Why doesn't Spell Combat quickly run out of spells?

[davidvs]

I am looking at the Magus and without seeing one in action cannot figure out the Spell Combat ability.

At first level the character can cast only a few first-level spells per day. Doesn't he run out of spells in just a few rounds of combat, leaving his trademark ability useless for the rest of the day?

I see that at third level Wand Wielder Arcana offers one fix to the problem. Do most Magi use this to keep Spell Combat going?

What am I missing?

[hogarth]

All 1st level characters run out of spells quickly if they cast a spell every round. That's hardly unique to the magus.

[Edgar Lamoureux]

Spell Recall at 4th allows the magus to extend his adventuring day considerably, concerning spells.

1st level, though, all casters have problems with spells/day.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Use a cantrip?

[Sidomar]

They also get unlimited 0-level spells -- such as Daze, Acid Splash and Ray of Frost. They're not huge, but definitely a nice boost at low levels.

[Diego Rossi]

There is some comment by developers (but nothing official AFAIK) that spell combat is not meant to work with cantrips.
Again, not officially, cantrips aren't treated as true spells when used in conjunction with abilities based on spell use.

[Kolokotroni]

Like all casters, the magus has to manage their resources. At low levels they often have to be careful how they spend them. Thats just part of the balance between caster and martial characters. Ofcourse like Tiny Coffe Golem and Sidomr point out, they can still use spell combat and spellstrike with cantrips, though the benefits are smaller then 1st level spells.

[Diego Rossi]

Sidomar wrote:

They also get unlimited 0-level spells -- such as Daze, Acid Splash and Ray of Frost. They're not huge, but definitely a nice boost at low levels.

Note that Acid Splash and Ray of Frost are ranged touch attacks and always provoke an attack of opportunity even if you cast defensively (as you are using a ranged attack in melee). Generally not a good idea.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

davidvs wrote:

...At first level the character can cast only a few first-level spells per day. Doesn't he run out of spells in just a few rounds of combat, leaving his trademark ability useless for the rest of the day?...

What am I missing?

The theory is you don't usually use spell combat, especially at low levels.

In most combats you just use your weapons or maybe 1 spell to give you a bit of an edge.

Then when you get in a really tough fight (or find the BBEG) you go 'nova' with spell combat, weapons, spell recall, etc...

It's really the same thing with all spell casters at low level. Just more extreme because you have something else effective that you can do (weapons) and have even less spells.

[Mergy]

Diego Rossi wrote:

There is some comment by developers (but nothing official AFAIK) that spell combat is not meant to work with cantrips.

Again, not officially, cantrips aren't treated as true spells when used in conjunction with abilities based on spell use.

I would be interested in reading these comments. As it is, any magus I make uses Two-World Magic to get touch of fatigue for all spell combat, all the time from level 1.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

My experience with my magus was quite positive. At low levels spell combat I used Daze quite often, or I'd attack, then 5' step away and acid splash/ray of frost). When I came across something big and tough, I'd shocking grasp it or chill touch it. At third level I picked up Close Range arcana allowing me to use ranged touch as touch, which means no more 5' step to use AS/RoF. By the time I got Close Range, daze wasn't useful anymore, so the other cantrips were nice.

For those complaining that cantrips shouldn't work, I ask you this: how is it any different than two weapon fighting? 1d3 (1d6 with disrupt undead) extra damage for one hit isn't game breaking, even at low levels.

[Thazar]

I personally like to use Arcane Mark with Spell Combat and Spell Strike from level 2 on for normal round to round fighting. I can do it all day long and it gets me an extra attack.

I use my other spells while closing to mêlée range to buff and keep my damaging spells with spell combat and maybe spell strike for more important portions of the adventure.

Some folks have said that they are unsure about cantrips and Arcane Mark in particular... but the spell is range touch and it meets all the criteria for spell combat and spell strike per RAW. From an RP point of view my character is a magic version of Zorro and puts his mark on every foe he fights so the DM and party are happy with how it plays out.

