Magus ruling question


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Lou Diamond wrote:
Thamius your E is incorrect
Quote:


You can always make a move action and a standard action in the same turn

Of course that's always an option, that's why I covered your example in Option D on my list.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@BigNorseWolf: You are correct that Spellstrike itself doesn't give you any extra attacks. Your understanding of that ability is fine.

The thing being talked about is the combination of Spellstrike with the other ability: Spell Combat.

Spellstrike, as you referenced/quoted, does NOT change the fact that you have to spend a standard action casting your spell. Spell Combat, however, does change that - it lets you cast a spell that would normally take a standard action, but tack it onto your full-attack routine instead.

So, for instance, a magus would normally need a standard action to cast shocking grasp. But Spell Combat allows him to make a full attack (at a -2 penalty) and also cast shocking grasp either before or after said full attack in the same turn. Spell Combat = Attack + Spell.

Now, if any spell caster ever casts a spell with a range of "touch", they get to make an attack roll to deliver it as a free action, in addition to whatever else they do that turn. Therefore, if a magus uses Spell Combat (attack + spell), and the spell is a touch spell, then he gets his normal attack in addition to the free attack granted by normal spellcasting rules.

That's a total of two attacks: one being his mundane weapon attack, and the other being the touch attack granted by Core touch spell rules. Boom. Two attacks.

So with Spell Combat alone (without using Spellstrike at all), a magus can both stab you and shocking grasp you. Or, he could stab you and harmlessly arcane mark you.

Now look at Spellstrike. Ordinarily, the free attack granted by casting a touch spell is a melee touch attack. Spellstrike simply modifies it to use a weapon, attacking normal AC instead of touch AC and adding weapon damage on a hit.

So if a magus walks up to me and casts arcane mark, the Core rules grant him a free-action attack roll to deliver it. If he so chooses, he can replace the touch attack with a weapon attack. So he just stabbed me in the face as part of casting the normally-harmless arcane mark. Ouch.

Now let's combine Spell Combat with Spellstrike.

Mr. Magus starts his turn next to me. He declares a full-attack using Spell Combat. So first he stabs me (ouch). Then, he gets to cast a spell that would normally take a standard action, even though he's already attacked. So for that spell, he decides to cast arcane mark. Once he does so, the Core rules say "Hey! You cast a touch spell! Make a melee touch attack as a free action!". Then Spellstrike says "If you want, you can use your weapon instead of your finger." So Mr. Magus stabs me to deliver the arcane mark (ouch, again).

And voila, the magus has attacked twice: once as his full-attack routine as part of Spell Combat, and once to deliver arcane mark through his weapon via Spellstrike, modifying the free attack granted by Core rules when he cast a touch spell via Spell Combat.


Jiggy: the bottom quote is james jacobs as well.

There are multiple valid interpretations of what the text says that don't give you free attacks for casting. Unless a dev chimes in and says that's what its supposed to do the rube Goldberg esque interaction you're reading between the two doesn't fly.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BNW, what I wrote does not contradict anything you quoted from James Jacobs. I'm not sure what conflict you're seeing; I presume you're either misinterpreting James or misinterpreting me.


This is coming up yet again? Hasn't this been hashed out ad nauseum?

Spell combat - you take a full-round action to take your iterative attacks and cast a spell. If that cast spell is a touch spell, it gives you a free attack as part of casting it. This attack can be with your weapon due to your second ability called spellstrike.

The Spell Combat+Spellstrike full-round action is either:

  • (cast touch spell+free spellstrike attack) then (full attack)
  • (full attack) then (cast touch spell+free spellstrike attack)

Stick a 5-foot step miscellaneous nonaction whereever you want in either.


From what I understand this tactic is mostly relevant at lower levels. I did a short analysis assuming +6 hit (18 dex/str, +1 masterwork, +1 arcane pool), +4 concentration (16 int, level 1) and a rapier(dex) or scimitar(str). Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.

