|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there an official ruling on whether or not Spell Combat is a full-attack action? I'm building a magus as my new character for an existing 9th-level home game, and the GM and I are having a disagreement about the way this ability is worded. I'll happily defer to him if there's no official ruling, but I believe he'd happily defer to me if there is an official ruling that says I'm right. It's not a huge deal either way, but I figured I'd ask.
The way I read Spell Combat, it functions like two-weapon fighting, which DOES use a full-attack action. It then goes on to clarify exactly what being "like two-weapon fighting" means, during which it notes that you need to use a full-round action. I read that as being explanatory, and not as superseding the original statement that it functions like two-weapon fighting. A full-attack action IS a full-round action, so it doesn't seem to me to be problematic that it uses only the full-round terminology. The full-attack action seems inherent to the ability since the ability works "like two-weapon fighting."
My GM, on the other hand, believes the fact that it doesn't explicitly state that it's a full-attack action means it isn't, and that the "works much like two-weapon fighting" terminology is meant only to draw comparison mechanically, not to set a rules foundation. He believes the text that follows that statement is the rules, and that the two-weapon fighting reference is just a helpful way to remember how the ability works. Again, I believe the opposite: that the two-weapon fighting reference sets the foundation and that the following text clarifies that foundation.
Any verdict? That actually matters because if it's not a full-attack action, I'll get no bonus attack from haste, won't be able to use Dimensional Dervish in conjunction, etc., etc.
Its definitely, 100%, a full attack with a one handed weapon where you also get to cast a spell.
|
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.
Just read the ability and it answers this for you.
EDIT: Oh wow, maybe I should read your post a bit better! It doesn't say specifically, but typically if something says "works like X", then any questions about the ability that aren't answered in the text should be deferred to that X ability.
Otherwise, I'd say no, as Full-Attack is a specific action, and Spell Combat is another specific action, though I think going by Two-Weapon Fighting will answer more accurately :)
|
|
Just read the ability and it answers this for you.
That actually doesn't answer this for me. A full-attack action is a specific type of full-round action. The ability is very clear that it uses a full-round action. It's not as clear whether or not that full-round action is also a full-attack action.
KrispyXIV: Is that something that's been confirmed by the rules team anywhere, or is that you just agreeing with my interpretation? Either way, I appreciate it, but it certainly would hold more weight for my GM if there was an official source I could point him toward, since this is mostly an issue of unclear wording in the original text.
|
|
Just read the ability and it answers this for you.That actually doesn't answer this for me. A full-attack action is a specific type of full-round action. The ability is very clear that it uses a full-round action. It's not as clear whether or not that full-round action is also a full-attack action.
If you'll notice, I added to my post: I hadn't read yours carefully enough, thus I added my response to what you had actually asked.
I'm sorry! I'm still not seeing any changes to your post. I don't know if my browser's having refresh issues, or what, but your post still just seems to boldize the full-round action text from the ability's rules, and say that the ability answers my question. It should say more than that?
The ability says you make all of your attacks. Its doesn't spell out direct equivalency, but "all" is pretty inclusive.
I would say that all your attacks does include your haste attack or the extra attack from a speed weapon because all your attacks refers to the attacks you would normally get with a full-attack.
However, much like Cleave is its own standard action, so you can't use Vital Strike, Spell Combat is its own full-round action, so you can't use any ability that requires a full-attack action, such as Dimensional Dervish
|
|
I would say that all your attacks does include your haste attack or the extra attack from a speed weapon because all your attacks refers to the attacks you would normally get with a full-attack.
However, much like Cleave is its own standard action, so you can't use Vital Strike, Spell Combat is its own full-round action, so you can't use any ability that requires a full-attack action, such as Dimensional Dervish
Again, you're reading this the same way my GM is, but it's not the only available reading, so I'm wondering if anybody has an official ruling from Paizo staff in any way. Sean K Reynolds? Jason Bulmahn? James Jacobs? Any of them said anything about this in the past? I couldn't find anything myself.
Cleave is very clear that it requires a special sort of standard action that isn't your usual attack action. There's one reading of Spell Combat that seems to say the same (that you need a special non-full-attack full-round action to use it), but another entirely different reading of Spell Combat that would imply that it does in fact use a full-attack action (the reading that emphasizes the comparison to two-weapon fighting). Also, haste specifies that it grants an extra attack when you take a full-attack action, so if haste works Dimensional Dervish should work too, and vice versa.
I'm not trying to be rude, guys! And I appreciate the feedback either way about how you all would rule the situation, but what I'm really looking for is an official clarification. Should I submit this for the FAQ? Is it kosher to submit your own questions for the FAQ? Or do they need to be voted up there by other people?
Oops. Turns out in the case of Dimensional Dervish, I agree with your DM: it specifies a special ability to allow you to cast a spell more quickly as part of a Full Attack Action.
This already effectively emulates Spell Combat anyway, though, by getting you full attack in addition to casting a spell. So they really dont need to stack for it to work.
|
|
Yeah, I'm clear on the way Dimensional Dervish works, which is why I'm trying to figure out if Spell Combat counts as a full-attack action. By my reading, it does. You're saying you also believe it doesn't? If it doesn't, then by extension haste fails to work with Spell Combat also, as haste also specifies that it only benefits full-attack actions.
All I want is to be able to make three attacks (two at full BAB) AND cast a spell, while teleporting between each attack. (: Is that so wrong?
Yeah, I'm clear on the way Dimensional Dervish works, which is why I'm trying to figure out if Spell Combat counts as a full-attack action. By my reading, it does. You're saying you also believe it doesn't? If it doesn't, then by extension haste fails to work with Spell Combat also, as haste also specifies that it only benefits full-attack actions.
All I want is to be able to make three attacks (two at full BAB) AND cast a spell, while teleporting between each attack. (: Is that so wrong?
I would say the difference is this: Spell Combat indicates you get to make all of your attacks, so you get to go add up all of your potential attacks, normally associated with when you take a full attack action. So you consult the number and bonuses to attacks you'd get as a full attack, and you get those when you Spell Combat. That would include Haste and other temporary bonuses to number of attacks.
I think if it was intended to exclude Haste etc., it would read something to the effect of "You may make all of your attacks gained by high BAB" or something.
EDIT: Its not wrong. Its what you're doing! The spell just has to be Dimension Door.