|
Arcane mark is a touch spell that can be placed on a living person. That sounds like a potential touch attack spell, despite the lack of hit point damage. Scrawling "dingus" across someone's forehead, for example. So I see no issue from that.
Similarly, the Two-World Magic trait removes all confusion by providing touch of fatigue.
Okay, what I personally don't understand..
How does using arcane mark help in dealing damage, crowd control and the like. I understand you get to attacks, but really isn't it like a fighter who wields a sword in on hand a sausage in the other?
Spell strike lets you make an attack when you cast touch spells.
So cast arcane mark during spell combat and make a sword attack to deliver the mark to the opponent not something i would condone in the least.
I have to say that I find in most cases at the first two or three levels using daze to add a little battlefield control is a better use of spell combat then a another swing using arcane mark. I might feel differently if they actually had Touch of Fatigue on the Magus list right off or something similar to allow the Magus use of one of its defining class features at second level without every Magus acting like Zorro.
Personally if I was DMing and found a Magus was using Arcane mark a lot to gain that extra attack with spellstrike. I would just throw the guy a bone and provide a cantrip that was a low damage melee touch attack. Like 1d3 fire damage or something similar.
Spell strike lets you make an attack when you cast touch spells.
So cast arcane mark during spell combat and make a sword attack to deliver the mark to the opponent not something i would condone in the least.
ah. You know though, I kinda like the zorro-esc-ness with arcane mark and it.
But yeah, like James said.. you take a -2 penalty to do two attacks with a 1h weapon. Again.. There was a feat veeery similar to this.. um.. Hmm. Rapid shot for bows, crossbows and fire arms..?
Without spending a feat, the highest damage die you have access to as a magus would be the scizor.. that adds another -1 penalty to hit and takes a full round action. Even then its damage die is on scale with a heavy xbow.
A long bow does 1d8, which is the next largest size of 1h weapons you could use. Even if you do spend a feat, you can still only go up to a 1d10 for damage size.
Bah. I say we just FAQ the first post in this thread where the cantrip thing is mentioned as not applicable by intent and see what the devs say.
It is this one IIRC.
|
And you still have the courage to call somebody else o their prejudices after saying something like this?! Take a good look at the mirror friend.Spamming cantrips to get a advantage that probably is not even so good when it is used in conjunction with them smell of a cheap videogame trick and debase what is a key feature of a class.
It is simply uncool.
I don't think I need a mirror.
Uncool is as statement about taste, so absolutely personal. It is the epitome of prejudiced.|
|
I know some people feel it's overpowered. I myself do not, and Diego Rossi has stated that he never said it was overpowered.
So I don't know what the problem is.
As already said, for me mostly a problem of appearance.
The dual wielding of spells and weapons by the magus is one of his key abilities and when he is short of spells his back up mode of attack, in my eyes, are his weapons. After all he know how to use all of the martial weapons, included the missile weapons.Resorting to spamming cantrips, especially Arcane mark, that is not intended for combat use (unless you are playing a Zorro-like character that leave his initials on the enemy) to me seem a way to take a key feature of the class and make it sometime mundane.
Absolutely a matter of taste.
The cantrips aren't exactly as the other spell question is something different. They would benefit from some clarification of the rules.
I have seen (in theis forum) people explaining different systems to add metamagic and trait effects to cantrips as a way to have them stay level 0 spells, claiming that they could cast them all day as they are level 0 spells.
The APG has tried to resolve that problem adding this to the cantrips rules: "Cantrips prepared using other spell slots, due to metamagic feats, for example, consume spell slots as normally." but, AFAIK, there is no official ruling about cantrips brought back to 0 level.
Again, not game breaking, especially as soon as you get to the middle levels, but somewhat disruptive.
The idea behind the Vancian system of magic is that you have a limited resource that you need to manage. With pathfinder, when you have exhausted that resource, you have the 1d3 damage cantrips as a reserve option with unlimited uses. Changing them to a "locate city bomb" equivalent overturn that function.
