Gunslingers do it...
Gunslingers do lots of things that others cannot... and if you look up how often people contest/ask about gunslinger mechanics, you'd know that lots of that is responsible why many DM simply ban gunslinger from their games...
that class, while nice, is simply to "finished" (imho).Also have a look at people complaining about crossbows... the only crossbows that can work more-or-less, are repeating ones.
What bothers me with the free action regrabbing is:
Spellstrike allows you to channel a touch spell through your weapon... but casting a spell (standard action) with the touch (part of that same standard action) would mean you'd have to regrab (free action) in the middle of your standard action...
Normally actions are a sequence... and normally you cannot take another action in the middle of a different action? (Like moving past somebody and attack on the way, unless you have spring attack)
The regrabbing would have to be a non-action for that?
I don't deny that you could cast that spell, hold the charge, and then channel it through your standard attack next round.
start standard action touch-spell-casting
free action weapon grip
end standard action touch-spell-channeling
-> seems like a "no" to me... you cannot split standard actions...?
I see what you're getting at, but casting a touch spell and using the touch attack granted by the touch spell is not the same action - casting the spell is a standard action and making the touch attack is a free action.
For instance it's perfectly legal to cast a touch spell with your standard action, move 30 feet with a move action, and then touch someone after you have made your move action. There was a FAQ specifically to clarify this posted here.
I see what you're getting at, but casting a touch spell and using the touch attack granted by the touch spell is not the same action - casting the spell is a standard action and making the touch attack is a free action.
For instance it's perfectly legal to cast a touch spell with your standard action, move 30 feet with a move action, and then touch someone after you have made your move action. There was a FAQ specifically to clarify this posted here.
Ok, I forgot about the cast-move-touch thing... which seems weird to me, but ok...
Although this bringts the amount of free actions to 3 per round...
free : let go 1 hand
standard : cast spell
move : position to strike
free : regrab with both hands
free : touch attack
seems like a bit too much in a single round... no?
For me a magus is pretty much a duelist... you wield a weapon in one hand and the other hand has got to be free.
People don't seem to bother about the duelist being restricted to a free hand, why are they for the magus?
One could argue that a polearm duelist would make a lot of sense...? and polearms don't get much love unfortunately.
Even with the recent (and in my opinion unfortunate) FAQ on free actions, three different free actions (shift grip to 1h, shift grip to 2h, make a touch attack) is still well within the suggested limitations on free actions laid out in the FAQ.
Part of the reason I personally like that Spellstrike works with 2h weapons is because it's one of the very few benefits the strength magus gets over the dexterity magus.
Out of curiosity, who is bothered with the magus being restricted to primarily using one hand?
Even with the recent (and in my opinion unfortunate) FAQ on free actions, three different free actions (shift grip to 1h, shift grip to 2h, make a touch attack) is still well within the suggested limitations on free actions laid out in the FAQ.
Maybe, but you have to remember that action economy is the way to go to optimize any/all classes in pathfinder: the more you get, the more powerful you are. Hence why things/trick to break action economy are so highly valued... allowing the magus to get so much seems odd, in that case the devs could have just said spellstrike works with any 1 weapon period... but then you'd have people complaining why double weapons and dual-wielding got shafted.
After all, a frostbiting double-blade sounds like a nice twist... why is that one not allowed? (quicken frostbite and then full attack with both weapon sides?)
Str over Dex or not is just a matter of perception... a mobile build will want Dex, while a "wall" will want Str and iterative power-attacks, but you actually take those multiple attacks away if you only use spell-strike and not spell-combat?
I guess it's just that people are so afraid of MAD classes, that any means to cut down on attributes, is ok... like using dex for everything attack/damage/AC/refl related.
Str has more feats to play around with... also Str is the way to go if you intend to go maneuvers (which, with True Strike and Arcane Accuracy, is a very solid combination for Magi) because of the sheer number of feats required for maneuver-specialization.
Well, the main reason the magus can't use two handed weapons or two weapon fighting with Spell Combat is because he is "already" using two weapon fighting - the offhand weapon is the spell he casts. Note the -2 attack penalty for using Spell Combat.
