Can a tengu magus use its beak or bite attack for the spell in spell combat?
|
Do you mean spellstrike? The tengu can deliver the spell through "any weapon he is wielding". A natural weapon is a weapon, but does the tengu wield it? I can't see an issue with it myself.
If you actually meant spell combat, the tengu, like any other magus, must have a hand free to use spell combat. edit: agree with blackbloodtroll that the tengu can make a beak attack as part of spell combat just as he normally could as part of a full attack.
I don't see a reason why not.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You don't have to use Spellstrike. Anyone can deliver a touch spell through a natural attack.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
You don't have to use Spellstrike. Anyone can deliver a touch spell through a natural attack.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Yes, but they can't do it in place of the free touch attack granted by touch spells. You need Spellstrike.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, but they can't do it in place of the free touch attack granted by touch spells. You need Spellstrike.You don't have to use Spellstrike. Anyone can deliver a touch spell through a natural attack.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Ah, that's true.
It seems that Magus as written does not support natural weapons. Both Spell Combat and Spellstrike mention wielded weapons.
I think that a feat or arcana could be designed to allow using natural weapons with these two features, similar to the monk feat that allows using natural attack with flurry.
...I'm pretty sure that the consensus is, that a natural weapon is considered af wielded weapon in almost any circumstance, unless it is specifically called out that it is not. Specific trumps general and all that...
Spellstrike works with "any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack." So no problem with the beak.
Spell Combat works "while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand." The beak is not in the other hand, so it doesn't work. (Also, since bite is a natural attack, it doesn't have iterative attacks anyway, which is sort of the point.)
The assumption is that when Spell Combat says "he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon" it's referring to the "light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand." So even if you have two extra arms holding a greataxe, you're still only supposed to attack with the light or one handed weapon. It's not explicit, but I think that's clearly the intent, based on the assumption of normalcy.
Sadly, you can't add natural attacks at the end because you're not actually making a full attack. Spell Combat is a full-round action that lets you make all of your attacks with your melee weapon (and cast a spell). If it said you could make a full attack and cast a spell, there would be all sorts of loopholes. (TWF with a third arm, natural attacks, etc.)
There is a multi-weapon loophole, though. You could, by RAW, use spell combat, attack with the dagger, then cast a touch spell, then deliver that touch spell with another weapon. (greataxe, beak, etc.) Because that last attack is granted by the spell, not by spell combat, it doesn't technically have to be made with the light or one handed weapon in your other hand. Kind of cheesy, but appears to be legal.
I think it's a pretty weird exclusion to say natural weapons don't work because they're not in one's hand. They are light weapons, and there's no real overpowering reason why spell combat shouldn't work with a bite.
Does it still say they are light weapons?
The line "Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks." was removed in errata. It's not possible to have TWF penalties with them, and I can't find anything in the PRD saying otherwise.
Unarmed Strikes are counted as light for purposes of TWF, but I can't find anything stating that natural attacks are light (or one handed) weapons.
Natural Attacks: "Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)."
"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action..."
"Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary..."
Those are all denoting the difference between natural attacks and manufactured weapons. In the combat chapter, it switches language:
Natural Attacks: "Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites..."
It starts calling them natural weapons, but still making a difference between them and manufactured weapons. Then there's this: "You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes" which again shows a difference between "melee weapon" and a natural attack.
So the only question is this:
When Spell Combat specifies "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand" does it refer only to a manufactured weapon held in your hand, or does it mean any weapon on any part of your body?
Check out the feat Weapon Finesse, as it calls natural weapons out as light weapons.
So it does:
Weapon Finesse - "Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons."
Sadly, you can't add natural attacks at the end because you're not actually making a full attack. Spell Combat is a full-round action that lets you make all of your attacks with your melee weapon (and cast a spell). If it said you could make a full attack and cast a spell, there would be all sorts of loopholes.
I don't think this is true. Or it would say "primary weapon" or "manufactured weapon". Is it really that powerful to add another attack for 1d4 damage at a -5 (and -2 for spell combat and more since it isn't enchanted)? Or even using TWF to take a FURTHER -2 to all your attacks? I believe RAI is to allow only melee attacks - disallowing touch spells being given through ranged weapons.
My Kitsune Magus has been using his bite with Spell combat. And the extra 1d4+2 damage that is made at -7ish from my first attack is definitely not unbalanced (even if it can deliver touch spells, which is another discussion entirely)