DEX BASED:

Avg dam
AC no AM with AM
8 4,950 6,380
9 4,675 5,981
10 4,400 5,583
11 4,125 5,184
12 3,850 4,785
13 3,575 4,386
14 3,300 3,988
15 3,025 3,589
16 2,750 3,190
17 2,475 2,791
18 2,200 2,393
19 1,925 1,994
20 1,650 1,595
21 1,375 1,196

STR BASED:

Avg dam
AC no AM with AM
8 9,450 9,860
9 8,925 9,244
10 8,400 8,628
11 7,875 8,011
12 7,350 7,395
13 6,825 6,779
14 6,300 6,163
15 5,775 5,546
16 5,250 4,930
17 4,725 4,314
18 4,200 3,698
19 3,675 3,081
20 3,150 2,465
21 2,625 1,849

Ok, these tables look terrible, but the conclusion is that using AM requires good hit chance and low damage. If enemy AC increases you end up losing damage. A str based magus loses damage from not two-handing his scimitar.
Furthermore, the AM trick adds so very little when you care for it (low level) that it is in no way overpowered and thus allowing it, which is RAW and RAI, is not a problem.

EDIT: As WRoy indicates, you can sometimes do the trick without a concentration check. It these cases, go ahead if you're a dex magus.


When we started our jade regent game i asked my dm about this, at the time i thought it was a grey area. He ruled i couldnt do it. I can live with that. In the long run it wont matter.

That said as part of playing the char ive been reading up on rules and realized it really isnt a grey area.

What we know is spell combat doesnt care if its a cantrip
Spell strike doesnt care if a spell is an attack spell or friendly it just says touch.
Arcane mark because its delivered by touch grants a free touch. Which normally is used to say this is bobs.

Ergo they all work together, any debate really comes down to it bugs the dm. It really isny about the rules at all.

Dark Archive

Lokiron wrote:

From what I understand this tactic is mostly relevant at lower levels. I did a short analysis assuming +6 hit (18 dex/str, +1 masterwork, +1 arcane pool), +4 concentration (16 int, level 1) and a rapier(dex) or scimitar(str). Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Ok, these tables look terrible, but the conclusion is that using AM requires good hit chance and low damage. If enemy AC increases you end up losing damage. A str based magus loses damage from not two-handing his scimitar.
Furthermore, the AM trick adds so very little when you care for it (low level) that it is in no way overpowered and thus allowing it, which is RAW and RAI, is not a problem.

EDIT: As WRoy indicates, you can sometimes do the trick without a concentration check. It these cases, go ahead if you're a dex magus.

Your chart is missing the most important reason to do this. Crit fishing.

You use that arcane mark to get an additional chance to critical hit with your weapon and since all the weapons the Magus use should be at 15-20 crit range it makes for a LOT of extra damage.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Jiggy: the bottom quote is james jacobs as well.

There are multiple valid interpretations of what the text says that don't give you free attacks for casting. Unless a dev chimes in and says that's what its supposed to do the rube Goldberg esque interaction you're reading between the two doesn't fly.

BNW: Nothing against you, but arguing against Jiggy's very thorough posts (which go point-by-point explaining why it works the way it does) by saying "there are multiple valid interpretations" without specifying even one makes you look like you're just trolling, rather than trying to understand the rules. If you disagree with him, please post one of these "valid interpretations" and point out how it differs from Jiggy's. Then we can have an actual discussion.

Additionally, The bottom quote from James Jacobs doesn't conflict with him at all, and even if it did, 1) JJ is not a rules developer and is not a definitive source of game mechanic rulings (setting questions are an entirely different issue), 2) developer posts (no matter who they're from) are not official unless they get copied into a FAQ/errata entry.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.

Your chart is missing the most important reason to do this. Crit fishing.

You use that arcane mark to get an additional chance to critical hit with your weapon and since all the weapons the Magus use should be at 15-20 crit range it makes for a LOT of extra damage.

