ok so after the second run of magus-ness here we go:
I took the combat casting feat, and focused mind trait (since i hadnt had traits before)
now it seems like i can cast in peoples faces with impunity?
fight defensively and its definitely true.
My AC is 21 normally (18 dex, +1 chainshirt, +1 ring of protection and +1 amulet of nat. armor)
all the things I have ,we found with the exception of the +1 chain shirt, we sold stuff on the shiv to buy some armor, in elder, my character inherited it from a dead dwarf character.
it seems to me to be convenient for buffing too, the magus doesnt really need to think about it ahead of time. I can cast shield if I need to, but not have to anticipate it.
I have awesome character stats:
str 17
dex 18
con 8
int 18
wis 10
chr 9
( i rolled 17, 16, 15, 10, 10 , 9) so it helps alot in this case because of the extra plus here and there,
Seems to me skill focus spellcraft would definately come in handy, and since half elf gets one for free, i hardly ever know what to do with. It seems to me a half elf could make a pretty decent magus.
can you imagine what my concentration check would be, with an 18 int, skill focus, focused mind and combat casting? all of which is attainable at first level!
not too shabby.
I still havent really used my arcane pool ( i get busy and forget about it) and I have a +1 sword. When i remember it, im busy trying to save it, and when I could use it I forget about it, but I think I'll get used to that.
fighting with one sword brings me some nostalgia from the old days of DnD, before feats, before ambi dexterity, before any two weapon fighting it was common to have someone doing it nothing with the other hand, thieves didnt use shields, and they always did the one sword thing.
with the advent of new editions, I always seem to me hand mongering, trying to do something with the other hand (shield ,two weapon fighting, something) I felt naked with one hand floating around.
then came along APG with their "free hand fighter" archetype and i said hmmmmm, i considered it for this character at first, but i had ot make it in a hurry, as my first had just died and i wanted to keep playing, so I didnt bother with it just yet.
I picked up a shield just to do something with the other hand, and. well the mini I wanted to use has a shield.
The character I had in mind was a seltyiel based kinda guy in the first place, and i was going for EK (my favorite type of character ever since I first played an elf in basic).
I never really used the PrCs before pathfinder, because most of the time I ended up playing a rogue, or a cleric, because we didnt have on in the party. Plus as they were in 3.5, forwhatever reason they didnt appeal to me.
I hand't bothered to look at Magus, I had done an extensive amount of beat testing for Pathfinder when it first came about and was rather attached to the way they had the fighter and did the shield feats and fighter armor training in beta.... i miss the beat fighter.
Anyway so i hadnt gotten into the magus (and i thought it was another PrC) until this week when i noticed it was pretty much all but done.
Come to find out... Ill probably not ever play anything else!
IT IS my ELF!
its funny how it exactly fit what I wanted to do with the character, with out me actually knowing that the class even existed when i made the character. (as it started out a fighter, going for EK someday).
Spell combat and spell strike are nifty, but im curious is there a NEED to take arcane strike? seems a bit redundant?
|
I still havent really used my arcane pool ( i get busy and forget about it) and I have a +1 sword. When i remember it, im busy trying to save it, and when I could use it I forget about it, but I think I'll get used to that.
It's a complex class with a lot of mechanics to keep track of. As you say, you'll probably get used to it. I recommend doing so sooner rather than later, though. It won't be too long before not using it is going to cause you to fall behind other PCs.
Spell combat and spell strike are nifty, but im curious is there a NEED to take arcane strike? seems a bit redundant?
Current rules prohibit Arcane Strike from stacking with Magus weapon enhancements per Jason. It is unclear if that will remain in the final version.