[Rasmus Wagner]

Mergy wrote:

I would be interested in reading these comments. As it is, any magus I make uses Two-World Magic to get touch of fatigue for all spell combat, all the time from level 1.

Another option is Arcane Mark.

[Diego Rossi]

James Jacobs wrote:

STR Ranger wrote:

Dear James,

Is it RAW or RAI for Magai to use Arcane Mark with a Spellstrike/Spell Combat Full attack.

The net effect (at low level) allowing a Magus to Make 2attacks, when full attacking. This is doable from second level.

I haven't found it overpowering, but some of the guys I play with don't like it.

Ask your GM.

If I were your GM, I wouldn't allow you to use cantrips with your Spellstrike/Spell Combat attack; I suspect this is the way the rules were intended to function. That would limit the number of times per day you could do this to actually how many spells you had in the first place, which is the point.

Cantrips, in other words, are not really spells, even though we play fast and loose with that terminology. They're cantrips, not spells.

As you can see, absolutely not a official ruling, but I find it quite reasonable.

[Mergy]

I don't find it reasonable. I don't really see in the rules where there's a difference between cantrips and all other spells besides a meaningless label. It is merely casting a 0-level spell as opposed to a 1st level spell.

[leo1925]

Mergy wrote:

I don't find it reasonable. I don't really see in the rules where there's a difference between cantrips and all other spells besides a meaningless label. It is merely casting a 0-level spell as opposed to a 1st level spell.

Same here.

[LazarX]

Diego Rossi wrote:

There is some comment by developers (but nothing official AFAIK) that spell combat is not meant to work with cantrips.

Again, not officially, cantrips aren't treated as true spells when used in conjunction with abilities based on spell use.

I believe the commentary you have in mind is regards to the Arcane Mark/Spellstrike exploit.

[Mergy]

I don't understand why they would put a touch spell like arcane mark on the spell list if they didn't want the magus to use it with spellstrike. In any case, cantrips:

Ultimate Magic pg. 10 wrote:

Cantrips: A magus can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table 1–1 under “Spells

per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they
are not expended when cast and may be used again.

There is no reason for arcane mark to not work. That said, I'd rather grab touch of fatigue with the Two-World Magic trait in order to do more than just hit my opponent.

[LazarX]

davidvs wrote:

I am looking at the Magus and without seeing one in action cannot figure out the Spell Combat ability.

At first level the character can cast only a few first-level spells per day. Doesn't he run out of spells in just a few rounds of combat, leaving his trademark ability useless for the rest of the day?

I see that at third level Wand Wielder Arcana offers one fix to the problem. Do most Magi use this to keep Spell Combat going?

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. Or rather you're missing everything. Spell Combat is by intent a resource driven activity. However you're not absolutely required to use it in every round of combat. Nor are you restricted from using spells outside of it. Regular melee combat is sufficient for mooks below you, just as nuking them with a fireball also works while staying range. Alternately at first level, you may decide to cast your shield spell BEFORE combat if you get the chance so as to not risk losing it and just melee for the rest of the time. Since you're assumed to be wearing armor as well, it's a viable approach.

As far as first level goes, wizards also run out of 1st level spells just as quickly, generally even more so since that's their major option. You learn the fine art of resource management as you level. At upper levels you get renewal options via your arcane pool.

[Galnörag]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Sidomar wrote:

They also get unlimited 0-level spells -- such as Daze, Acid Splash and Ray of Frost. They're not huge, but definitely a nice boost at low levels.

Note that Acid Splash and Ray of Frost are ranged touch attacks and always provoke an attack of opportunity even if you cast defensively (as you are using a ranged attack in melee). Generally not a good idea.

I'm not familer with the minutia of spell combat, but if it is like fighting with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you can always take a 5' step during your full attack. So you could attack, backup, ranged-touch.

[james maissen]

LazarX wrote:

Spell Combat is by intent a resource driven activity. However you're not absolutely required to use it in every round of combat.