This is true. It was a quick sketch for my own use that validated the AM trick which I thought would cost me DPR in my last session (my character not being optimized and all).

However, by the time you get 15-20 range, are you still using cantrips in combat? (Don't read this the wrong way, I'm not being snarky, but curious).


Probably not unless he's trying to conserve his higher-level spells while fighting mooks.

Dark Archive

Lokiron wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.

Your chart is missing the most important reason to do this. Crit fishing.

You use that arcane mark to get an additional chance to critical hit with your weapon and since all the weapons the Magus use should be at 15-20 crit range it makes for a LOT of extra damage.

This is true. It was a quick sketch for my own use that validated the AM trick which I thought would cost me DPR in my last session (my character not being optimized and all).

However, by the time you get 15-20 range, are you still using cantrips in combat? (Don't read this the wrong way, I'm not being snarky, but curious).

Absolutely. The main point about Magus is it's all about the resource management. Anything that allows you to keep you from having to burn your finite resources while still contributing to the party success is great.

Ever try to fight a Golem ? You will beg for every extra point of physical damage you can get.

Mix Arcane Mark with Butterfly's Sting and a scythe wielding ally and watch the whole table cheer every time you crit.

Or more commonly you'll have burned an arcane point to add Flaming, Shock and Acid to your +1 weapon for an addition 3D6 damage per hit. Arcane Mark lets you do an additional 3-4D6 damage a round, every round.
THIS is worth making sure you keep arcane mark spam in your routine.


James Jacobs says, multiple times, there is no extra attack.

Jiggy's interpretation is finagling an extra attack into it.

I don't see how the contradiction could get any more blatant.

Bobson: The other interpretation is that you just use the sword in place of whatever touch attack you would normally get, and that spell combat needs an actual off hand weapon (the touch spell) to get in another attack. That casting the spell is still a standard action and you can't take a full round action to use spellstrike with that standard action.

And you can ask me to spell that out without accusing me of trolling.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Jacobs says, multiple times, there is no extra attack.

Correction: he says, multiple times, there is no extra attack granted by Spellstrike.

This is 100% in accord with everything I've said. Spellstrike does not grant you an extra attack. As I've already said (repeatedly), all Spellstrike does is modify the attack that you already get as part of casting a touch spell, such that it uses your sword instead of your finger. That's what JJ was saying too. We're both saying that Spellstrike does nothing but cause your sword to be involved in what's already going on.

What did you think I was saying?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Jacobs says, multiple times, there is no extra attack.

Would you please link to said statements? I'm curious to see the context in which they were made.


Lokiron wrote:
From what I understand this tactic is mostly relevant at lower levels. I did a short analysis assuming +6 hit (18 dex/str, +1 masterwork, +1 arcane pool), +4 concentration (16 int, level 1) and a rapier(dex) or scimitar(str). Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.

You should add combat Casting into the mix, it's almost a feat tax for magus (a human magus should have it at level 1). Or at least, a +2 Concentration trait.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bobson: The other interpretation is that you just use the sword in place of whatever touch attack you would normally get, and that spell combat needs an actual off hand weapon (the touch spell) to get in another attack. That casting the spell is still a standard action and you can't take a full round action to use spellstrike with that standard action.

Wait; what?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

James Jacobs says, multiple times, there is no extra attack.

Jiggy's interpretation is finagling an extra attack into it.

I don't see how the contradiction could get any more blatant.

Bobson: The other interpretation is that you just use the sword in place of whatever touch attack you would normally get, and that spell combat needs an actual off hand weapon (the touch spell) to get in another attack. That casting the spell is still a standard action and you can't take a full round action to use spellstrike with that standard action.

And you can ask me to spell that out without accusing me of trolling.

You are correct, using Spell Combat does not give a free attack, it allows you to take all of your attacks at a -2 penalty and cast a spell during that full attack action either before, during, or after those attacks have been completed. No extra weapon attack can be made to deliver the spell, this is 100% true.