As to necessity, If you will likely have a fair number of swift actions available, it's not bad. Costing the same resource as Weapon Specialization, Arcane Strike equals it by 10th level and surpasses it at 15. It also is nice in that it works on any weapon you pick up so even without your normal weapon you can do increased damage and treat it as magic for the purposes of DR. Without the ability to do two hander damage when using Spell Combat, the extra damage can help the Magus compete with other melee casters like the Inquisitor.
ok, so i muddled with spell strike tonight.
im a wee bit confused but i think i got it right.
so from what i understand, if i use it with spell combat... it gives me another attack with my same sword, so i get the benefit of extra damage from the sword, at the trade off that i have to hit ac and not touch ac. but if i dont want to spell strike, i dont get the extra damage from my sword, but i get the benefit of only needing to hit touch ac, am i right?
so can i spell combat, spell strike and arcane pool for a flaming weapon all at once?
if so Im doing it right and its kickin!
I tooled something using my falcata, tipped a crit and dropped a HUGE mantis monster in two rounds.
I went to level 6 tonight.
decided to take familiar as my arcana, more for flavor than anything else, but the ability to deliver touch attacks with my familiar might be handier than for regular mages so i want to play with it, and at next level, ill take improved familiar as a feat, looking for either a fire elemental (since my spells seem to be all fire) or a psuedo dragon.
I know im not optimising my magus, but i dont really play that way... i think hes drilling hard as it is, if after tonight, i really can do all that in one round.
...can you imagine what my concentration check would be, with an 18 int, skill focus, focused mind and combat casting? all of which is attainable at first level!
Don't forget that Spellcraft is not associated with Concentration checks anymore, so Skill Focus isn't going to help, unfortunately.
Also, combining Spell Strike with Spell Combat can be problematic.
In a "best case" scenario, you will have a "held" charge that you can discharge with the fist hit (gaining weapon damage, crit range, and spell damage), then cast a spell as your second attack (doing spell damage).
Just remember that if you cast a spell while holding a charge, the held spell is lost, so if you miss with the weapon attack, you either lose out on Spell Combat or lose the held spell.
|
|
so from what i understand, if i use it with spell combat... it gives me another attack with my same sword, so i get the benefit of extra damage from the sword, at the trade off that i have to hit ac and not touch ac. but if i dont want to spell strike, i dont get the extra damage from my sword, but i get the benefit of only needing to hit touch ac, am i right?
I'm not sure how you got that wrong but you did. It's pretty clear in Spell Strike that it doesn't work that way.
If used with spell combat, this does not grant an additional attack.
so from what i understand, if i use it with spell combat... it gives me another attack with my same sword, so i get the benefit of extra damage from the sword, at the trade off that i have to hit ac and not touch ac. but if i dont want to spell strike, i dont get the extra damage from my sword, but i get the benefit of only needing to hit touch ac, am i right?I'm not sure how you got that wrong but you did. It's pretty clear in Spell Strike that it doesn't work that way.
If used with spell combat, this does not grant an additional attack.
no, i dont get an "additonal attack", but i get two (one for the sword and one for the spell)
If I attack with the sword (and doing spell combat) go to use spell strike, then I attack with the sword again (in lieu of the touch attack), there by, getting the extra damage of the sword, combined with the the damage of the touch attack, so i get the bonus of the damage from the word again, but loose the extra easy touch attack (as I have to hit the targets normal ac, instead of touch AC)
so it's still a left and right hand attack (two attacks)
not three.
or at least thats the way im understanding other wise i dont get why i would want to use spell strike at all?
I think you're looking at it wrong. From my understanding, you get your one attack with the sword, and you can cast one spell. If you cast a touch attack spell (such as chill touch) you don't recieve your extra attack (touch attack or normal). You could, in one round, cast chill touch first, and then use your one attack to deliver the charge. Or cast chill touch regularly (weather in combat or not), and on the next round make your chilled attack with the sword and then cast another spell. Or you could attack with the sword, cast chill touch and hold the charge until the next round.
The "additional" attack you don't get is the touch attack the spell grants you.
I think you're looking at it wrong. From my understanding, you get your one attack with the sword, and you can cast one spell. If you cast a touch attack spell (such as chill touch) you don't recieve your extra attack (touch attack or normal). You could, in one round, cast chill touch first, and then use your one attack to deliver the charge. Or cast chill touch regularly (weather in combat or not), and on the next round make your chilled attack with the sword and then cast another spell. Or you could attack with the sword, cast chill touch and hold the charge until the next round.