A Magus casting a Quickened Frostbite and then doing a full attack with a double-blade is perfectly legal... I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here?
Actually, a double blade is a decent comparison to Spell Combat. If a person who normally fights with a double blade is unable to do a full attack (for instance he is charging) he can use the weapon as a two-handed weapon instead of a double weapon to get the additional strength benefit from THF on, for instance, power attack. I've seen a high-strength ranger concept who alternated between THF and TWF with an orc double axe surprisingly well.
A Magus casting a Quickened Frostbite and then doing a full attack with a double-blade is perfectly legal... I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here?
Because if you allow double weapons, you'll have a hard time explaining why two kukris should not be allowed.
If a magus is allowed to use spell-strike with a two-handed weapon, why not allow him dual-wielding too...? two-weapon-fighting has always been considered weaker then two-hand-fighting (except for rogues, because of multi-sneak-attacking).So why should a magus, who by flavor and concept is a blade+magic dual-wielder, be allowed to wield a two-handed weapon or double weapon and cast spells through it?
Actually, a double blade is a decent comparison to Spell Combat. If a person who normally fights with a double blade is unable to do a full attack (for instance he is charging) he can use the weapon as a two-handed weapon instead of a double weapon to get the additional strength benefit from THF on, for instance, power attack. I've seen a high-strength ranger concept who alternated between THF and TWF with an orc double axe surprisingly well.
And a magus could swap between 1-hand hitting and 2-hand hitting on _different_ rounds with a bastard sword just fine. I just don't see the need for a Magus to have 2-hand-weapon-spell-striking, too.
Although this bringts the amount of free actions to 3 per round...
Please, let it go. FAQ can clarify rules, but not overwrite them. There's no limit to free action, DMs are encouraged to limit the number of free action to a reasonable amount, the FAQ suggest (and only suggest, is a suggestion with same value of mine) a range of 3-5. So, let's leave that FAQ alone, please :)
free : let go 1 hand
standard : cast spell
move : position to strike
free : regrab with both hands
free : touch attackseems like a bit too much in a single round... no?
Hmmm. I can't see the too much. Let's start from the scratch. I suppose you find an ok amount with single standard+move, right?
Now, that's a bit less than what a pc is allowed to do in a single round: standard, move, and we left aside the swift. So I suppose you're ok with std+move+swift.Now, let's move on: a swift action requires an effort that per rules is more than a free action, and use a really small amount of time compared to a std or a move action. So, I think you can do something like 1 swift=1,5-2 free. Let's say 1,5. Now, you have a std+move+1,5 free. But a pc is allowed to do a swift in his round and an immediate outside his round, and immediates are the same of swits, but you can do it in other turns. So, we end up with a std+move+3 free (swift + immediate) in a single round, and that just remaining low on free/swift ratio.
Add to this that a quickened spell need much more effort than speak or open your hand to left an hilt.
Again, when I have a broom to clean the floor, I can "change the hold" from 1 hand to 2 hands and viceversa without even think of it (if you ask why I should hold it 1 handed, well, I must somehow gather the dust in the dustpan, yup? :)). I suppose an expert adventurer (even at 1st level magus is far more expert than mine at combat :P) can do it in even less time.
So... do you still think that these 3 free action are so much? :)
For me a magus is pretty much a duelist... you wield a weapon in one hand and the other hand has got to be free.
People don't seem to bother about the duelist being restricted to a free hand, why are they for the magus?
Because the magus is a warrior with spellcasting abilities that can, anyway deal a decent damage with a 2 handed weapon if they don't need/don't want/ cannot use spells. A duelist rely entirely on his 1 handed style. Magus is more... "brutal" somehow. Is a warrior with some spells, but i can throw itself in melee with a big weapon after a couple of spells to buff himself.
Now, that's a bit less than what a pc is allowed to do in a single round: standard, move, and we left aside the swift. So I suppose you're ok with std+move+swift.