I don't see anything wrong with a magus electing to spell combat with a cantrip.. he's up there with a monk not using ki at that point.. well maybe a tad below that..

But monks are insanely overpowered melee fighters, right? No?

To the OP: at low levels you use spellcombat to make sure you can hit the concentration check (by taking max penalties to hit) on things like color spray or if jumped, shield.

Wand wielder is nice and gives you a better 'yay team' action. As I'm more conservative by nature I go with that over say arcane accuracy which will burn through your pool too quickly.

-James

[davidvs]

Thanks for all the helpful replies!

[Diego Rossi]

leo1925 wrote:

Mergy wrote:

I don't find it reasonable. I don't really see in the rules where there's a difference between cantrips and all other spells besides a meaningless label. It is merely casting a 0-level spell as opposed to a 1st level spell.

Same here.

For a starter? the part of the rules where you can cast an unlimited number of cantrips in a day while you have a limited number of spells.

[waiph]

Be a hexcrafter, get brand. It's an inquisitor cantrip that deals 1 point f damage and marks a target. It's got the [curse] descriptor, and hexcrafter gets all of those. they also get the arcana that lets them use any curse with spellstrike, like Feast of Ash, and Cup of Thirst! fun times...

[Ævux]

Diego Rossi wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Mergy wrote:

I don't find it reasonable. I don't really see in the rules where there's a difference between cantrips and all other spells besides a meaningless label. It is merely casting a 0-level spell as opposed to a 1st level spell.

Same here.

For a starter? the part of the rules where you can cast an unlimited number of cantrips in a day while you have a limited number of spells.

By that logic, Swords are not weapons. Bows are weapons because while you can swing a sword an unlimited number of times per day, you are only able to fire a bow a number of times as per the ammunition you have. Therefor a bow is a weapon, a sword is not.

[Lurk3r]

I agree with Mergy on the whole cantrip thing. They're under the "spells" class feature, and on the "spells per day" table, so they're spells. They just have an extra rule attached to them. On the flip side, if cantrips aren't spells does that mean they can't be countered or shut down by an anti-magic field like 'real' spells can?

[LazarX]

Lurk3r wrote:

I agree with Mergy on the whole cantrip thing. They're under the "spells" class feature, and on the "spells per day" table, so they're spells. They just have an extra rule attached to them. On the flip side, if cantrips aren't spells does that mean they can't be countered or shut down by an anti-magic field like 'real' spells can?

The main issue is that there no melee touch attack cantrips. Calling Arcane Mark such a cantrip is by the definition of some, including myself, a cheesy manipulation of the rules. If Magus designers had intended us for having unlimited spellstrike in this manner, they would have designed a proper touch attack cantrip.

[leo1925]

LazarX wrote:

Lurk3r wrote:

I agree with Mergy on the whole cantrip thing. They're under the "spells" class feature, and on the "spells per day" table, so they're spells. They just have an extra rule attached to them. On the flip side, if cantrips aren't spells does that mean they can't be countered or shut down by an anti-magic field like 'real' spells can?

The main issue is that there no melee touch attack cantrips. Calling Arcane Mark such a cantrip is by the definition of some, including myself, a cheesy manipulation of the rules. If Magus designers had intended us for having unlimited spellstrike in this manner, they would have designed a proper touch attack cantrip.

You say it's cheesy, we say that it's a way for the magus to be meaningful at 2nd level.

[LazarX]

leo1925 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Lurk3r wrote:

I agree with Mergy on the whole cantrip thing. They're under the "spells" class feature, and on the "spells per day" table, so they're spells. They just have an extra rule attached to them. On the flip side, if cantrips aren't spells does that mean they can't be countered or shut down by an anti-magic field like 'real' spells can?

The main issue is that there no melee touch attack cantrips. Calling Arcane Mark such a cantrip is by the definition of some, including myself, a cheesy manipulation of the rules. If Magus designers had intended us for having unlimited spellstrike in this manner, they would have designed a proper touch attack cantrip.

