same time I can't believe how strict some of the new class' rules seem to be.

I mean, seriously, if I were make the extra investment and pick up Still Spell or something similar, I think I SHOULD be able to use my free hand for something other than Spell Combat (such as two-handed Power Attacking or dual-wielding).

I just don't like having too many exceptions like those on the Summoner. Even if the spell doesn't have somatic components I STILL have to have the hand free "just because the developers said so." That to me just feels wrong.

You're right about the wording though, it is very precise, restrictive, and easy to understand.


Being able to make a full attack and cast a spell in the same round is an enormous benefit, and you can already multiclass to get a higher BAB - and thus a full 4 attacks in a round. Allowing for 2-handers or TWF on top of that just seems like it has too much potential for abuse of the system. Even if it wouldn't be game-shattering at the moment, this is something they'd really have to watch when putting out future content. I'd like to see a tighter restriction on Greater Arcane Pool for the same reason.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
martinaj wrote:
Being able to make a full attack and cast a spell in the same round is an enormous benefit, and you can already multiclass to get a higher BAB - and thus a full 4 attacks in a round. Allowing for 2-handers or TWF on top of that just seems like it has too much potential for abuse of the system.

I totally agree. Even as written, it looks like it might blow any other one-hander build out of the water.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


You're right about the wording though, it is very precise, restrictive, and easy to understand.

I'm sorry to say this but posts like yours have made that wording necessary otherwise there would be rules lawyers cheese monkeying around it every way through Sunday.

The magus is not like any other class, it has a unique mechanic so yes there will be unique rulings to it.


LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


You're right about the wording though, it is very precise, restrictive, and easy to understand.

I'm sorry to say this but posts like yours have made that wording necessary otherwise there would be rules lawyers cheese monkeying around it every way through Sunday.

The magus is not like any other class, it has a unique mechanic so yes there will be unique rulings to it.

Thats still a good thing. Let´s use these playstests to make the wording as bullet prove as possible, its will save a lot of DMs and players hours of argument about it.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Do you keep making these threads to try to stop future loopholes or to use the loophole?

Both. I am genuinely trying to help with the playtest, but at the same time I can't believe how strict some of the new class' rules seem to be.

I mean, seriously, if I were make the extra investment and pick up Still Spell or something similar, I think I SHOULD be able to use my free hand for something other than Spell Combat (such as two-handed Power Attacking or dual-wielding).

I just don't like having too many exceptions like those on the Summoner. Even if the spell doesn't have somatic components I STILL have to have the hand free "just because the developers said so." That to me just feels wrong.

You're right about the wording though, it is very precise, restrictive, and easy to understand.

I understand how you feel about lack of fighting style options, but the only way to get it changed is to suggest a better way to do it that won't make it look to good.

"Because the developers said so" is a good reason to me, at least until someone comes along with a better idea. I have been trying to think of a way to make other fighting styles possible without giving the class too much, but I am falling short. Part of the problem is that I still don't know what the class is supposed to do.

The Exchange

I kinda' agree that spells without somantic components shouldn't require a free hand. Firstly, there's not a lot of them about. Secondly, it'll give you a reason to use metamagic Still Spell - which, after all, does have a cost of both taking a Feat and increasing the spell's level. If someone's willing to take that hit in order to use a two-hander, then why not? Is it really 'more powerful' or just 'different'? Maybe the design intent is one-handers only, but is that intent too restrictive for no real reason?


ProfPotts wrote:
I kinda' agree that spells without somantic components shouldn't require a free hand. Firstly, there's not a lot of them about. Secondly, it'll give you a reason to use metamagic Still Spell - which, after all, does have a cost of both taking a Feat and increasing the spell's level. If someone's willing to take that hit in order to use a two-hander, then why not? Is it really 'more powerful' or just 'different'? Maybe the design intent is one-handers only, but is that intent too restrictive for no real reason?