The "additional" attack you don't get is the touch attack the spell grants you.
If successful, this
melee attack deals its normal damage as well as theeffects of the spell. Instead of the free melee touch attack
normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make
one free melee attack with his weapon as part of casting
this spell.....
this is the confusing part, with the inclusion of the word free.
then it says:If used with spell combat, this does not grant
an additional attack.
so then why not say : this cannot be used with spell combat?
WHY would I used spell combat WITH spell strike?
the way i understand it is, I can cast my touch spell through my blade.
IF I dont use spell combat, i dont get a -2. but I only get one standard action, so I could move, cast spell, and attack through my sword (as a free action) so why in HADES would I want to use this WITH spell combat, that gives me a -2, but not an additional attack?
the only reason i see for spell strike at ALL is A) to get through DR (one attack instead of two attacks, so the Dr is applied only once)
or B) I can move and still do the damage of 2 attacks (albiet if it hit)
so then shouldnt it say "spell strike cannot be used with spell combat" since spell combat is the dual wielding ability?
lets say i used spell strike, because my weapon critical is way better than my touch attack, would the spell damage crit with my sword damage?
lets say i used spell strike, because my weapon critical is way better than my touch attack, would the spell damage crit with my sword damage?
According to the Devs, yes, but be warned that that little tidbit was left out of the playtest rules.
As for mixing Spell Strike and Spell Combat:
It usually isn't the best of choices, but as you pointed out, it does have its place. Spell Strike is usually an "opening gambit" when you are within a move action of the target. Spell Combat is usually the option when "toe to toe." You should mix the two when you're pretty sure you will be able to hit, so that you can take advantage of the improved crit range of the weapon.
TL;DR: You CAN mix the two, but it's not often the best strategy.
lets say i used spell strike, because my weapon critical is way better than my touch attack, would the spell damage crit with my sword damage?According to the Devs, yes, but be warned that that little tidbit was left out of the playtest rules.
As for mixing Spell Strike and Spell Combat:
It usually isn't the best of choices, but as you pointed out, it does have it's place. Spell Strike is usually an "opening gambit" when you are within a move action of the target. Spell Combat is usually the option when "toe to toe." You should mix the two when you're pretty sure you will be able to hit, so that you can take advantage of the improved crit range of the weapon.
TL;DR: You CAN mix the two, but it's not often the best strategy.
so by mixing the two how does it work? One attack with your sword, and another attack with your sword via the spellstrike (in lieu of the free touch attack?)
so by mixing the two how does it work? One attack with your sword, and another attack with your sword via the spellstrike (in lieu of the free touch attack?)
Unfortunately, no. If you mix the two, you don't gain any additional weapon attacks. The most common situation (IMHO) is as follows:
Rd 1: Cast Shocking Grasp (for example), close with the target, but miss with the attack.
Rd 2: Declare Spell Combat and Spell Strike. Attack with the weapon first, hoping to discharge the spell with the weapon. THEN cast your spell. If it's another Shocking Grasp, then you get the touch attack, but NOT another weapon attack.
If you miss with the weapon attack, then you have a decision: Do I continue to hold the charge and forgo casting the spell? Or do I cast another spell and lose the held touch attack.
-Or-
Rd 1: Cast True Strike. Close with target.
Rd 2: Declare Spell Combat and Spell Strike. Cast Shocking Grasp (or other touch spell), forgo the touch attack and attempt to channel using your weapon attack (with the TS bonus). This (almost) guarantees a hit and, if your attack roll falls into the weapon crit range, a critical hit.
There may certainly be other situations where combining the two is advisable, but I can't think of any at the moment.
so by mixing the two how does it work? One attack with your sword, and another attack with your sword via the spellstrike (in lieu of the free touch attack?)