You say it's cheesy, we say that it's a way for the magus to be meaningful at 2nd level.

The magus can be as meaningful without it as any other second level character. It's a rules manipulative use of a spell which is clearly not meant to be used that way.

[Diego Rossi]

Ævux wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Mergy wrote:

I don't find it reasonable. I don't really see in the rules where there's a difference between cantrips and all other spells besides a meaningless label. It is merely casting a 0-level spell as opposed to a 1st level spell.

Same here.

For a starter? the part of the rules where you can cast an unlimited number of cantrips in a day while you have a limited number of spells.

By that logic, Swords are not weapons. Bows are weapons because while you can swing a sword an unlimited number of times per day, you are only able to fire a bow a number of times as per the ammunition you have. Therefor a bow is a weapon, a sword is not.

Please, don't try this kind of false comparison.

A true comparison is that by that logic swords aren't ammunitions.
And lo and behold, swords aren't ammunitions unless you are in the habit to throwing swords.

[DreamAtelier]

davidvs wrote:

I am looking at the Magus and without seeing one in action cannot figure out the Spell Combat ability.

At first level the character can cast only a few first-level spells per day. Doesn't he run out of spells in just a few rounds of combat, leaving his trademark ability useless for the rest of the day?

I see that at third level Wand Wielder Arcana offers one fix to the problem. Do most Magi use this to keep Spell Combat going?

What am I missing?

Rather than get embroiled in the (still continuing) debate about cantrip use by the magus, I'll endeavor to answer the OP without dealing with cantrips.

At levels 1 to 3, a magus is very resource limited on his use of Spell Combat, because as you point out, he doesn't have many of them. In this way, he's no different then a dedicated wizard or sorcerer... except that when he has run out of spells he remains as viable a combatant as a rogue (which is to say, his BAB and damage is usally lower than a full on fighter, but with a small amount of help, or against low to moderate AC enemies, he can still reliably connect and contribute). This makes him better than a wizard or sorcerer in pretty much every way, and the truth is that at low levels, he probably wasn't remaining effective while using spell combat. Why? Because the -2 penalty, on top of the 3/4 BAB progression, and any penalty for casting defensively (which he probably needed to do to be safe), really reduces him to only hitting the low AC monsters for his level. I find that dervish dance magi have it worst until level 3, because they can't acquire the feat that lets them use their planned attribute and weapon before then, and so are stuck using either a rapier or light weapon for the first two levels, then buying a replacement.

Note that there is an exception here, which is if the magus picks up true strike as one of his first spells. By doing that, everything I just said about the attack penalties goes out the window: Unless he rolls a natural 1, he will connect while using true strike.

Because of this, at low levels (1-3), the magus tends to only use spell strike when he can get the most bang for his buck, much like a wizard casting a spell. A first level wizard doesn't throw his one prepared Color Spray so that it only hits a single enemy (unless that enemy is the BBEG), and a magus shouldn't either: instead they both wait until they can find an angle and grouping where they can hit multiple enemies at once.

Most Magi do not pick up wand wielder as their first arcana, in my experience. It's a rare campaign where offensive wands are being found at that low a level, and as a party you can't make your own until you hit level 5. Most parties and PCs are more likely to focus on permanent bonuses or single use items (like potions and scrolls) at that point. However, at level 4 the dynamic of using spell combat changes substantially for the Magus: He has managed to acquire the spell recall ability (unless he took an archetype that gave it up, in which case, someone is going to have to visit him with a rolled up newspaper and say "Bad! Bad Magus!"), and his Arcane pool has at least 4 points in it. He can therefore be pretty certain that he'll be able to get off close to 8 spells a day, while using spell combat, and (perhaps most importantly) he can prepare only one of each, and then cast it more than one time.