I think they are trying to keep the magus's damage within a certain range, and they feel like using two-handed weapons will step outside of that.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:


I think they are trying to keep the magus's damage within a certain range, and they feel like using two-handed weapons will step outside of that.

This coupled with the fact that with a single feat (Still spell) it would in an instant allow a Magus to cast any spell (1-level lower than his max) with spell combat at the same time that he uses a two-handed weapon. This would in effect cause players to be using two-weapon fighting with two-handed weapons... something that does NOT need to happen.

The Exchange

Quote:
... This would in effect cause players to be using two-weapon fighting with two-handed weapons... something that does NOT need to happen.

That's a very good point!

Dark Archive

I can see, however, an archetype that trades out spell combat for some kind of specialized two-handed weapon bonus. Something like an improved spellstrike with bigger weapons (Say the weapon gets a temporary magical enhancement bonus or something similar) but in the baseline class this is really not something that needs to be available.


I can see how using still spell with two-handed weapons could work, but I would argue against allowing it with two weapons. Spellcasting requires just too much concentration.

Also if you really want to cast and hit them with a big sword, you could always ignore spell combat and just use regular spellstrike. (assuming you could switch from 1 h to 2 h grip.

Grand Lodge

Single weapon is a very poor fighting style. Getting that on top of spells as you will not be stepping on the fighter types toes. Now if you can spell combat while using a two handed weapon or TWF...well now your starting to do what the fighter does...and then something else. This is BAD. So if you want an over powered twink class...well too bad, you'll just have to buy some mongoose stuff fo your game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProfPotts wrote:
Quote:
... This would in effect cause players to be using two-weapon fighting with two-handed weapons... something that does NOT need to happen.
That's a very good point!

It's not a good point at all. Dual-wielding with a two-handed weapon and a side weapon (unarmed strike, armor spikes, blade boot, etc.) has been proven time and time again to be inferior to normal dual-wielding or normal two-hand fighting.

Cold Napalm's assertion that it would step on the fighter's toes is a MUCH better point.

The Exchange

Quote:
It's not a good point at all. Dual-wielding with a two-handed weapon and a side weapon (unarmed strike, armor spikes, blade boot, etc.) has been proven time and time again to be inferior to normal dual-wielding or normal two-hand fighting.

Does anyone seriously allow that outside of 'thought experiments', when the Two-Weapon Fighting text starts: 'You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands...'? Weird...

Yeah, I know, topic for a different thread...

Oh, and I'll revise my previous post to:

That's a very good point! IMHO

... if it helps. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Banpai wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


You're right about the wording though, it is very precise, restrictive, and easy to understand.

I'm sorry to say this but posts like yours have made that wording necessary otherwise there would be rules lawyers cheese monkeying around it every way through Sunday.

The magus is not like any other class, it has a unique mechanic so yes there will be unique rulings to it.

Thats still a good thing. Let´s use these playstests to make the wording as bullet prove as possible, its will save a lot of DMs and players hours of argument about it.

If you have an argumentative player, they're going to be argumentative. You can double the size of the rulebooks with additional RAW just dedicated to cheesemonkey questions and you'd still have hours of argument.

Ravingdork's probes have thier use... up to a point when it just becomes added entropy.


LazarX wrote:
Banpai wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


You're right about the wording though, it is very precise, restrictive, and easy to understand.

I'm sorry to say this but posts like yours have made that wording necessary otherwise there would be rules lawyers cheese monkeying around it every way through Sunday.

The magus is not like any other class, it has a unique mechanic so yes there will be unique rulings to it.

Thats still a good thing. Let´s use these playstests to make the wording as bullet prove as possible, its will save a lot of DMs and players hours of argument about it.

If you have an argumentative player, they're going to be argumentative. You can double the size of the rulebooks with additional RAW just dedicated to cheesemonkey questions and you'd still have hours of argument.

Ravingdork's probes have thier use... up to a point when it just becomes added entropy.

If you are somehow trying to prove that instructions don't need to be precisse I disagree. There are big issues in the Magus abilities wording that go far beyond "cheesemonkey questions", if those aren't fixed then the playtest isn't much useful.