Unfortunately, no. If you mix the two, you don't gain any additional weapon attacks. The most common situation (IMHO) is as follows:
Rd 1: Cast Shocking Grasp (for example), close with the target, but miss with the attack.
Rd 2: Declare Spell Combat and Spell Strike. Attack with the weapon first, hoping to discharge the spell with the weapon. THEN cast your spell. If it's another Shocking Grasp, then you get the touch attack, but NOT another weapon attack.
If you miss with the weapon attack, then you have a decision: Do I continue to hold the charge and forgo casting the spell? Or do I cast another spell and lose the held touch attack.
-Or-
Rd 1: Cast True Strike. Close with target.
Rd 2: Declare Spell Combat and Spell Strike. Cast Shocking Grasp (or other touch spell), forgo the touch attack and attempt to channel using your weapon attack (with the TS bonus). This (almost) guarantees a hit and, if your attack roll falls into the weapon crit range, a critical hit.
There may certainly be other situations where combining the two is advisable, but I can't think of any at the moment.
well in this case i think the way it is intended to work should be fixed to the way i try to use it.
the balance.
you still get the spell combat two attacks, you gain the extra damage of the weapon (again), but loose the advantage of just touching the enemy and instead have to hit his AC.
I think thats balanced, you pick up the weapon damage and the possibly better crit, but have a worse chance to hit.
otherwise the ability should say it cannot be used with spell combat, simply to avoid confusion, because effectively, if it works the way you say it does....it actually DOESNT work with spell combat.
|
|
It works with Spell Combat and making them not work together because it can be a bit confusing is ridiculous. There will be people who want to forgo making a touch attack in Spell Combat to add the touch spell damage to their weapon. They will get the benefit of the threat range and any other benefit that you might have on a single attack (like True Strike).
Further, it's not really accurate to say you're missing out on a free attack by doing this. A touch attack doesn't do any damage in and of itself, just the spell carried along. A hit with a Spell Striked sword does the same damage a a hit with a sword and a hit with a touch attack.
It would not be at all balanced to just give a Magus a free melee attack any time they use a touch spell as part of a full attack. That's like having Haste on for most of the day. Not balanced. Not good.
It works with Spell Combat and making them not work together because it can be a bit confusing is ridiculous. There will be people who want to forgo making a touch attack in Spell Combat to add the touch spell damage to their weapon. They will get the benefit of the threat range and any other benefit that you might have on a single attack (like True Strike).
Further, it's not really accurate to say you're missing out on a free attack by doing this. A touch attack doesn't do any damage in and of itself, just the spell carried along. A hit with a Spell Striked sword does the same damage a a hit with a sword and a hit with a touch attack.
It would not be at all balanced to just give a Magus a free melee attack any time they use a touch spell as part of a full attack. That's like having Haste on for most of the day. Not balanced. Not good.
arg, look.
spell combat IS two weapon fighting for magi. YOU GET TWO ATTACKS.Spell strike is adding the effect of a touch spell to a weapon.
If in your interpretation, by using spellstrike, you do NOT get the effect of spell combat (which is two weapon fighting) they essentially do NOT work together.
spell combat gives you TWO attacks.
you are saying by using spell strike WITH spell combat it is now ONLY one attack.
therefore it is NO longer spellcombat.
Why wouldnt I just straight up spellstrike in that case, since spellstrike says i get a free attack with my weapon as part of casting the spell (essentially ONE attack), so i am attacking with my weapon instead of my free hand.
Spell combat I attack with my free hand for a touch attack, and my sword. TWO attacks.