P.S.: I know that they don't get to that level of silliness, but still some combo is only a way to play fast and loose with the rules.
Ray of Frost = (Cantrip) ranged touch attack
Close Range (Ex) = (Arcana) The magus can deliver ray spells that feature a ranged touch attack as melee touch spells. <snip> These spells can be used with the spellstrike class feature.
Therefore, unless the devs have no idea what they are doing, they meant for the Magus to be able to spellstrike with cantrips.
It's, also, not that strong of a class feature that it really warrants ruining someone's concept of fun; well IMHO.
It was a dev that thought it should not be able to apply. Making a mistake is not the same as "having no idea". I am just adding context to the situation. I have yet to decide if I will allow cantrips to work or not in my own games.
I do implore people to visit the link in my last post and FAQ the link though. I did not have any trouble with the Magus, but the player never got past level 5 before real life stopped him from gaming.
I agree that using Arcane Mark as a way to get a second attack is outside the intent of the rules.
Were I to run a game with a Magus in it, I'd allow it to work with any cantrip that was meant as an attack. Before you rail against that as being too soft a definition, I feel like it's obvious which spells were meant as attack spells (acid splash) and which were not (read magic).
Basically, I'd be fine if they invested something in it: There's the trait that gives them a cantrip from another class, and there's the magus arcana that lets you deliver ranged touch spells with your weapon. Both are pretty minor investments in terms of a character-building point of view.
Using Arcane Mark to get another attack is just wrong. I'd feel bad, like I were abusing a technicality, using that in a game that I was trying to take seriously.
First of all you can't use acid splash with the close range arcana.
Second spending an arcana is no small investment, and this particular arcana is a wasted one.Third although the trait two world magic is a very good solution to that problem, if a magus takes that trait then he can't take the magical lineage (shocking grasp).
So yes, unless you are a hexcrafter, you are pretty much stuck with arcane mark.
Why can't acid splash be uses with Close Range?
Acid Splash is not a ray spell. That is why it won't work. Ray of Frost works though.
Well I'll be a Gorrilalon's uncle never realized it was rays only.
|
My experiences playing a magus through serpents skull from level 1 to 4:
I chose the Hexcrafter and the Black Blade archetypes. Since I wanted to use a katana, and the AP wont burrow me with magic katanas the GM allowed me to take the heirloom weapon trait for my black blade katana and start the game with it (until level 3 is was a masterwork weapon).
While hexcrafter gives me access to hex like evil eye, it also lets me add spells with the curse descriptor to my spell list. I can understand the argument about arcane mark but there really shouldn't be an argument about brand.
The spell I used most often in the first adventure was, without the shadow of a doubt, shield.
If the battle allowed for it, I would use brand to get another attack at my enemy, but since it bestowed a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, and forcing me to cast defensively (without combat casting anything but a certainty) or use 5 ft. steps when possible.
Enlarge Person is an awesome buff of you can cast if before combat starts, it does help you with your need to cast defensively.
Now that I have reached level, I plan to invest in some pearls of power, but with my new hex, charges and the fact, that combats aren't all that long with my group I feel fine ^^.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a discussion about overpowering, it is a discussion about the appearance of it.
Spamming cantrips to get a advantage that probably is not even so good when it is used in conjunction with them smell of a cheap videogame trick and debase what is a key feature of a class.
It is simply uncool.
Thinking too much about the appearance of a magus relying on spellstrike makes me laugh.
TWF RANGER: Hey, magus buddy, back in the fight you were keeping up with me in swings at first, but then you slowed down. Are you hurt? I can pull out the wand of Cure Light Wounds.
MAGUS: Fear not. Once I exhausted the touch spells I memorized, I was forced to fight by mundane means.
TWF RANGER: So what? That Shocking Grasp on your swords lays the hobgoblins low, but a strong arm does plenty of damage without magic.
MAGUS: Without Shocking Grasp I cannot attack as quickly.