What constitutes a free hand...

Well, first it must not be holding anything. Lots of magi will be sporting mithral bucklers or holding their weapons with both hands for those rounds they don't use spell combat(probably both).

But actually using the hand to do something other than casting? I'm not sure... Small shields don't interfere with a cleric's spellcasting, but the free hand is not for casting and rather for the combined action of casting and attacking at the same time.

I think I will go with "Must not be holding anything and must not be used for anything other than activating spell combat". You can still alternate attacks with unarmed strikes(yay for not needing hands!), but you may not use anything that specifically calls for that hand in spell combat rounds (like using a shield, threatening with your gauntlet or using einhander fighter tricks).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Synapse wrote:

What constitutes a free hand...

Well, first it must not be holding anything. Lots of magi will be sporting mithral bucklers or holding their weapons with both hands for those rounds they don't use spell combat(probably both).

That just complicates things too much. I'll define it even simpler. A "free hand" is one that's not committed to anything, not holding, not wielding, not gripping, for the entire combat phase. None of this "I take one hand off my greatsword" crap.

If you are wearing gauntlets or gloves appropriate to the armor allowed by your magus level then you're good. If you are wearing heavier gauntlets than what's allowed, as in plate gauntlets when you're only allowed light armor, I allow spell combat but assign standard spell failure chances as normal. Bracers and bracelets are wrist items not hand items, so they don't come into the equation.


LazarX wrote:
Synapse wrote:

What constitutes a free hand...

Well, first it must not be holding anything. Lots of magi will be sporting mithral bucklers or holding their weapons with both hands for those rounds they don't use spell combat(probably both).

That just complicates things too much. I'll define it even simpler. A "free hand" is one that's not committed to anything, not holding, not wielding, not gripping, for the entire combat phase. None of this "I take one hand off my greatsword" crap.

Except it is supported by the rules. If an action doesn't require you to commit both hands, but other action does, then you commit both hands only during the action that does.

The cost is the action itself.

There's also a lot of freedom upon your array of attacks. A character wielding two weapons is not forced unto TWF attacks or penalties if he only uses one array of attacks. I believe one of the older examples is the bab16+ guy who full attacks, doing 2 greataxe attacks, quickdrawing and throwing a javelin, then doing the last greataxe attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Synapse wrote:


Except it is supported by the rules. If an action doesn't require you to commit both hands, but other action does, then you commit both hands only during the action that does.
The cost is the action itself.

There's also a lot of freedom upon your array of attacks. A character wielding two weapons is not forced unto TWF attacks or penalties if he only uses one array of attacks. I believe one of the older examples is the bab16+ guy who full attacks, doing 2 greataxe attacks, quickdrawing and throwing a javelin, then doing the last greataxe attack.

If a hand is "committed" at all during the combat phase... it's not free. Plain and simple.


What you are saying is that if you punch someone, you can never use that hand in combat again for anything other than punching.

Or that a wizard that poked a couple people with a staff can no longer cast somatic(which means most of them) spells until the battle ends.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Synapse wrote:

What you are saying is that if you punch someone, you can never use that hand in combat again for anything other than punching.

Or that a wizard that poked a couple people with a staff can no longer cast somatic(which means most of them) spells until the battle ends.

Let's keep to track. For the purposes of spell combat which is the only area we're discussing, you can't punch with that hand and cast with it in the same round. The rest of your statement was not relevant to the question at hand. Wizards do not do spell combat which is a UNIQUE mechanic not comparable to any other mechanic save being the "second weapon" in two handed fighting. Spell combat is supposed to be thought of as a variant of two weapon fighting. By the logic you propose a two weapon fighter while fighting with two weapons should be able to take his off hand on and off his blade to do something else in the same phase.


LazarX wrote:
Synapse wrote:

What you are saying is that if you punch someone, you can never use that hand in combat again for anything other than punching.