Spellstrike WITH spellcombat would be what then, cast a spell into my sword, and attack with the sword... thats exactly the same as spell strike is already, except now i want to take a -2 to do it?
by your reasoning and logic, spellstrike and spellcombat are incompatible.
what the disclaimer in spellstrike is trying to say, is it does not give you a third attack when used in conjunction with spell combat, but basically gives you the sword damage, again, in conjunction with the spell, in lieu of the free hand touch.
if it doesnt say that,it says you get one attack only
(not two) and then if fact it is not spellstrike and spell combat alone, but simply just spellstrike, you cant have your cake and eat it too, it is one of them or the other.
haste (or hated assault) woukd be the THIRD attack, so in the spell combat case (with hasted assault) sword, touch spell, sword. thats haste.
|
|
You're missing the point. Spell Combat (before iteratives anyway) is like two attacks, one with your weapon and one a spell which for this example is a touch spell. But it's only like two attacks. A touch attack is not a true attack. You don't add your Str or unarmed damage to the attack, you just deliver the spell.
Spell Combat in conjunction with Spell Strike still gives you both of those attacks, the weapon attack and the spell but they both occur on the same roll. Damage wise, it's identical to making a touch attack and a weapon attack (excepting the improved crit range).
What you're suggesting is that the Magus should get his weapon attack (dX+ Str) and his weapon attack again with a spell attached (dX+Str+spell). That's ridiculously unbalanced.
Anyway, I've explained to you how it works and clearly, I think, explained why. If you post more playtest stuff I'll read it but I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore.
Pendagast, I really don´t know why you continue to throw out stuff like ´by your reasoning and logic, spellstrike and spellcombat are incompatable´ when YuenglingDragon is specifically noting the circumstances where working together has advantageous benefits, e.g. weapon crit range/multiplier on touch effects... Everybody reading this thread can see that YD does not believe such a thing (obviously, Spellstrike explicitly does work with Spell Combat), yet you apparently think you can {win} or something by putting words in his mouth rather than just agreeing to disagree, or agreeing that the current wording is confusing, which seems the most productive stance to take given this is a playtest and not final rules.
Likewise, you´re glossing over the major difference between spellstrike as standard action (one attack) and spell combat (possibly with spellstrike) which is a full attack and allows ITERATIVE ATTACKS. If you want Iterative Attacks, you are going to either Full Attack normally or with Spell Combat (if you also want the spell). Whether done as Standard or Full Attack, Spellstrike gains you the weapon crit range for the touch attack effect (which should almost always be better than normal touch attack crit range/multiplier). I think you´re also ignoring the case of spells granting multiple touch attacks* over several rounds, in which case using spellstrike would allow SUBSEQUENT iteratives (or AoO´s) to deliver the touch effects - Though unless you use a spell like Calcific Touch (which doesn´t need to be held), if you don´t want to lose Held Charges you will need to make all attacks discharging the effect FIRST and then cast the Spell Combat spell (which may have it´s OWN touch attack if you so choose, or could be a non-Touch spell).
I think you´re really getting too hung up on Spell Combat being 2WF - IT´S NOT: there IS NO -2 penalty to Spell Combat touch spell attack rolls per current RAW (though I feel that penalty SHOULD well apply)... That wording at this point is just an analogy with no actual invocation of 2WF rule-set. Yeah, I see how the current wording is confusing you, and hopefully that´s cleared up along with any actual functionality changes, but what YuenglingDragon is describing is how everybody else understands this to work. Just search the playtest forum... Nobody is playing it as you describe.
* IN fact, and this further elaborates the difference between actual 2WF and Spell Combat, I don´t see why one can´t cast a Spell that allows touching multiple targets, for example all 4 of your allies, as part of Spell Combat... which clearly has nothing to do with 2WF. Spell Combat is about getting to Cast the spell while doing Iteratives with the main-hand. Some spells (Touch Spells) include a touch within their Casting because that´s how they take effect, some of them allowing multiple touches (usually vs. willing targets) while some only allow one, which may be an attack roll vs. non-willing targets.
actually ive read plenty of people taking the -2 for spell combat in the threads, so what your saying is, while using spell combat, the magus attacks at full for both his sword and touch attack? ( also read another thread where someone was taking the -2 to their concentration roll)
by saying "your reasoning and logic" is just another way of saying, 'your version' , 'how you understand it' etc etc,
i still dont understand how spellstrike works WITH spellcombat. Spellcombat specifically is there to let you cast a spell and attack with a light or one handed weapon thats what it does.
spellstrike (apparently) takes that "free" touch attack and combines the two into one action.
so how can an ability that allows two attacks and another that allows only one (contradicting) work together.
are you saying it only really comes into play, or full usefulness, in the case where the magus has an iterative attack (6/1 at 8th level for example) where as the magus could spellstrike on the "6" and then again on the "1"? Im still confused.. why would he need to do spellcombat in order to take advantage of 6/1 which he already has without spellcombat.
its the "free" thing thats confusing.