As his levels continue to increase, he will rapidly reach the point where spell combat becomes a regular part of his combat routine: it may not happen every round (particularly if the DM running the group does not allow for 15 minute work days), but he's probably doing it twice per combat, and if he's at the top of his day when he goes up against a BBEG, he'll be tossing one every round.

[leo1925]

LazarX wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Lurk3r wrote:

I agree with Mergy on the whole cantrip thing. They're under the "spells" class feature, and on the "spells per day" table, so they're spells. They just have an extra rule attached to them. On the flip side, if cantrips aren't spells does that mean they can't be countered or shut down by an anti-magic field like 'real' spells can?

The main issue is that there no melee touch attack cantrips. Calling Arcane Mark such a cantrip is by the definition of some, including myself, a cheesy manipulation of the rules. If Magus designers had intended us for having unlimited spellstrike in this manner, they would have designed a proper touch attack cantrip.

You say it's cheesy, we say that it's a way for the magus to be meaningful at 2nd level.

The magus can be as meaningful without it as any other second level character. It's a rules manipulative use of a spell which is clearly not meant to be used that way.

That's your opinion.

My opinion is that without the arcane mark thing a second level STR based magus is just as useful as a rogue or a 2nd level STR based monk without someone casting mage armor on him, the DEX based magus fares better but not by a lot.

Anyway there is always the solution of the two world magic trait for DMs who think like that and don't allow the arcane mark thing.

PS. I have nothing against STR based monks, it's just that it's quite easy to die if someone doesn't cast mage armor at him, later that problem goes away. But if the 2nd level STR based monk has mage armor cast on him then he's way better than a 2nd level STR magus without arcane mark.

[Ævux]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ævux wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Mergy wrote:

I don't find it reasonable. I don't really see in the rules where there's a difference between cantrips and all other spells besides a meaningless label. It is merely casting a 0-level spell as opposed to a 1st level spell.

Same here.

For a starter? the part of the rules where you can cast an unlimited number of cantrips in a day while you have a limited number of spells.

By that logic, Swords are not weapons. Bows are weapons because while you can swing a sword an unlimited number of times per day, you are only able to fire a bow a number of times as per the ammunition you have. Therefor a bow is a weapon, a sword is not.

Please, don't try this kind of false comparison.

A true comparison is that by that logic swords aren't ammunitions.
And lo and behold, swords aren't ammunitions unless you are in the habit to throwing swords.

Ammunition isn't what does the damage though, by itself, ammunition is an improvised weapon. Ammo is the limiting factor of number of times you are able to use a bow.

you don't cast spell slots at people, you cast spells. Slots are just the limiting factor of the number of times you can use spell a day. However in truth you are only limited by the number of pearls of power you own.

[Pirate]

Yar.

Random nitpick regarding cantrips:

Lurk3r wrote:

... They're under the "spells" class feature ...

This is incorrect. Cantrips and Orisons are their own class feature, separate from the "spells" class feature. True, the Cantrips (and Orisons) class features do refer the reader to the spell table, and gives itself the alternate name of 0-level spells, and the Spells class feature refers the reader to a list of spells by level, which includes 0-level spells, they are still, technically, separate class features from each other. Related, yes, but not one and the same.

~P

[Mergy]

I'm having trouble understanding why "These spells are cast like any other spell" is being misinterpreted. Yes, they are called cantrips and given their own rule. That rule is they can be cast unlimited times. Using arcane mark as a touch attack is well within the rules. It's not like attacking twice on a full attack is overpowered. It's powerful, but alchemists, barbarians, rangers, and summoners all have a better routine by second level. Keep in mind also the magus still has to cast it defensively or risk an attack of opportunity.

[james maissen]

Mergy wrote:

I'm having trouble understanding why "These spells are cast like any other spell" is being misinterpreted. Yes, they are called cantrips and given their own rule. That rule is they can be cast unlimited times. Using arcane mark as a touch attack is well within the rules. It's not like attacking twice on a full attack is overpowered. It's powerful, but alchemists, barbarians, rangers, and summoners all have a better routine by second level. Keep in mind also the magus still has to cast it defensively or risk an attack of opportunity.