Or that a wizard that poked a couple people with a staff can no longer cast somatic(which means most of them) spells until the battle ends.

Let's keep to track. For the purposes of spell combat which is the only area we're discussing, you can't punch with that hand and cast with it in the same round. The rest of your statement was not relevant to the question at hand. Wizards do not do spell combat which is a UNIQUE mechanic not comparable to any other mechanic save being the "second weapon" in two handed fighting. Spell combat is supposed to be thought of as a variant of two weapon fighting. By the logic you propose a two weapon fighter while fighting with two weapons should be able to take his off hand on and off his blade to do something else in the same phase.

How are we even disagreeing them? I am one of the first professers that you can do nothing with the free hand for spell combat. Spell Combat is the action price I mentioned a couple posts ago.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wouldn't it be kinda like a buckler?
If you use the arm it's on for anything other than defense in that entire round, you don't get the +1 to AC.
If you use your off hand for anything other than casting in the entire round, you can't use it for casting.

Why is this complicated?


Kryzbyn wrote:

Wouldn't it be kinda like a buckler?

If you use the arm it's on for anything other than defense in that entire round, you don't get the +1 to AC.
If you use your off hand for anything other than casting in the entire round, you can't use it for casting.

Why is this complicated?

Attacking and spellcasting is interchangeable for that purpose. You can, for example, attack, attack, cast a swift spell and attack again. The three attacks are a full round action(a full attack), and the swift spell is a swift action.

It's simpler than the alternatives in the sense that it's actually "attacks don't demand a specific crafted weapon" + "you are not wielding a weapon when you cast the spell, so you don't need both hands if it's a 2h".
Shields are the exception to this: You must not attack with the shield hand to use the shield.

Spell Combat doesn't fit under any of these rules because spell combat is an action of its own, which requires a free hand and a 1h, and it lets you both perform a full attack and cast a spell.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Synapse wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Wouldn't it be kinda like a buckler?

If you use the arm it's on for anything other than defense in that entire round, you don't get the +1 to AC.
If you use your off hand for anything other than casting in the entire round, you can't use it for casting.

Why is this complicated?

Attacking and spellcasting is interchangeable for that purpose. You can, for example, attack, attack, cast a swift spell and attack again. The three attacks are a full round action(a full attack), and the swift spell is a swift action.

Well, a swift spell, ok. But spell combat says the spell can not be cast in the middle of iteritive attacks. Either before or after.

Also, if you're able to cast spells as a swift action, then you don't need to use spell combat at all.
I think the part people are missing is the bonus to concentration checks from spell combat. Either use spell combat and cast, or don't and lose the bonuses to your concentration check. It's as simple as that.
The reason the answer is no to the quicken spell and a two hander is because, for some reason the way it works, if your hand isn't free you can't defray the penalties to the concentration check. use a two hander and cast a swift spell, ok, but you can't use spell combat.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm of the opinion, now, that one's hand needs to be free not for the entire round, but for the duration of the full round action in which you are using spell combat.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm of the opinion, now, that one's hand needs to be free not for the entire round, but for the duration of the full round action in which you are using spell combat.

Well, in the sense that a full round action takes the entire round save for a swift/free/immediate action and/or a 5' step...


Kryzbyn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm of the opinion, now, that one's hand needs to be free not for the entire round, but for the duration of the full round action in which you are using spell combat.
Well, in the sense that a full round action takes the entire round save for a swift/free/immediate action and/or a 5' step...

It remains relevant. Attacks of opportunity occur outside of your round. Attacks made with those actions (like with some of the 3.5 material, and probably a spell or two from the converted stuff, and almost definitely in the foreseeable future) definitely benefit from not being restricted by spell combat.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Synapse wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm of the opinion, now, that one's hand needs to be free not for the entire round, but for the duration of the full round action in which you are using spell combat.
Well, in the sense that a full round action takes the entire round save for a swift/free/immediate action and/or a 5' step...
It remains relevant. Attacks of opportunity occur outside of your round. Attacks made with those actions (like with some of the 3.5 material, and probably a spell or two from the converted stuff, and almost definitely in the foreseeable future) definitely benefit from not being restricted by spell combat.