Now, let's move on: a swift action requires an effort that per rules is more than a free action, and use a really small amount of time compared to a std or a move action. So, I think you can do something like 1 swift=1,5-2 free. Let's say 1,5. Now, you have a std+move+1,5 free. But a pc is allowed to do a swift in his round and an immediate outside his round, and immediates are the same of swits, but you can do it in other turns. So, we end up with a std+move+3 free (swift + immediate) in a single round, and that just remaining low on free/swift ratio.
No I am talking about doing 3 free actions with a single hand... and nothing stops that same magus to move with his move action and activate arcane strike or something else with that swift action: breaking action economy.
Now if you tell me that you want to do the letting go + regrabbing instead of your movement and still get the attack... we might find a houserule for that, but then you loose what people want out of that 2-hand-weapon-spell-strike: a mobile str magus build.
Add to this that a quickened spell need much more effort than speak or open your hand to left an hilt.
Again, when I have a broom to clean the floor, I can "change the hold" from 1 hand to 2 hands and viceversa without even think of it (if you ask why I should hold it 1 handed, well, I must somehow gather the dust in the dustpan, yup? :)). I suppose an expert adventurer (even at 1st level magus is far more expert than mine at combat :P) can do it in even less time.So... do you still think that these 3 free action are so much? :)
For a single limb (off hand)? yes
If it were 2 free actions with one hand and 2 free actions with your other hand and talking (with your mouth): fine by me :-)Letting go of the broom, dust into a pan and regrab the broom, with the option to walk around and do a swift action on top of that, all of it in 6 seconds? not even as a black-belt "floor-specialist". ;-)
Magus is more... "brutal" somehow. Is a warrior with some spells, but it can throw itself in melee with a big weapon after a couple of spells to buff himself.
A brutal warrior with spellcasting (buffing) abilities is an Eldritch Knight...
A magus is somebody who blends fighting and magic... that does not sound very brutish to me, the fact that magus relies on int, means he'd be more reliant on smart tactics, too... just like a duelist.
The Staff Magus does NOT break that rule. Because he gets Quarterstaff Mastery as a free feat, which gives him a one handed fighting style with the staff.James Jacobs said "but overall, magi do not use two-handed weapons. They need to keep a hand free for spellcasting—they're not "fighter/wizards" as much as they are two weapon fighters who just happen to use spells as their off-hand weapon. So two-handed weapons are nonsensical in most cases—the staff magus is the only one I know of that breaks that rule."
thanks for reminding LazarX :-) totally agree.
so Magus ~ Duelist with spell in off-hand
Out of curiosity, my understanding has always been that Spell Combat requires you to keep a hand open for the duration of the action - not simply until you've cast the spell. Is that explicitly spelled-out anywhere in the rules?
No I am talking about doing 3 free actions with a single hand... and nothing stops that same magus to move with his move action and activate arcane strike or something else with that swift action: breaking action economy.
I don't see how this could be saw as "break action economy": a rogue with a scimitar in 1 hand and a wand of shocking grasp in the other could:
-standard: cast shocking grasp via wand-free: drop the wand
-move: approach enemy
-free: touch attack for SG
-free: switch 2 handed.
I don't see the difference.
So... do you still think that these 3 free action are so much? :)
For a single limb (off hand)? yes
If it were 2 free actions with one hand and 2 free actions with your other hand and talking (with your mouth): fine by me :-)Letting go of the broom, dust into a pan and regrab the broom, with the option to walk around and do a swift action on top of that, all of it in 6 seconds? not even as a black-belt "floor-specialist". ;-)
Just try: take a broom and a dustpan: take the broom 2 handed, then switch 1h, make some gesture and say a strange formula (for say about 3 secs), then approach the dustpan, touch it, with your free hand, and switch again to 2 handed wield. Leave the dustpan at 10 feet, because the pcs are really skilled compared to me or you (unless you practice some sportas, at least at low levels :)), try to do it in 6 seconds or so, and tell me if you think it's so difficult with the same limb :)
A brutal warrior with spellcasting (buffing) abilities is an Eldritch Knight...
A magus is somebody who blends fighting and magic... that does not sound very brutish to me, the fact that magus relies on int, means he'd be more reliant on smart tactics, too.