What you continue to ignore, however, is Spellstrike. For consistencies sake I will copy the text from the SRD, however I could just as easily scribe it verbatim from my copy of UM:

Spellstrike:
Spellstrike (SU)

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.

I trust there is no need for emphasis. Spellstrike says, in no uncertain terms, that it can be used during Spell Combat, and that the touch spell can be delivered via a weapon attack. It cannot be more clear, this is not an interpretation, it is RAW, and according to the FAQ, RAI.


Ravingdork wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Jacobs says, multiple times, there is no extra attack.
Would you please link to said statements? I'm curious to see the context in which they were made.

They're linked (nearly) in full earlier in the thread.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Jacobs says, multiple times, there is no extra attack.
Would you please link to said statements? I'm curious to see the context in which they were made.
They're linked (nearly) in full earlier in the thread.

BNW, you are misinterpreting what JJ ment

from jj
Spellstrike: The free attack is NOT an extra attack. It's a free attack you ad on to spellcasting. Casting the spell still takes the normal amount of time—spellstrike just effectively adds the weapon attack as a part of the casting of the spell. Think of the attack as a somatic component if you will. So when he uses spellstrike, he does NOT get his full iterative attacks—his primary action in that round is the spellcasting, and normally that means he gets NO attacks. Spellstrike lets him make ONE attack as part of that spellcasting.

FREE ATTACK. Those are the key words here. This also has nothing to do with spell combat. Now when you use them together, you get to cast and make the attack the spell grants you as a free attack.

he does not talk about spell combat whatsoever here. Magus uses spell combat. takes all attacks (at -2), then opts to cast shocking grasp. he gets his free touch attack as part of casting (not an "extra" attack, but a "free" which he opts to use spellstrike and deals weapon damage


He specifically says that arcane mark is a bad idea that doesn't do anything other than let you play zoro. Someone tries to point out the devastating combo to him and I don't see a specific response to that.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
He specifically says that arcane mark is a bad idea that doesn't do anything other than let you play zoro. Someone tries to point out the devastating combo to him and I don't see a specific response to that.

Swinging your sword an extra time per round is a devastating combo? Forgive my skepticism but even while crit fishing with a tri-enchanted weapon for extra elemental damage per swing I don't see how this puts a Magus in peril of out-damaging, say, a 2handed Fighter on a full attack action.

Even if all you're doing is playing Zorro, using Arcane Mark with Spellstrike/Spell Combat to get an extra attack is RAW and RAI.


You guys are right. Here it is specifically

From the red dragon himself

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
He specifically says that arcane mark is a bad idea that doesn't do anything other than let you play zoro. Someone tries to point out the devastating combo to him and I don't see a specific response to that.

i'm still not seeing how you can interpret an ability that specifically says "get a free attack" as "you dont get a free attack"

JJ was just addressing the confusion that some people thought you got a free channeled touch attack and an additional free melee attack from the ability.


Name violation wrote:
i'm still not seeing how you can interpret an ability that specifically says "get a free attack" as "you dont get a free attack"

You're getting a replacement attack for a limb you've already used to make its full compliment of attacks.

Basically your right arm attacks twice and then attacks again because your left hand cast a spell didn't make any sense.

Also, they didn't give flurry of blows like this to the monk but with arcane mark trick the magus has it...


BigNorseWolf wrote:

You're getting a replacement attack for a limb you've already used to make its full compliment of attacks.

Basically your right arm attacks twice and then attacks again because your left hand cast a spell didn't make any sense.

Spell combat specifically doesn't allow the use of an off-hand weapon.

Spellstrike is specifically allowed in conjunction with spell combat.

Ergo: spellstrike use the only weapon you're allowed to wield. The one used to make a full attack. Or spellstrike wouldn't specifically state it's usable with spell combat, since it wouldn't be usable with spell combat.