Don't try to use reason here.. it's inappropriate.

There were people who railed against the Mystic Theurge when it came out as being 'OMG over-powered' and this isn't much different.

As to a class comparison, I think the Magus stacks up with the Monk. Interestingly enough the monk is not considered overpowered when it can not only flurry (which is better than the magus doing it with arcane mark) but can spend Ki to make an additional attack or defend themselves!

-James

[LazarX]

DreamAtelier wrote:

Note that there is an exception here, which is if the magus picks up true strike as one of his first spells. By doing that, everything I just said about the attack penalties goes out the window: Unless he rolls a natural 1, he will connect while using true strike.

Only for that one hit... It's not a spell with a meaningful duration after all.

[Diego Rossi]

james maissen wrote:

Mergy wrote:

I'm having trouble understanding why "These spells are cast like any other spell" is being misinterpreted. Yes, they are called cantrips and given their own rule. That rule is they can be cast unlimited times. Using arcane mark as a touch attack is well within the rules. It's not like attacking twice on a full attack is overpowered. It's powerful, but alchemists, barbarians, rangers, and summoners all have a better routine by second level. Keep in mind also the magus still has to cast it defensively or risk an attack of opportunity.

Don't try to use reason here.. it's inappropriate.

There were people who railed against the Mystic Theurge when it came out as being 'OMG over-powered' and this isn't much different.

As to a class comparison, I think the Magus stacks up with the Monk. Interestingly enough the monk is not considered overpowered when it can not only flurry (which is better than the magus doing it with arcane mark) but can spend Ki to make an additional attack or defend themselves!

-James

Ah, that is why you guys are so defensive. You have decided to hear something different from what is said.

The magus is overpowered.
Actually no one has said that. Well, beside you guys trying to say that it is not true.

I suggest you re-read what was written without that prejudice in place.

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.

[Lurk3r]

Pirate wrote:

Yar.

Random nitpick regarding cantrips:

Lurk3r wrote:

... They're under the "spells" class feature ...

This is incorrect. Cantrips and Orisons are their own class feature, separate from the "spells" class feature...

~P

My bad. I was away from my physical book at the time, and the Magus SRD page has them listed under the "spells" heading.

[Pirate]

Yar.

Lurk3r wrote:

My bad. I was away from my physical book at the time, and the Magus SRD page has them listed under the "spells" heading.

No worries, it happens. Ah yes, the SRD. It's a great site, but is fan made. It is not the online reference document actually published by paizo. That would be the PRD. Of course, the PRD only contains paizo's setting neutral books, while the SRD includes all Golarion material, as well as some 3.x conversions and 3rd party material. It's good to have both, but it's also good to know the difference between the two.

~P

[Merck]

Diego Rossi wrote:

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.

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.

[DDogwood]

Pirate wrote:

Yar.

Lurk3r wrote:

My bad. I was away from my physical book at the time, and the Magus SRD page has them listed under the "spells" heading.

No worries, it happens. Ah yes, the SRD. It's a great site, but is fan made. It is not the online reference document actually published by paizo. That would be the PRD. Of course, the PRD only contains paizo's setting neutral books, while the SRD includes all Golarion material, as well as some 3.x conversions and 3rd party material. It's good to have both, but it's also good to know the difference between the two.

~P

Regardless, the Cantrips class feature says that Cantrips are spells, and the wording is the same in the PRD, SRD, and UM. The text reads:

Cantrips: A magus can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted in the table above under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.

So they are 0-level SPELLS, and these SPELLS are cast like any other spell. I don't understand how anyone can argue that these spells are not spells. It's pretty clear that the separate listing is simply there to indicate that Cantrips have an additional rule that does not apply to other spells.

[Atarlost]

PRD

Paizo PRD wrote:

Cantrips: A magus can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells[/], each day, as noted in the table above under “Spells per Day.” These [i]spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.