If magus just cast say shocking grasp, and touched someone. Bang there it is, thats all he can do for an attack (cast his spell and got his "free" touch, as part of the spell)
Spellstrike lets you do that with the sword, instead of the hand (adding the damage of the sword to the spell..replacing the "free" touch with a "free" sword)
so now give me a reasonable scenario where you can use spellstrike and spellcombat together, where it is not the same outcome as using spellstrike alone?
actually ive read plenty of people taking the -2 for spell combat in the threads, so what your saying is, while using spell combat, the magus attacks at full for both his sword and touch attack? ( also read another thread where someone was taking the -2 to their concentration roll)
by saying "your reasoning and logic" is just another way of saying, 'your version' , 'how you understand it' etc etc,
i still dont understand how spellstrike works WITH spellcombat. Spellcombat specifically is there to let you cast a spell and attack with a light or one handed weapon thats what it does.
spellstrike (apparently) takes that "free" touch attack and combines the two into one action.so how can an ability that allows two attacks and another that allows only one (contradicting) work together.
are you saying it only really comes into play, or full usefulness, in the case where the magus has an iterative attack (6/1 at 8th level for example) where as the magus could spellstrike on the "6" and then again on the "1"? Im still confused.. why would he need to do spellcombat in order to take advantage of 6/1 which he already has without spellcombat.
its the "free" thing thats confusing.
If magus just cast say shocking grasp, and touched someone. Bang there it is, thats all he can do for an attack (cast his spell and got his "free" touch, as part of the spell)
Spellstrike lets you do that with the sword, instead of the hand (adding the damage of the sword to the spell..replacing the "free" touch with a "free" sword)
so now give me a reasonable scenario where you can use spellstrike and spellcombat together, where it is not the same outcome as using spellstrike alone?
I get it now...
the key is where it says "the magus can take ALL of his attacks as a full round action at a -2 AND cast a spell.."
in the case of the 6th level magus, he only HAS one attack.
in the case of spellstrike IN a spellcombat situation the spellstrike consumes that one attack, but in the case of a 8th level magus, he would have a +1 attack (iterative) still comming.
so its just not really useful to be used together until later levels, but still would work.
Yea i think that should definately be cleaned up. you could use just as much word count to explain that ability, without referencing two weapon fighting at all, have it be clearer, and word spellstrike differently.
since you can't cast spells in between iterative attacks, but can cast one before, or after, a spellstrike/spellcombat combo would always consume the highest (ie full BAB) attack but allow any additional ones, if they exist for that character) its kind of hard to make that crystal clear between two entries, I suppose if should either be done in the spellstrike entry or a little side bar.
I don't really see the problem:
Spell Combat:
Two Weapon fighting where the offhand is replaced by the spell (if it's a touch spell, delivering the spell is part of the casting process) => for touch spell: Normal Melee attack + 1 touch
Spellstrike:
Allows you to deliver a touch spell via your melee weapon, using the crit multiplier and threat range from your weapon but sacrifice the "touch attack" boni.
As you can also deliver the touch thru the melee weapon as part of the casting, you don't need to use spell combat to "cast & bash" in one round, simply cast the spell and use the "Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make
one free melee attack with his weapon as part of casting
this spell." part to deliver the spell. (but you made the normal trade: weapon threat/crit vs. touch AC)
Both together:
only usefull by "charging" your weapon in Rd 1 and then in Rd 2 attack with weapon+charaged spell and then cast a spell.
So where's the issue?^^