Sorry, I misused the word, couldn't found anything better. Smart tactics, but even muscles when needed :)
Out of curiosity, my understanding has always been that Spell Combat requires you to keep a hand open for the duration of the action - not simply until you've cast the spell. Is that explicitly spelled-out anywhere in the rules?
It's pretty clear in the Spell Combat description.,You need a free hand to use Spell Combat.
If you need a free hand to perform any action, you need it to be free for the entire action.
Out of curiosity, my understanding has always been that Spell Combat requires you to keep a hand open for the duration of the action - not simply until you've cast the spell. Is that explicitly spelled-out anywhere in the rules?It's pretty clear in the Spell Combat description.,You need a free hand to use Spell Combat.
If you need a free hand to perform any action, you need it to be free for the entire action.
True, but this question isn't about spell combat. It's about SpellStrike. Two different things.
True, but this question isn't about spell combat. It's about SpellStrike. Two different things.Out of curiosity, my understanding has always been that Spell Combat requires you to keep a hand open for the duration of the action - not simply until you've cast the spell. Is that explicitly spelled-out anywhere in the rules?It's pretty clear in the Spell Combat description.,You need a free hand to use Spell Combat.
If you need a free hand to perform any action, you need it to be free for the entire action.
Sorry - didn't mean to derail. I have a couple of responses but it's not really the right place to bring them up.
The Staff Magus pretty much settles the question.
The developers felt it necessary to put in Quarterstaff Mastery as a free no-prereq feat for the Staff Magus archetype. The essential benefit it provides is a one handed combat style for the quarterstaff. So basically, the answer is no on two handed spellstrike for the exact same reason that it's no on two handed spell combat. The Magus not meant to have two handed combat as a primary fighting style, unless you're excluding casting during any given sequence.
I disagree. I think that if you go that route you are giving up your best class ability, spell combat. But if you want to do without it, you can.
Spell Strike, as opposed to Spell Combat, is merely a way to deliver a touch spell via your weapon. It doesn't matter what weapon.
I can understand that people don't like the idea of shifting your grip, but it isn't an abusive use of free actions to do so. (At least in my opinion, expect table variation)
As for the Staff Magus, it allows you to play a Magi that wields a staff and still allows for Spell Combat. But Spell Combat has more restrictions than Spell Strike. You could wield a staff as a normal Magus and Spell Strike with it, but not wield it for Spell Combat. I think it would be stupid in most cases, but it certainly is within the rules.
I believe the magus is strong enough as it is and the extra points of damage through a 2-hand weapon are not necessary outside theoretical min-maxing.
Allowing so many free actions in one round with the same hand will not sit well with many DM, including those from my 2 groups, and I believe that is a good thing.
If you want the option to go back an forth between 1-hand striking and 2-hand striking depending on whether you use spell strike/spell combat, you can use a quarterstaff or a bastard sword or a katana... I don't see the need to allow all 2-handed weapons for magi to work with spell strike, because then you enter "why-not-X-too" realms (dual wielding comes to mind).
If you have a cool build in mind to use polearms, I'm sure your DM will find a way to house-rule the Staff Magus archetype somehow.
Yes, PFS won't allow it... but there are many other things PFS don't get, too.
... I don't see the need to allow all 2-handed weapons for magi to work with spell strike, because then you enter "why-not-X-too" realms (dual wielding comes to mind).
I don't like the slippery slope argument here. The question of whether or not you can Spellstrike with any individual melee weapon is simple. Yes you can. The only possible snag is if you want to deliver the spell on the turn you cast it, which should be doable but is subject to being allowed to use a small number of free actions, namely releasing your grip and regripping your weapon for a two-handed weapon.
I wouldn't bother personally, but for a two-handed weapon it isn't remotely free action abuse. Normally you can cast a touch spell then move to the target and deliver it. To say that you don't have enough free actions to take your hand off your weapon before casting and regrip your weapon after is a bit too restrictive in my opinion. (But, then this is why I say expect table variation, I wouldn't play at a table that restrictive.)
