link
Xy, I'm not entirely sure that you bothered to read this thread. It is totally established that you cannot spell combat with a two -handed weapon. The debate has been ...
You know what? Just read the thread, please.
|
if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.
Hello again James. We can all read what he said, and he does say you can take an attack of opportunity after ending your turn with a staff in one hand and the other hand free.
This is because it is not an action to return your free hand to the staff; returning your free hand is part of the attack.
Since you CAN attack with the staff like this, the rules for Threatening Squares in the section on Attacks of Opportunity tells us that 'You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn'.
Since you CAN attack with your staff, you DO threaten those squares, and you CAN make your AoO with your staff.
Q.E.D.
This is because it is not an action to return your free hand to the staff; returning your free hand is part of the attack.
Umm... not sure what to say besides re-read the post, that you quoted, as the above is completely wrong.
It says if your hand remains free you can, on your turn, before the end of said turn return your free hand to grip the 2h weapon so as to be wielding it instead of holding it. That is a free action, it has to happen before the end of your turn. If you don't return your free hand to the weapon BEFORE the end of your turn you would NOT be able to use it to attack/threaten until your next action (as free actions - besides talking - need to happen on your turn). Returning your free hand to the weapon is decidedly NOT a non action available whenever you choose to do so.
One point I haven't seen is that when holding a charge (with a touch spell) touching anything will discharge it. "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." From the Core Rule Book page 185-186. So if you touch your sword with the hand you cast the spell it will discharge.Can a magus use spellstrike (Ultimate Magic, page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
Sean K Reynolds
Designer
^This
Just to be clear, this isn't just written by a rules guy; by being a FAQ, it is actually written into the rules.
This is because it is not an action to return your free hand to the staff; returning your free hand is part of the attack.Umm... not sure what to say besides re-read the post, that you quoted, as the above is completely wrong.
It says if your hand remains free you can, on your turn, before the end of said turn return your free hand to grip the 2h weapon so as to be wielding it instead of holding it. That is a free action, it has to happen before the end of your turn. If you don't return your free hand to the weapon BEFORE the end of your turn you would NOT be able to use it to attack/threaten until your next action (as free actions - besides talking - need to happen on your turn). Returning your free hand to the weapon is decidedly NOT a non action available whenever you choose to do so.
Skylancer, I think most of us who say that a magus could spellstrike with a two-handed weapon are OK with it being a free action to put their hand back on the weapon. Mostly we're saying that there's no way that it would require an entire move action to do so.
|
|
Thanks Skylance.
I hadn't thought that JJs quote could be interpreted that way, but now you point it out I realise it could. It could also be interpreted the way I did.
'...at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free...'
I see the ambiguity now. 'At the end of your turn' could mean:
• after you have used your standard and move actions, but before you move to the next player's turn
OR
• at the end of your turn you are holding the staff in one hand and the other is free as you move on to the next player's turn
I accept the ambiguity. JJs statement therefore doesn't help us to resolve the debate between 'free' and 'not an action'. It DOES rule out the possibility of it being a move action, as if the wizard had a move action left to spend then it wouldn't be the 'end of his turn' in any interpretation.
To resolve the dispute between 'non-action' and 'free' action we therefore must look elsewhere. It would help if you guys would say WHY you think it is one or the other. I COULD be persuaded that it is a free action, but it would have to be backed up with evidence.
Searching for an answer in the rulebook all I find is silence. That in itself is eloquent. The Actions In Combat table lists free actions as well as standard and move actions. Adjusting weapon grip is not one of them. I don't feel that there is anything missing. Jumping is adequately explained as not an action but part of a another (move) action. I always understood that the use of two-handed weapons involve a lot of hand movement, including letting go and replacing your hands on the weapon, sometimes extremely rapidly. I have real life experience of this. Have you ever been to the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds? They do awesome demonstrations! Including halberds and greatswords! This constant hand readjustment happens not only when they attack but also when they defend.
So you see it's natural to understand this constant hand movement, in game terms, as part of using the weapon; part of the attack action just as jumping is part of movement vi don't see anyone trying to argue that jumping is a free action just because it's done on your own turn while you're frozen in mid-air until your next turn if the jumping distance is longer than your move.
So I see no need to invent a new free action to cope with all this hand gymnastics. I'd like to read why you, or anyone else feels that need, especially backed up by evidence (mine being it's absence on the Actions In Combat list, the principle already in use re: jumping). I'd also be interested to know why anyone who thinks it's not an action holds that view.
'Two hands are required to use a two-handed weapon effectively'. I've always understood that to mean you have two hands available to use it, meaning neither hand can be holding anything else or restrained or what have you. I know that that's how they're used in real life!