It doesn't matter that they're not in the spells class feature. Neither are sorceror bloodline bonus spells, oracle mystery bonus spells, wizard school bonus spell slots, or cleric domain spell slots. Does this mean that a Magus/Cleric multiclass with the Broad Study arcana cannot spellstrike out of his domain slots?

I don't know how Paizo could have made the Cantrips = Spells clearer.

[Maxximilius]

Are people really saying on this thread that using spell combat or spellstrike with a freakin' cantrip is cheesy and the deed of munchkins ?

Like, seriously ?

[Joyd]

Calling cantrips "not spells" isn't a light claim. It not only is completely unwarranted by any reading of the ability, it interrupts cantrips from interacting with basically every rule and character option that interacts with spells. If you don't want a particular ability to work with cantrips, then it should say that it doesn't work with cantrips - you know, like how every other ability that doesn't work with cantrips reads. I'm perfectly willing to buy that allowing the feature to work with cantrips was an oversight, but it's silly to claim that it doesn't work because cantrips aren't spells.

[Mergy]

Diego Rossi wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Mergy wrote:

I'm having trouble understanding why "These spells are cast like any other spell" is being misinterpreted. Yes, they are called cantrips and given their own rule. That rule is they can be cast unlimited times. Using arcane mark as a touch attack is well within the rules. It's not like attacking twice on a full attack is overpowered. It's powerful, but alchemists, barbarians, rangers, and summoners all have a better routine by second level. Keep in mind also the magus still has to cast it defensively or risk an attack of opportunity.

Don't try to use reason here.. it's inappropriate.

There were people who railed against the Mystic Theurge when it came out as being 'OMG over-powered' and this isn't much different.

As to a class comparison, I think the Magus stacks up with the Monk. Interestingly enough the monk is not considered overpowered when it can not only flurry (which is better than the magus doing it with arcane mark) but can spend Ki to make an additional attack or defend themselves!

-James

Ah, that is why you guys are so defensive. You have decided to hear something different from what is said.

The magus is overpowered.
Actually no one has said that. Well, beside you guys trying to say that it is not true.

I suggest you re-read what was written without that prejudice in place.

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.

I don't think it's overpowered. If you also don't think it's overpowered, then you're railing against what? That you don't like how it works? A wizard can acid splash all day and night, and a magus can likewise arcane mark all day and night. I don't understand your issue, and I further don't understand what is 'uncool' about it.

[STR Ranger]

The reason people feel it's overpowered is because if you spell combat/spellstrike you get 2 attacks.

Example. I am a Hexcrafter magus (Using Brand instead of Arcane Mark)
I declare spell combat
I make an attack with my scimitar (I hit), and cast Brand, which grants a FREE touch attack to deliver the spell
Spellstrike specifically states touch spells can be delivered via a weapon attack, so I use my FREE touch attack to deliver the spell via the scimitar imstead.

So made 2scimitar attacks (at -2 penalty) and delivered a cantrip as well.

A fighter can only make 1 attack, but this is balanced by the fact that he can 2 hand his weapon for extra damage. spell combat/spell strike attacks are made 1 handed (cause the other hand is casting)

[Mergy]

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.

[Dekalinder]

So a magus can do the exact same thing of any one character who selected the "two weapon fighting" feat as a class ability at second level. Man, that's soo cheesy! You know, 2WF is the wet dream of any melee character!

[LazarX]

Mergy wrote:

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.

The problem is it's a cheesy way to get what you want. Arcane Mark isn't, never was, and never will be intended to be an attack spell. With the logic presented for it, signing your signature should be all you need to have effective two weapon fighting.

The designers clearly did not intend that you would be able to spellstrike without spending a resource that was finite. If they had, they would have put a melee touch spell on the cantrip list. While I know that there are those who think that milking RAW for every possible advantage is the only applicable measure in game play, the arcane mark exploit is a eggregious in the way it breaks the intent of a spell.