TWF RANGER: Can't attack as quickly? You're joking, right? You are a whirlwind. You swing that longsword in one hand, while casting Shocking Grasp with your other hand, as fast as I can attack with longsword and shortsword in both my hands. You could be even faster if you weren't concentrating on casting the spell.
MAGUS: Spellstrike doesn't work that way. Casting the spell gives me the extra attack.
TWF RANGER: That doesn't make sense. Maybe it's a habit because you trained that way. Have you tried pretending to cast the spell or casting one of your little cantrip spells to get the extra attack.
MAGUS: Pretend to cast a spell? Why would I waste time during combat doing that? Pretend magic doesn't do squat.
TWF RANGER: For the extra attack, you ninny. I trained in two-weapon fighting just to get an extra attack with a shortsword in my off hand. You can hit an extra time with your longsword at full strength. That isn't squat.
MAGUS: Well, pretending to cast a spell does not enable spellstrike. Likewise, a cantrip is too weak for spellstrike.
TWF RANGER: Too weak?
MAGUS: Yes. The secret of spellstrike is that the rush of magic from the touch spell I cast acts like a minature Haste spell on me. Shocking Grasp charges me up to become a better fighter.
TWF RANGE: That sounds like drugs.
MAGUS: It can be addicting. Some magi refuse to settle for using spellstrike a few times a day. They want more. They puff up touch cantrips as touch attacks. They debase themselves by spellstriking off of Arcane Mark, of all things. They mark their target like a dog marking a tree.
TWF RANGER: That's, that's ...
MAGUS: Uncool.
|
|
It is not a discussion about overpowering, it is a discussion about the appearance of it.
Spamming cantrips to get a advantage that probably is not even so good when it is used in conjunction with them smell of a cheap videogame trick and debase what is a key feature of a class.
It is simply uncool.Thinking too much about the appearance of a magus relying on spellstrike makes me laugh.
TWF RANGER: Hey, magus buddy, back in the fight you were keeping up with me in swings at first, but then you slowed down. Are you hurt? I can pull out the wand of Cure Light Wounds.
MAGUS: Fear not. Once I exhausted the touch spells I memorized, I was forced to fight by mundane means.
TWF RANGER: So what? That Shocking Grasp on your swords lays the hobgoblins low, but a strong arm does plenty of damage without magic.
MAGUS: Without Shocking Grasp I cannot attack as quickly.
TWF RANGER: Can't attack as quickly? You're joking, right? You are a whirlwind. You swing that longsword in one hand, while casting Shocking Grasp with your other hand, as fast as I can attack with longsword and shortsword in both my hands. You could be even faster if you weren't concentrating on casting the spell.
MAGUS: Spellstrike doesn't work that way. Casting the spell gives me the extra attack.
TWF RANGER: That doesn't make sense. Maybe it's a habit because you trained that way. Have you tried pretending to cast the spell or casting one of your little cantrip spells to get the extra attack.
MAGUS: Pretend to cast a spell? Why would I waste time during combat doing that? Pretend magic doesn't do squat.
TWF RANGER: For the extra attack, you ninny. I trained in two-weapon fighting just to get an extra attack with a shortsword in my off hand. You can hit an extra time with your longsword at full strength. That isn't squat.
MAGUS: Well, pretending to cast a spell does not enable spellstrike. Likewise, a cantrip is too weak for spellstrike.
TWF RANGER: Too weak?
MAGUS: Yes. The secret of spellstrike is that...
That's simply awesome. Never heard a better reason to allow it than that^^
I'm fine with it as a DM for most cantrips just the whole Arcane mark thing that bugs me without at least some concept behind it. If you go the Two Worlds route or something like that for something that actually is an attack Cantrips don't bother me.
They would need to make a successful attack roll to deliver the arcane mark to the target, and I would give the target a save since you would be putting a magical mark on them (rather than physically carving your mark, which should get no save).
Regardless of whether or not the AM takes a hold of the target, spell combat was still triggered by the casting.
No James I mean attack to mean something that is a threat as in something that would deal damage not that you get to run around touching things all willy nilly.