The real problem with this question is how so many people link the Spell Combat with Spellstrike in their minds. They are not the same thing. You clearly can't use Spell Combat with a two-handed weapon for the same reason you couldn't dual wield. Spell Combat is a full round action that requires that you have a free hand for casting and your other hand must be wielding a one-handed or light melee weapon. Since it is a full round action your free hand must remain free for the entire round.
Spellstrike is just an alternative delivery method for a touch spell. Dual wielding for Spellstrike would only make sense if a spell had multiple charges. You only get one free touch attack with a touch spell, so you are only getting the one attack the first round regardless of any ways to draw and wield a second weapon after casting.
If the spell had multiple charges, then presumably if you drew a second weapon, you could two-weapon fight and deliver the charges when either weapon hit on subsequent rounds.
Spellstrike is just an alternative delivery method for a touch spell. Dual wielding for Spellstrike would only make sense if a spell had multiple charges. You only get one free touch attack with a touch spell, so you are only getting the one attack the first round regardless of any ways to draw and wield a second weapon after casting.
If the spell had multiple charges, then presumably if you drew a second weapon, you could two-weapon fight and deliver the charges when either weapon hit on...
Chill touch, Frostbite, Elemental Touch (depending on the DM's reading of "touch", see this thread), ...
there are spells that allow for multiple touches and "rimed frostbite" is actually a well known magus combo, that can be very nice alternative to shocking grasp...
Why allow it for unarmed/claws/gauntlets/... but not for two daggers or kukris or other dual-wielding weapons?
...for the same reason, that magi can only use quarterstaves/bastard swords/katanas for 1-hand 2-hand switching.
True, but this question isn't about spell combat. It's about SpellStrike. Two different things.Out of curiosity, my understanding has always been that Spell Combat requires you to keep a hand open for the duration of the action - not simply until you've cast the spell. Is that explicitly spelled-out anywhere in the rules?It's pretty clear in the Spell Combat description.,You need a free hand to use Spell Combat.
If you need a free hand to perform any action, you need it to be free for the entire action.
You need a free hand for any spellcasting that involves somatic components. So you might be able to do it if you can find a V only spell.
Spell Combat however, would still require that free hand even in that case.
They don't debate spell combat... the debate is about SpellSTRIKE
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
And whether you can do this with a 2-hander as a magus:
free action: let go 1 hand
standard action: cast touch spell (shocking grasp?)
free action: regrab weapon with both hands
move action: move to the enemy
swift action: activate arcane pool weapon enhancement (or arcane strike)
free action: hit enemy with sword and spellstrike touch spell through the weapon
all in 1 round...
_________________
EDIT:
The Staff Magus IS legal for PFS play. It's just not particularly popular for those who prefer to go the kensi/dervish route.
If you have a cool build in mind to use polearms, I'm sure your DM will find a way to house-rule the Staff Magus archetype somehow.
Yes, PFS won't allow it... but there are many other things PFS don't get, too.
I meant using polearms as a houseruled staff magus replacement in PFS. :-)
There is a way to wield a two handed weapon and spell trike with it, but takes two turns, which is not what anyone wants.
Hold greatsword
Remove one hand from greatsword as free action
Cast shocking grasp as standard action
Hold the charge as no action (you can hold the charge while wielding a weapon, unlike other spellcasters.
Wait a turn
Two hand the greatsword as free action
Attack as standard or full attack
Deliver charge through greatsword
Of course my above post is more of a joke, and is definetly not an optimized use of action economy.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think the reason many people object to this tactic/find it cheesy is the concept of "one thing per hand per round." If you are using your hand to cast a spell, you shouldn't also be able to use it in the same round to claim 2H on a weapon. It kinda falls into the same category as armor spikes with a polearm.
RAW I think the hand switching thing is legal, but I think the FAQ on "hands" puts it on shakier ground.
But then here's the problem with that reasoning:
Imagine a magus who only has one arm, for whatever reason. Arms are yummy.
This guy starts his round unarmed(heh!), and casts a touch spell. Everyone agrees he can deliver his touch attack with his one hand, that he used to cast. I hope most agree he could also Quick Draw a weapon and use Spellstrike with that same hand he just cast with.