I did ask about spell strike (I miss types spell combat once) my second question about 2 hand weapons and spell strike got the answer
So first you asked about Spell Combat, and James answered the question you asked. Your second post was pretty much incomprehensible. The reply James gave you is still about Spell Combat, since you never actually mentioned Spellstrike.
"the style that a magus uses to cast spells and wield weapons at the same time" is referring to Spell Combat.
Spell strike does state that:
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.
Unfortunately your not wielding the weapon when the spell is completed witch is a requirement to channel the spell threw the weapon.
You're making an incorrect assumption here. As long as you have cast the spell, it had a range of 'touch', and it was from the magus spell list, then you can choose to use Spellstrike to deliver the spell with a weapon as part of a melee attack.
What that means is any time you could normally deliver a touch spell, you can use your sword to do so.
You have to be wielding the weapon at the time of the attack, not at the time of casting.
For PFS your stuck with a one hander
No, you're not. You cannot use the two-handed weapon with Spell Combat, but you absolutely can use it with Spellstrike, in a variety of ways. If you get a GM who applies crazy house rules, escalate it to the local VC.
You CAN spellstrike with a two handed weapon..... At the cost of waiting for your next round to strike.
Even if the GM rules it takes a move action to regrip the weapon, you can still cast (standard), grip (move), attack (free) in the same turn.
The free attack has to be done as part of the spellcasting. Since you're not properly wielding your weapon at that time, it can't go off.
"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."
It's a completely different action, taken at a different time, with plenty of other things that could happen in between.
You could even cast quickened shocking grasp, throw a dagger, move ten feet, quickdraw a sword, then make your free attack.
A wizard can do the exact same thing, by the way. He just doesn't get to use his sword to make the attack, he has to touch.
No a wizard can't do the same thing.
Yes, he can.
Wizard has one hand free, his other hand holding a dagger.
Turn Begins.
Wizard casts Quickened Shocking Grasp as a swift action. He doesn't technically even need a free hand, but if he did, he could use his free hand for somatic components. Wizard now has, until the end of his turn, a free action attack to discharge the spell.
Wizard throws his dagger as a standard action.
Wizard moves ten feet as a move action.
Wizard draws a sword, via the quick draw feat, as a free action.
Wizard touches an adjacent target to discharge his shocking grasp as a free action.
The only difference with the magus is he can use his sword to make that free attack, against normal AC, dealing weapon damage in addition to the spell effect if he hits. (Just like the Wizard could do next round with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, if he misses his touch and holds the charge)
The problem is with two handed weapons. If you're wielding the weapon, you have dedicated your spellcasting hand to it. Spellcasting with that hand, is NOT a free action.
If your hand is free at the time you cast the spell, that's all you need. If the spell is a standard action, then when that standard action is over, you no longer need that hand free.
Once a magus has cast the spell, he can take an entire move action to draw a weapon from a scabbard, and then use his free attack to deliver the touch spell, using his now-wielded weapon, due to Spellstrike.
That does not work... to get the "free" attack you have to make that strike as part of the cast. You can't make that strike as a separate action.
It is explicitly a separate action.
Touch Spells in Combat: "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."
FAQ - Magus: "Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell."
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.
Since nobody seemed to want to read the link, here it is. The bold is mine.
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 bolded the part I believe you are referring to. I can't find the part that says that you have to be wielding the weapon while you cast. I did find (and post) the FAQ that says you can pick up a different weapon and use it with spellstrike. For the sake of convenience, I'll post it again....
Can a magus use spellstrike (Ultimate Magic, page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
Sean K Reynolds
Designer
Look, I understand that the Magus is not intended to be a two-handed weapon wielder. Really, I do. As a matter of fact, no magus I've ever rolled wanted, even remotely, to give up spell combat for a couple extra points of weapon and STR damage on a spellstrike. I wouldn't even recommend it to any player who thought it was a good idea.
But I will defend the legality of it. I'm allowed to make a wizard whose "thing" is two-weapon fighting and take all the TWF feats (well, all the ones I qualify for) and have a higher STR than INT but it doesn't make any sense and certainly isn't playing the class as intended....but it's legal.
It all comes down to the weapon not being wielded at the compeletion of the spell, it is only being held.
The free action to attack must come after the spell is complete, but before the end of your turn.
There is nothing that prohibits you taking a swift, move, and multiple free actions in between finishing casting the spell and using the free attack. If the touch spell was quickened, you could take a full-round action (or a standard and move) as well as multiple free actions before making the free attack.
Spellstrike requires that you use a wielded weapon.
Correct. You must be wielding the weapon at the time you make the attack.
If the time you make the attack is after a move action to draw a weapon, you're wielding the weapon at the time you make the attack, even if you were not wielding it at the time you cast the spell.
At the end of the spells compeletion you are not weilding no matter how hard you try to.
Correct. If you (inexplicably) wanted to make your free action attack before you wielded the weapon, you would be unable to use the weapon to make the attack.