Also i worry about the character whose personal rune is Killer.
@Mergy: I totally agree. Just because something is not causing HP damage does not mean it is not an attack. Combat maneuvers come to mind for example.
Its still an attack In my home games your not using Arcane mark with spellstrike. Maybe saying like that will get it across.
AM still needs an attack roll in my games.
As a house rule AM does not trigger Spellstrike.
Disclaimer: This is a Talonhawke houserule and should only be regarded as a rule in the event Talonhawke is your GM.
I don't have the issue with Arcane Mark, because we opened the entire cantrip list to the magus in our games.
I feel that without being to spellstrike regularly the class is simply gimped compared to the other class listings. A third rate character at best. Regular spellstriking allows the magus two attacks per round, with a scaling list of spells as they increase in level. It requires concentration checks , hit penalties, and/or AOO to balance out the one extra attack, and the spells that are [u]useful[/u] are unarguably a limited resource.
The whole cantrip debacle essentially allows two attacks per round +1d3 extra damage. Boo-hoo. Many other classes have far greater abilities at level one.
Finally, the reason we did this is because the magus not being able to cast ray or frost, shocking touch, or any other elemental 1d3 dmg spells is itself a cheesy move.
The magus can cast lightning bolt, fireball, cone of cold. Why not a low level cantrip representing those same forces. It is absolutely clear the only reason they don't have those cantrips is to purposefully gimp them.
I admit, I believe RAI probably says no to using cantrips to spellstrike. I also don't use it that way because this is another fine example of Paizo not being able to properly create and balance classes in Pathfinder.
If someone was trying to magically write a swear word on my face, I'd make him roll an attack for it. Therefore, under some circumstances I believe it should be considered an attack, and I have no problem with someone spellstriking it.
Another example would be that your party was hired to stop a master thief who has a secret identity. Your diplomatic bard gathers information in the underworld and finds out the thief's next target. You ambush him there. But the masked thief knocks out the bard, disarms the magus, escapes the fighter's grapple, and outruns the cleric. Your magus has only one turn before the thief vanishes into the night. Instead of picking up his sword, he declares, "I cast Arcane Mark on the thief." The bard already has hints to the thief's identity, and the mark will let them prove it.
Wouldn't the GM's next words be, "Roll a touch attack to see if you can mark the thief."?
|
|
Its still an attack In my home games your not using Arcane mark with spellstrike. Maybe saying like that will get it across.
AM still needs an attack roll in my games.
As a house rule AM does not trigger Spellstrike.
Disclaimer: This is a Talonhawke houserule and should only be regarded as a rule in the event Talonhawke is your GM.
Fair enough. Houserules are the houseruler's business.
That's simply awesome. Never heard a better reason to allow it than that^^TWF RANGER: That's, that's ...
MAGUS: Uncool.
I actually agree with Diego Rossi that the intent of Spellstrike was that it be limited by the number of touch spells that are recognized as attacks. I think that Spellstrike as designed as a spectacular Power Attack for touch-attack spells: it gives a penalty to hit (goes against full AC instead of touch AC) in exchange for extra damage (weapon damage).
However, by combining Spell Combat and Spellstrike, Paizo broke my imagery of the action economy. Broken imagery is easy to parody.
I visualize a melee combatant with interative attacks from a +6/+1 BAB as striking so fast with weapons that he has time for an extra attack. The combatant needs a great deal of skill (high BAB) to acheive that speed. I visualize the two attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting as slower attacks that can overlap in time because they use different hands. I visualize the multiple attacks with one weapon in a monk's Flurry of Blows as being able to attack twice with a single swing; for example, the monk hit the opponent's head with the flailing end of the nunchaku, but also hit the opponent's arm with the handle end. Rapid Shot with a bow is also kind of an overlap: the arrows are lightweight for quick handling, while the heavy and slow part is the bow, which barely moves between consecutive attacks.