Well, if the penalties for power attack last through out the round even for AoO, then it'd be the same for Spell Combat.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Synapse wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm of the opinion, now, that one's hand needs to be free not for the entire round, but for the duration of the full round action in which you are using spell combat.
Well, in the sense that a full round action takes the entire round save for a swift/free/immediate action and/or a 5' step...
It remains relevant. Attacks of opportunity occur outside of your round. Attacks made with those actions (like with some of the 3.5 material, and probably a spell or two from the converted stuff, and almost definitely in the foreseeable future) definitely benefit from not being restricted by spell combat.
Well, if the penalties for power attack last through out the round even for AoO, then it'd be the same for Spell Combat.

I'm not so sure. You take the penalties for Power Attack past your turn because the feat specifically says you do. There is no such text for either Spell Combat or Two-Weapon Fighting. That leads me to believe that you only take the penalties on the attacks that they specifically mention.

If I were to use spell combat and cast a touch spell, for example, my full attack would take a -2 penalty to hit whereas my touch attack would not.

If I were dual-wielding, I would take penalties to my full attack routine, but not to any attacks of opportunity I may make later on in the same round.

Sovereign Court

Spell Combat currently reads: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

I believe it should read: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free or wield a staff or a wand, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

This removes problems down the road for those using Wand Wielder and Wand Mastery. Either fix this problem in the Spell Combat wording or address it with a revised Wand Wielder paragraph, as per the following: (my preferred option)

Wand Wielder (Su): When using spell combat, a magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff with one hand in place of casting a spell, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

BINGO! :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Spell Combat currently reads: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

I believe it should read: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free or wield a staff or a wand, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

This removes problems down the road for those using Wand Wielder and Wand Mastery. Either fix this problem in the Spell Combat wording or address it with a revised Wand Wielder paragraph, as per the following: (my preferred option)

Wand Wielder (Su): When using spell combat, a magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff with one hand in place of casting a spell, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

BINGO! :)

That's a start anyways. I still think magus should be able to wield a staff two-handed with spell combat.

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Spell Combat currently reads: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

I believe it should read: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free or wield a staff or a wand, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

This removes problems down the road for those using Wand Wielder and Wand Mastery. Either fix this problem in the Spell Combat wording or address it with a revised Wand Wielder paragraph, as per the following: (my preferred option)

Wand Wielder (Su): When using spell combat, a magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff with one hand in place of casting a spell, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

BINGO! :)

That's a start anyways. I still think magus should be able to wield a staff two-handed with spell combat.

staff = quarterstaff = double weapon = equivalent to one handed and light for the purposes of TWF... so technically gripping a staff and activating it in lieu of a spell during spell combat means you have a one handed weapon in the other so you're good... hey, it's not our fault if staves are the greatest magic items ever made and that they can be considered light weapons or one handed weapons whenever it suits a mage's fancy! :)

Grand Lodge

Well no, the staff still woudln't work for TWF even with that use of wand wielder. Spell combat specifically says you get all attacks with A (as in one, singular, no more then 1) light or one handed (as in not a staff if wielded in two hand) along with casting a spell. Unless an arcana is added to change that or the final version is altered, you will NEVER EVER get to TWF or THF with spell combat.

Sovereign Court

Cold Napalm wrote:
Well no, the staff still woudln't work for TWF even with that use of wand wielder. Spell combat specifically says you get all attacks with A (as in one, singular, no more then 1) light or one handed (as in not a staff if wielded in two hand) along with casting a spell. Unless an arcana is added to change that or the final version is altered, you will NEVER EVER get to TWF or THF with spell combat.