Quote:
Spell combat specifically doesn't allow the use of an off-hand weapon.

No, but it uses the spell in place of a weapon. Touch attacks are armed attacks. It does let you slam your longsword into Goblin 1 and then make goblin 2's head asplode with shocking grasp. (that is indeed the only use for it until level 2)


So, your point is that the spellstrike ability allows the magus to use his hand to make touch attacks.

Seriously?


GâtFromKI wrote:

So, your point is that the spellstrike ability allows the magus to use his hand to make touch attacks.

Seriously?

I've already said i was wrong so besides berating me I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, especially by blatantly misreading me.

Spell strike lets you hit with the sword. Spell Combat lets you use your offhand to cast a spell while not interfere with you swinging a sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to thank you for looking for the info yourself and being amenable to reason. Sometimes people just never admit to being wrong.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Just wanted to thank you for looking for the info yourself and being amenable to reason. Sometimes people just never admit to being wrong.

NP

It takes a lot but i will do it. This LOOKS like a bug, not a feature. I had help finding the Buhlman reference.


The rules can be complicated and sometimes don't spell out every consequence.


LazarX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Your spouse sounds awesome. :)
My spouse is of the opinion that these message boards are a good way to kill a person's interest in Pathfinder, not because of Paizo, but because of the numbercrunching theorycrafting extremists that are the vocal presence here.

The truth

There are few that don't know how to look past the numbers. They are very much the minority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, a character is not just about the numbers, but the argument is.

If jiggy and I have a difference on rules, one of us is right and one of us (it was me this time. I'll get you gadget, next tiiiiime) so that generates a bunch of posts going back and forth.

If one of us has a half elf character background and personality then whatever background or personality we feel is right for our character IS right for our character. I can't tell him "no, your halfelf must! be a dark brooding character conflicted about his dual nature"

So even IF someone asks for personality advice its going to be one non argumentative post because there is no right or wrong answer. There's no paragraph length quote from the rulebook to show how his dark broodiness interacts with anything else or whether its better than bright sunniness.

Scarab Sages

Face_P0lluti0n wrote:


Mostly that I wouldn't want to get anybody else's PC killed because I wasn't optimizing.

Ignore the optimizers, they are going to be annoying regardless of how you build your character.

Take, for example, the game I was in last weekend. The optimised to the hilt lion shaman that spouted his lecture about how everyone should purchase a wand of CLW, he was not a healer, was the first one to scream for heals when he got hit.


According to the magus preview posted link, spellstrike can be allows you to substitute the touch attack (free attack as part of the spell casting) with any weapon being weilded.

Any would include the weapon the magus just used thus gaining a free swing. Since arcane mark is a touch spell, when cast you get a free swing as per spellstrike however if it connects, there is no spell damage (HP) but the weapon will still do appropriate damage. If shocking grasp were used, the freeswing would do weapon + spell damage.

So arcane mark used with both combat casting and spellstrike would indeed allow a free attack from anyweapon weilded ... provided the spellis actually cast.

I personally am not a fan of the combo as 1. I think itspersonally cheesy and 2. It almost always requires a conceentration check to defensively cast and at 2nd level the chances aren't that great without using combat casting.

Scarab Sages

So to sum up, Arcane Mark works with Spellstrike/Spellcombat combo, but does create a mildly cheesy aroma.

Tune in next week for a brand new episode of The Cheese Factor!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The "cheese" comment used on everything that one does not like or understand begins to grate.
It feels like a board filled with mouthy teenage mice, with all the cheese flinging.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:
The "cheese" ... begins to grate.

*chuckle*


My first experience with "cheesy" was playing (or watching can't remember) the Street Fighter II video game. Rather than a victory mark for a round won, the emblem was that of a wedge of cheese. It was implied that the win was cheesy due to the tactics used.

thus my personal belief that using arcane mark in such a way is cheesy. what makes it worse in my opinion is that due to the nature of cantrips and that they are not lost when cast so this combination can be used over and over and over again.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

The "cheese" comment used on everything that one does not like or understand begins to grate.