Spell Combat works fine with my visualizations: a weapon attack in one hand and spellcasting in the other, overlapping in time. A standard action Spellstrike is also no problem: the magus is transferring the touch-attack effect of the spell cast with his free hand to the weapon held in his other hand. But combining Spell Combat and Spellstrike breaks that two-hand imagery. How can he transfer the Shocking Grasp effect to his weapon for a spellstrike with that weapon if he is simultaneously using that weapon for a Spell-Combat attack?
But the magus Spellstrike rules say, "If the magus makes this [spellstrike] attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks." That proves that combining the two abilities is allowed by the rules. Nevertheless, the rules let a second-level magus perform three major acts during a full-round action: two attacks and one spell.
Is anyone using Spellstrike with a cantrip when attacking as a standard action? "I move 30 feet to the orc and cast Arcane Mark as my standard action. Let me roll a defensive casting concentration check. Yes, I made it. I spellstrike with the Arcane Mark. I hit with my attack roll. The orc has been marked by Zorromagus!" is less efficient than a standard-action attack. I suspect that only the Spell Combat and Spellstrike combination tempts players into spellstriking with cantrips, because two attacks and one useless spell is still a good bargain.
|
After re-reading the sections on Spell Combat, Spellstrike and cantrips, I am convinced that cantrips can be used with these features. If the game designers intended something different, then they missed the mark badly.
Regarging the use of Arcane Mark with Spellstrike: I tend to reward my players for clever uses of spells and items, rather than punish them for such things. While it seems that delivering a damage spell is the primary use of Spellstrike, using a non-damaging spell is certainly not prohibited. Additionally, using Arcane Mark with Spellstrike is, in my opinion, a creative use of the spell. I would allow a magus character to take advantage of this combination in my game.
It is worth mentioning that there is most likely a narrow range of character levels where this will be used. Soon enough a magus who likes to stand in melee combat frequently will take the Close Range Magus Arcana feature - or perhaps Broad Study or Spell Blending - and have access to better spells to use with Spellstrike. So we're talking about 2nd to 3rd level, or perhaps as late as 6th level. But regardless of the levels involved, I do not believe that using these class features in this way will be unbalancing.
The magus played well in my game without going to cantrips, and I don't go easy on players so it's not one of those coddling situations. The player was not a bad player, but he had room for improvement also, so system mastery did not help him either.
I do think they should clarify intent. As to whether or not I would allow it, I don't know. I would probably have to play the class myself.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Is anyone using Spellstrike with a cantrip when attacking as a standard action? "I move 30 feet to the orc and cast Arcane Mark as my standard action. Let me roll a defensive casting concentration check. Yes, I made it. I spellstrike with the Arcane Mark. I hit with my attack roll. The orc has been marked by Zorromagus!" is less efficient than a standard-action attack. I suspect that only the Spell Combat and Spellstrike combination tempts players into spellstriking with cantrips, because two attacks and one useless spell is still a good bargain.
[Nitpick] Why would you move to the orc before casting the spell? You can make your free touch attack at any point during the turn you cast the spell.
Zorromagus should cast, move, then spellstrike. Unless he starts the round threatened, it'll be just as effective as a normal melee attack, so there's no reason not to![/nitpick]
I think I'd allow it.
However, branding your personal mark on every creature you attack could lead to some unfortunate consequences. Low level urban adventures seldom operate inside the law. Quite literally leaving your signature on the victims of your less than legal activities would be dumb at best in certain circumstances. I'd be hard pressed to Not use that against the player.
Getting this FAQed may be fruitless. From re-reading the relevant sections I've got to believe it's a legal maneuver. This is one of those things that even the Developers may not come to consensus on.
|
|
Once again: if someone is writing something offensive or blasphemous on my face, that's a threat. That's an attack. There's no way that isn't an attack. What if my magus ran around writing 'thief' on people? That's not dangerous for them to have written on their faces?
This discussion has just made me realize something about using Arcane mark for spell combat:
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Arcane mark isn't a touch attack spell.