Now, is that terribly different than the 2H weapon scenario?
Well now my ramblings have certainly confused me more. My kneejerk reaction were that it's a bit cheesy, but now I think I've argued myself into thinking it's okay.
Has anyone pointed out this FAQ yet?
Or for that matter, this one?
I know these FAQs and don't question them by themselves... I do however question how a magus could do 3 free actions in the same round with the same one hand...
So... do you still think that these 3 free action are so much? :)
For a single limb (off hand)? yes
If it were 2 free actions with one hand and 2 free actions with your other hand and talking (with your mouth): fine by me
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one seems to have a problem with a paladin taking one hand off their polearm (or whatever), using LoH on himself with that same hand, putting that hand back on his weapon, then full-attacking with that two-handed weapon.
Anyone who's fine with that but objects to a magus doing the same number of hand-related actions is telling us a lot about how they decide that something shouldn't work.
What's the difference between this and an EK who casts a Quickened spell and full attacks in the same round?
Spellstrike is just an alternative delivery method for a touch spell. Dual wielding for Spellstrike would only make sense if a spell had multiple charges. You only get one free touch attack with a touch spell, so you are only getting the one attack the first round regardless of any ways to draw and wield a second weapon after casting.
If the spell had multiple charges, then presumably if you drew a second weapon, you could two-weapon fight and deliver the charges when either weapon hit on...
Chill touch, Frostbite, Elemental Touch (depending on the DM's reading of "touch", see this thread), ...
there are spells that allow for multiple touches and "rimed frostbite" is actually a well known magus combo, that can be very nice alternative to shocking grasp...
Why allow it for unarmed/claws/gauntlets/... but not for two daggers or kukris or other dual-wielding weapons?
...for the same reason, that magi can only use quarterstaves/bastard swords/katanas for 1-hand 2-hand switching.
I am confused by what you are saying here. I am saying that you could dual wield weapons as a magus to deliver the multiple charges with Spellstrike. Do you have a reason that they shouldn't?
Round 1:
Cast Touch Spell with multiple charges
Deliver the first charge via Spellstrike
Round 2:
Quickdraw second weapon
Full Attack with both equipped weapons delivering charges via Spellstrike
Rounds 3-?:
Continue attacking until the last charge is expended, then drop second weapon to free your hand to cast a spell on the next round.
I'm pretty sure that this sequence works just fine, unless I missed a magus FAQ somewhere.
Jiggy, Xenrac, Quantum Steve
The problem is the amount of free actions that becomes ridiculous... I guess I would not mind (or mind less) if one of those actions were a swift action or move action.
But since Pathfinder balances around action economy, anything that needs to do so many free actions to work, smells like cheese. Especially when that class has clearly been stated by the devs to be a sword+magic dual-wielding class (see quote/link above).
and Quantum Steve: that's why I already replied further up, somebody who wants to wield a greatsword and do magic should be making an EK.
Because if you'd want to push it... my example further up could then become:
free action: let go 1 hand
standard action: cast touch spell (shocking grasp?)
free action: regrab weapon with both hands
move action: move to the enemy
free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it
free action: let go 1 hand
swift action: cast 2nd touch spell (shocking grasp? again)
free action: regrab weapon with both hands
free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it
Does this still sound fair to you?
Because this, in theory, is totally RAW... just like the EK quick-casting and full-attacking right after that. The question is: how much is too much... especially for a class that was never intended to wield 2-handers and channel spells through it (even though RAW seems to allow it).
Different scenario:
free action: let go 1 hand
swift action: cast touch spell (rimed frostbite?)
free action: regrab weapon with both hands
free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it
full-attack action: hit other enemies and keep discharging frostbite charges (to debuff everything in range and pile hurting)
still fair to you?
(at this point spell combat looks like a very poor class ability indeed: -2 to attacks on a 3/4 BAB class...)
If you're worried about a Magus infringing on the EK, I can see your concern, but that's not the topic at hand. Because both RAW and RAI are against you.