When gripping the staff in two hands it is in effect a one handed and light weapon. I agree that final Wand Wielder wording should be amended to allow a one handed weapon + wand combo, or one handed weapon + staff combo, as per my post above. I agree with you on the staff double weapon conundrum, so perhaps the final Wand Wielder wording should go like this:

Wand Wielder (Su): When using spell combat, a magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff with one hand in place of casting a spell, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon or the other end of a thusly activated staff (only if used as a double weapon) in the other hand.


Simpler than that...

Wand Wielder: When performing spell combat, you can activate a staff or wand instead of casting a spell. The free hand must hold the wand or the staff, or the staff must be wielded 2-handed.

I also believe Wand Wielder would be (ex)... all the magic from that arcana comes from the spells being cast already. Not that it matters must in AMFs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Synapse wrote:

Why is this complicated?

Attacking and spellcasting is interchangeable for that purpose. You can, for example, attack, attack, cast a swift spell and attack again. The three attacks are a full round action(a full attack), and the swift spell is a swift action.

Actually no you can't You can do your swift spell before or after your full attack action but not during. A full attack action is a single action and actions can not be broken up by inserting another action inside it.


LazarX wrote:
Synapse wrote:

Why is this complicated? Attacking and spellcasting is interchangeable for that purpose. You can, for example, attack, attack, cast a swift spell and attack again. The three attacks are a full round action(a full attack), and the swift spell is a swift action.

Actually no you can't You can do your swift spell before or after your full attack action but not during. A full attack action is a single action and actions can not be broken up by inserting another action inside it.
Core p.188 wrote:

Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

As the bolded part says...you can. Free actions can be done any time in your turn, even between actions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Synapse wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Synapse wrote:

Why is this complicated? Attacking and spellcasting is interchangeable for that purpose. You can, for example, attack, attack, cast a swift spell and attack again. The three attacks are a full round action(a full attack), and the swift spell is a swift action.

Actually no you can't You can do your swift spell before or after your full attack action but not during. A full attack action is a single action and actions can not be broken up by inserting another action inside it.
Core p.188 wrote:

Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

As the bolded part says...you can. Free actions can be done any time in your turn, even between actions.

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.


i played the magus last night. it was pretty clear you have to have a light or one hand weapon in hand A and nothing at all in hand B.
you cant have a bow in had a
you cant have a wand in hand a
it has to be a light or one handed weapon and nothing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:

i played the magus last night. it was pretty clear you have to have a light or one hand weapon in hand A and nothing at all in hand B.

you cant have a bow in had a
you cant have a wand in hand a
it has to be a light or one handed weapon and nothing.

What about an appropriate weapon in hand A and a wand in hand B? That seems to be the intent of the designers with Wand Wielder.


Ravingdork wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

i played the magus last night. it was pretty clear you have to have a light or one hand weapon in hand A and nothing at all in hand B.

you cant have a bow in had a
you cant have a wand in hand a
it has to be a light or one handed weapon and nothing.
What about an appropriate weapon in hand A and a wand in hand B? That seems to be the intent of the designers with Wand Wielder.

well ya that's an alternate power, but you have to 'buy' that...im just talking for the purposes of the 'OP question'...too bad you cant wand and wand...lol

Scarab Sages

Synapse wrote:
It remains relevant. Attacks of opportunity occur outside of your round. Attacks made with those actions (like with some of the 3.5 material, and probably a spell or two from the converted stuff, and almost definitely in the foreseeable future) definitely benefit from not being restricted by spell combat.

There seems to be a little confusion. Attacks of opportunity happen outside your "turn" but within one of your rounds. Your round starts on your initiative and ends just before your next initiative. Full-round actions like casting some spells and full attacks take your entire round to perform, you just resolve them all on your turn, or just before your next turn in the case of spells. A regular series of actions in a turn, i.e. standard action, move action, free action, and immediate action could be said to take your entire round as well. For each character combat is a series of rounds without interruption. Different people's rounds simply start and end at different times in relation to each other.

Shane

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 3: Revised Magus Discussion / What makes my hand "free" for the purposes of Spell Combat? All Messageboards