Calling an touch is "armed" with Arcane mark (Mergy opinion notwithstanding) is a big stretch of imagination, so using it for spell combat will provoke an attack of opportunity every time you try to deliver the spell.
So what do you think? There is a valid reason to classify Arcane mark as a touch attack spell?
Arcane Mark does not work because there is no touch attack clause in the spell compared to spell like chill touch, touch of idiocy, the inflict wound line of spells, and so on.
Touch of Fatigue might work if cantrips were intended to be use, assuming it is on the Magus spell list.
|
|
If someone was trying to magically write a swear word on my face, I'd make him roll an attack for it. Therefore, under some circumstances I believe it should be considered an attack, and I have no problem with someone spellstriking it.Another example would be that your party was hired to stop a master thief who has a secret identity. Your diplomatic bard gathers information in the underworld and finds out the thief's next target. You ambush him there. But the masked thief knocks out the bard, disarms the magus, escapes the fighter's grapple, and outruns the cleric. Your magus has only one turn before the thief vanishes into the night. Instead of picking up his sword, he declares, "I cast Arcane Mark on the thief." The bard already has hints to the thief's identity, and the mark will let them prove it.
Wouldn't the GM's next words be, "Roll a touch attack to see if you can mark the thief."?
And after you have marked his clothes or his mask what you have achieved?
Arcane mak, as all spells, require a line of effect. If, as you depicted him, the master thief is covered from head to toe, you would inscribe the mark on his clothes, not on the flesh under them.
If there is some flesh exposed I would use an AC modifier based on the size of the exposed, useful area. if you miss by that modifier you have connected to a covered area and your mark was placed there.
However, branding your personal mark on every creature you attack could lead to some unfortunate consequences. Low level urban adventures seldom operate inside the law. Quite literally leaving your signature on the victims of your less than legal activities would be dumb at best in certain circumstances. I'd be hard pressed to Not use that against the player.
Interesting point, effectively, by the wording of the spell you will deliver your arcane mark, and only your arcane mark. no way to change the text, writhe "thief" or other things (unless your arcane mark say "thief" :D).
Probably changing what you write would require researching a differ spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane Mark does not work because there is no touch attack clause in the spell compared to spell like chill touch, touch of idiocy, the inflict wound line of spells, and so on.
Touch of Fatigue might work if cantrips were intended to be use, assuming it is on the Magus spell list.
The range touch isn't enough for you?
No. That is not a touch attack. Touch attack is a specific term. Teleport spells are also touch, but they are not touch attacks either as an example.
If they wanted all touch spells to work they would have said all spells with a range of touch or touch based spells, and not used the term "touch attack".
|
|
The range touch isn't enough for you?Arcane Mark does not work because there is no touch attack clause in the spell compared to spell like chill touch, touch of idiocy, the inflict wound line of spells, and so on.
Touch of Fatigue might work if cantrips were intended to be use, assuming it is on the Magus spell list.
If Range: touch was sufficient Light would be a touch attack spell.
Spell Combat don't require a combat spell so it would work with Arcane mark or Light (but delivering them against a enemy will provoke an attack of opportunity).
Spellstrike is a problem. RAW it don't require a attack spell but a touch range spell.
You use a weapon that deliver damage, so the armed/unarmed part is questionable.
Personally I think that, as sometime happens, the person writhing the class had a clear idea of what he intended but was less than stellar in delivering the text.
Both abilities require a spell on the magus spell list to work but both those cantrips are in the class list.
BTW: the class is balanced around its list of spells. it has features to get spells from outside that list at a cost. Adding them for free, even cantrips, as someone has suggested, is a bad idea.
Is anyone using Spellstrike with a cantrip when attacking as a standard action? "I move 30 feet to the orc and cast Arcane Mark as my standard action. Let me roll a defensive casting concentration check. Yes, I made it. I spellstrike with the Arcane Mark. I hit with my attack roll. The orc has been marked by Zorromagus!" is less efficient than a standard-action attack. I suspect that only the Spell Combat and Spellstrike combination tempts players into spellstriking with cantrips, because two attacks and one useless spell is still a good bargain.[Nitpick] Why would you move to the orc before casting the spell? You can make your free touch attack at any point during the turn you cast the spell.