RAW maybe, but I'm worried how to explain to a player that
this:
magus standard action casting and moving and spell striking in the same round
and this:
EK who casts a Quickened spell and full attacks in the same round
is ok... but this is not:
- free action: let go 1 hand
- swift action: cast touch spell (rimed frostbite?)
- free action: regrab weapon with both hands
- free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it
- full-attack action: hit other enemies and keep discharging frostbite charges (to debuff everything in range and pile hurting)
as to RAI, you are wrong:
[..]overall, magi do not use two-handed weapons. They need to keep a hand free for spellcasting—they're not "fighter/wizards" as much as they are two weapon fighters who just happen to use spells as their off-hand weapon. So two-handed weapons are nonsensical in most cases—the staff magus is the only one I know of that breaks that rule.
So the devs clearly intended the magus to be a sword+magic dual-wielder... or duelist with magic in his off-hand.
Actually with the rules on touch spells, once u cast a touch spell u can "hold" that spell thru different rounds. Seeing how u need a free hand not to only cast the spell BUT also to grab the components for the spell (seems people forgot about that free action). So I would say releasing ur hand AND grabbing the components are 2 free actions back to back.
Imho I'd say a 2handed weapon magus can do it, but they would have to release the spell for the free attack on the next round round.
That way it can be done and wouldn't be seen as an abuse on the rules of free actions. But then again that brings up range as in they would be doing 2 free actions in reloading as in grabbing the amko and then reloading...
But honestly what is the main difference between spell strike and spell combat? Ur still attacking and casting a spell in the same round, only difference is one gives a free attack where the other isn't restricted to touch spells. So if ur attacking AND casting in the same round only difference is the end results then why is a 2 hander allowed for one and isn't allowed for the other? Your really doing the exact same actions swinging a weapon and casting a spell in the same round, why is it allowed for one and not the other?
The GM gets to reasonably limit the amount of free actions to keep it from getting out of hand, but, if in your game 2 free actions (release, regrip) per round are unreasonable then we're playing different games.
Jiggy, Xenrac, Quantum Steve
The problem is the amount of free actions that becomes ridiculous... I guess I would not mind (or mind less) if one of those actions were a swift action or move action.
Kyoni, did you miss all the long threads on the most recent FAQ regarding free actions? The devs suggest 3-5 free actions per round as a good guideline. Free actions used in two-handed spellstrike is
1) Remove hand from weaponCast spell as standard, possibly move as well as a move action
2) Regrip weapon
3) Use free touch attack with two hands.
Three free actions: which is well within the 3-5 limit suggested. The same number of free actions is also specifically called out as legal for the wizard with the staff in one of the FAQ's Jiggy posted. Unless you have a problem with the FAQ regarding the wizards use of free actions then your issue isn't with the free actions used, your complaint lies elsewhere.
Now your example of two spells in one round pushes it to 6 free actions. (Above the recommended limit in the vague free actions FAQ) - though personally I wouldn't have an issue with it. Quickened spells are an extremely expensive resource to be burning at +4 spell slot.
This also means minimum 13 level magus to get a 5th level spell slot. His two handed attack is going to give him, maybe, an extra 3-4 points of damage over what the same 1-handed attack would do (4 only if he has a 26 strength, unlikely at level 13, but possible). The extra four damage from the extra x.5 for two handing is nothing compared to the weapons base damage + 1x str bonus + weapon enhancement bonus + extra 5d6 from the shocking grasp + whatever flaming/shocking/freezing properties the magus may have applied to his weapon.
Having burned his swift he also cannot use spell recall this round, or use any swift activated magic items, or any other abilities he might have that can be swifted.
Your second example with a rimed spell isn't that powerful. At 8th level (to get BAB +6 for two attacks in a full attack) there are much better and more powerful spells for locking down an opponent than applying the entangled condition - or outright remove them from the fight with hold person/deep slumber/various pit spells. The entangled condition, while annoying, isn't that severe at higher levels.
The wizard however is only getting the shocking grasp damage, not advantage of having the spell damage being added to a carrier weapon damage with the superior chance to crit both.