Cheese applies to RAW that breaks immersion.

Why does fireball deal that much fire damage to that large an area? Because you're using magic to blow stuff up. IE not cheesy.

Why does a magus get an extra attack any round it wants by using arcane mark?
Because the rules so say.

One is a highly effective damage dealing spell. One is a mildly effective tactic. But the mildly effective tactic is being called cheesy because, despite it working RAW, it is hard to justify why it would work that way. Although the Zorro imagery goes a long way towards justifying it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gourry187 wrote:
what makes it worse in my opinion is that due to the nature of cantrips and that they are not lost when cast so this combination can be used over and over and over again.

Yeah, they can emulate TWF by having to make concentration checks over and over again, and any that they fail result in making only their normal attacks but all at a penalty for no benefit.

Such cheese.

/sarcasm

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The arcane mark "trick" is just a complicated way of two weapon fighting, with penalties and everything.
It's like saying a rogue who two weapon fights for more sneak attack damage, is using a "cheesy" tactic.

Shadow Lodge

I personally don't bother with arcane mark with my magus... I have close range arcana, so I just use ray of frost, acid splash, or disrupt undead instead. ;)


Every Provolone Archtype Magus should take Improved Cheddar at first level, 3rd at the very latest. Fact of life.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

When in danger, I pray to Cheesus.


I'm not saying its not a legal combination, I'm just saying that I don't believe it was intentional.

The TWF penalty is almost neglegable when the magus as a swift action can make their weapon +1 (at 2nd level) so the only thing that really limits anything is the defensive casting check which can be overcome by 5' stepping back making the combo foolproof every other round.

its totally legal, no question there but do you really think it was intentional?


gourry187 wrote:

I'm not saying its not a legal combination, I'm just saying that I don't believe it was intentional.

The TWF penalty is almost neglegable when the magus as a swift action can make their weapon +1 (at 2nd level) so the only thing that really limits anything is the defensive casting check which can be overcome by 5' stepping back making the combo foolproof every other round.

its totally legal, no question there but do you really think it was intentional?

I believe it was very much intentional, Zorro imagery aside being able to gain an extra attack via spellstrike/spell combat goes a long way for a low-level Magus with precious few spells to spend.

You could always opt to use the close range arcana with ray of frost or acid splash if it irks you that much, as brought up by Eric Clingenpeel.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

gourry187 wrote:

I'm not saying its not a legal combination, I'm just saying that I don't believe it was intentional.

<snip>

its totally legal, no question there but do you really think it was intentional?

You already saw where the lead designer of Pathfinder endorsed it, and you still think it's not the intent? What's your reasoning?


Jiggy wrote:
You already saw where the lead designer of Pathfinder endorsed it, and you still think it's not the intent? What's your reasoning?

endorsing it doesn't mean that at the time of writting, the combitation was foreseen. It could be as simple of 'we didn't think about that but thats a creative use so we approve'

TBH I haven't looked up his statement as I believe intent or not, its a legal use of the two abilities so I didn't feel the need to look.

As stated I'm not saying its not legal ... I just personally think its cheesy but ...

a win is a win and any landing you can walk away from is a good one

so its just personal preferance. It doesn't have to agree with others ... its just my opinion ... take it as it is.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

gourry187 wrote:
endorsing it doesn't mean that at the time of writting, the combitation was foreseen. It could be as simple of 'we didn't think about that but thats a creative use so we approve'

Looking at the context, it would appear that they changed a previous version of Spellstrike in order to specifically allow this.

Quote:
so its just personal preferance. It doesn't have to agree with others ... its just my opinion ... take it as it is.

Certainly. :) I was merely clarifying the difference between your opinion and and developers' intent.

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus ruling question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.