Zorromagus should cast, move, then spellstrike. Unless he starts the round threatened, it'll be just as effective as a normal melee attack, so there's no reason not to![/nitpick]
Thank you for pointing that out. I had overlooked that rule.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
I had falsely assumed that the only options were a touch attack during spellcasting and holding the charge to use later as a standard action, which that rule explains past the section I quoted. It is amusing how much effort the Core Rulebook goes through to encourage unarmored, low-hit-point wizards to step within sword's reach of an enemy in order to use a touch spell. And then the Ultimate Magic rulebook introduced the magus who loves to be that close to enemies and gave him further encouragement--Spellstrike--to cast touch spells.
In contrast,
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).Arcane mark isn't a touch attack spell.
Calling an touch is "armed" with Arcane mark (Mergy opinion notwithstanding) is a big stretch of imagination, so using it for spell combat will provoke an attack of opportunity every time you try to deliver the spell.
So what do you think? There is a valid reason to classify Arcane mark as a touch attack spell?
Sadly, two rules in the Standard Actions section of the Combat Chapter use different phrasings about touch spells. The Touch Spells in Combat paragraph refers only to "touch spells," never to "touch attack spells," and the "Armed" Unarmed Attacks paragraph refers only to "touch attack spells."
Let me check the phrasing of the magus touch spells. Chill touch, corrosive touch, frostbite, shocking grasp, frigid touch all contain the phrase "melee touch attack." Jump, vanish, bear's endurance, blood transcription, blur, bull's strength, cat's grace, invisibility, and spider climb do not. (Elemental touch is a personal spell that allows melee touch attacks.) However, there is nothing besides that phrase, no official spell category, distinguishing touch attack spells from touch non-attack spells.
Touching and touch attacks have a pretty obvious difference. The spells calling for touch attacks are ones used to harm the enemy. The others do not. It is also far from a coincidence that a combat ability is calling for "a touch attack spell". The intent is rather clear on all accounts.
At best you can try to argue you had bad luck when picking that list of spells you just named, but if that is the case I am sure you can find a spell that does not fit the criteria I just described.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
By all accounts, using an arcane mark as a touch attack is an attack according to the rules. In fact, there are reasons to do so from a combat perspective. For one, you are tagging an opponent, which allows you to later scry on them if they escape, and cannot be dispelled except via an erase spell, which means most monsters like demons who can dispel magic cannot erase your mark to keep you from tracking them. If placed upon a creature, you can use detect magic which causes the mark itself to glow and become visible, revealing any enemy who decided to become invisible, and puts a magic aura on them as well.
Arguing that arcane mark, when used as an attack, is not an attack, is like arguing that casting solid fog into a group of enemies is not an attack, or using dimensional anchor is not an attack. Arcane mark can in fact be used offensively, and with good reason to do so.
How can anyone be so narrow minded?
|
|
The arguement isn't that Cantrips are spells or not, which of course they are. It is the cheese associated with casting Arcane Mark with Spell Combat. Personally, I think the easiest way to fix that is to make the Arcane Mark a higher cast time. Say couple of rounds or even a minute. It isn't ourside the realm of crazy to see that a 0 level spell that is permenant should take a little time to cast. Otherwise smart aleck newbie wizards would be running all over the town splashing their 'tags' on everything under the sun. You know how those teenagers are.
Seriously. Say you are attacked by a Magus and they do this to your character. So now you have to invest in Erase spells [with it's chance to fail] or wait a month for them to fade? Heck as a GM I would do this to the Magus to see how it feels. Let him walk around for a month with a glowing "Bob" on his forehead. Mind you, Erase isn't even a Magus spell in the first place.
Now, that I think about it, even easier, just remove Arcane Mark from the Magus spell list. Problem solved.