LazarX, your problem then isn't with the number of free actions used here, your concern is the amount of damage the magus can dish out.
Seeing how u need a free hand not to only cast the spell BUT also to grab the components for the spell
Most spells a magus will use with spellstrike don't actually have a component requirement. Shocking grasp doesn't, chill touch doesn't - lots of others do not.
But honestly what is the main difference between spell strike and spell combat? Ur still attacking and casting a spell in the same round, only difference is one gives a free attack where the other isn't restricted to touch spells. So if ur attacking AND casting in the same round only difference is the end results then why is a 2 hander allowed for one and isn't allowed for the other? Your really doing the exact same actions swinging a weapon and casting a spell in the same round, why is it allowed for one and not the other?
Reread the abilities. They are both quite different and distinct. Spellstriking isn't an 'action' one takes. It is just something that gives the magus options in delivery method.
Actually with the rules on touch spells, once u cast a touch spell u can "hold" that spell thru different rounds. Seeing how u need a free hand not to only cast the spell BUT also to grab the components for the spell (seems people forgot about that free action).
Retrieving components is not an action. It's done as part of the casting.
But honestly what is the main difference between spell strike and spell combat? Ur still attacking and casting a spell in the same round, only difference is one gives a free attack where the other isn't restricted to touch spells. So if ur attacking AND casting in the same round only difference is the end results then why is a 2 hander allowed for one and isn't allowed for the other? Your really doing the exact same actions swinging a weapon and casting a spell in the same round, why is it allowed for one and not the other?
Spell Combat requires a free hand. Even if you're casting a spell with no somatic components, Spell Combat requires a free hand. It requires your hand to be free for the entire action; the spell and the attacks.
Spellstrike does not require a free hand. Spellstrike is not even an action, it just changes you options for delivering spells. You still use the exact same action for casting the spell and once that action is finished, you can use your hand again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken
Free action: Draw shuriken
Throw shuriken.
Man, shuriken flurrying monks are broken.
As Redneckdevil kindly pointed out... I forgot 1 free action... so that's 4 free actions plus full usage of standard+move+swift actions.
Yes, for me that is too much.
And maybe a rimed frostbite (entangle + fatigue, no save) spellstriked full attack ain't that powerful by itself, but if you combine that with major hurt from a maxed-str-full-dmg-power-attack with a 2-handed-weapon...?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And maybe a rimed frostbite (entangle + fatigue, no save) spellstriked full attack ain't that powerful by itself, but if you combine that with major hurt from a maxed-str-full-dmg-power-attack with a 2-handed-weapon...?
You know, any non-magus can do this with a primary bite attack.
As Redneckdevil kindly pointed out... I forgot 1 free action... so that's 4 free actions plus full usage of standard+move+swift actions.
Yes, for me that is too much.
And maybe a rimed frostbite (entangle + fatigue, no save) spellstriked full attack ain't that powerful by itself, but if you combine that with major hurt from a maxed-str-full-dmg-power-attack with a 2-handed-weapon...?
Drawing components is a non-action and the free action to deliver the spell is granted as part of the spell. So, unless you count actions granted by spells against the normal number of actions allowed, that's two free actions.
As I said, if that's too much for you, we're playing different games.
LazarX, your problem then isn't with the number of free actions used here, your concern is the amount of damage the magus can dish out.
The wizard however is only getting the shocking grasp damage, not advantage of having the spell damage being added to a carrier weapon damage with the superior chance to crit both.What I'm concerned with, is establishing base precedents. I also want to leave at least SOME of the martial tricks exclusive to those who are invested in martial. Two handed weapons are one of the few things in which the fighter type characters distinguish themselves. I have no problems with magi wielding greatswords if they wish, but I prefer to have the magi make the sacrifice of not being able to steal that from the fighter without forgoing his nova damage.
And yes, I do have a general rule that if there is an issue regarding magic, I will always take the more restrictive interpretation of the RAW text.
I am all for house-rules to fix aspects of the game that I find unbalances my game. You should see the changes I made to the Summoner.
I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that a limit of 1 free action per round is a reasonable interpretation of RAW.