You could just reach out and touch then as a free touch attack tho.
This is also true, a magus can choose to not use Spellstrike and just make a normal touch attack.
As far as the nature of changing grip, if it's between a free action and a non-action, I think the point ends up being moot.
I think the biggest proponent of free action instead of non-action is preventing someone with a polearm from also threatening adjacent with a spiked gauntlet. (Armor Spikes are martial weapons, while spiked gauntlet is simple)
With a free action, it means at the end of your turn you have to choose which of those items you're 'wielding' and thus which one you threaten with.
|
|
Kazaan hit the nail on the head!
Although subtle, there are different consequences depending on whether it's a free or non action.
First, there is no such action on the Actions In Combat table. Although the free actions on the list are not the only possible free actions, you need to justify adding a new free action to restrict grip-adjusting to during your own turn. Since the rules work perfectly well without creating such a free action, the Burden Of Proof is on those who want to create such an action.
Second, I see no problem at all with wielding a reach weapon and a spiked gauntlet to simultaneously threaten all adjacent squares and all squares adjacent to them. You can already do this with armour spikes!
Another word which is used to mean different things at different times in the rules is 'wield/wielded'. Earlier in this thread someone quoted a game designer who defined 'wielding' as 'attacking with'. This makes sense in our discussion on grip-changing; when you're not actually in the process of an attack you are not required to 'wield' a weapon in this context, just 'hold' it.
Unfortunately, along comes Arcane Bond saying '...staves, wands and weapons must be wielded...' this cannot mean the same kind of wielded as above, because if it were you couldn't use it except when executing an attack, which would be absurd in this context.
We'll just have to understand the Arcane Bond kind of wielded to mean 'the required number of hands free to use the weapon'.
If you can get you head round that (not hard) then your games will run without problems and you'll sleep like a baby.
Has anyone found anything written to support creating a new free action for 're-gripping'?
Since using spellstrike requires you to be wielding a weapon in one hand
Spellstrike does not require this.
Yes, casting a touch spell grants you a free touch attack. (standard action)
The touch attack granted by casting a touch spell is a free action, not a standard action.
But, since you are not wielding the two handed weapon when the spell is completed you do not get the granted melee replacement for the touch attack when the spell is cast. You only are granted a free touch attack.
Has the magus cast a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list? Then he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. This is what Spellstrike does.
Nowhere do the rules state or imply that you must be wielding the weapon at the time the spell is cast.
The FAQ even explicitly states "Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat"
If "as part of casting this spell" really meant "at the time the action used to cast the spell is complete" then the FAQ would answer "No" because there's no other way you could cast move attack in one turn.
Xyllen, spell combat require a free hand (regardless of somatic components, stilled spell, whatever). Spellstrike has no such restriction. Spellstrike further does not state that you must be wielding any weapon at all when the spell is cast. It would be perfectly valid to
cast spell
quick draw a weapon (one handed or two-handed weapon makes no difference here)
spellstrike with that weapon as the 'free touch attack for the spell'
First, it is a question of the action to go from merely carrying the weapon in a way that one cannot use it to attack to wielding the weapon properly and being able to attack.
This requires a move action, or can be done as part of a move action, etc.
So according to you:
Put free hand on grip of longsword: free or non-action.
Put free hand on grip of greatsword: move action.
Put free hand on crossbow: free or non-action.
Put free hand on longbow: move action.
And the only reason you have for this is that "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."
Correct?
Without wielding the weapon while you are casting the spell you do not qualify for the replacement of the free touch attack with a free melee attack.
You keep saying this, but that is not a logical conclusion from the rules.
Spellstrike says "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack" and that's true, that's what spellstrike does. He makes a melee attack, with a melee weapon, and delivers the touch spell.
The second sentence is explaining that this even applies to the free attack that's granted from casting the spell. This is important, because it's a change to the normal rules about using a normal attack to deliver a touch spell. Normally, a sorcerer cannot cast a touch spell then use his claws to deliver the touch spell as a free action. He can only do this once he is holding the charge. The magus is different, in that he can use his weapon with the free attack granted as part of casting the spell. That's what the second sentence of Spellstrike is telling you. That is also exactly what the official FAQ answer is also telling you.
Requiring him to be wielding the weapon while casting the spell makes no sense. He's not attacking anyone yet, he's not even capable of attacking anyone yet since he doesn't threaten while casting the spell. The only time he can make an attack is after the spell has been cast. If he draws a weapon after the spell is cast, but before he makes the attack, then he's delivering the spell through a weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack -- which is exactly what spellstrikes does.
|
First, it is a question of the action to go from merely carrying the weapon in a way that one cannot use it to attack to wielding the weapon properly and being able to attack.
This requires a move action, or can be done as part of a move action, etc.
Forget for a moment greatswords and polearms. If this were someone with a scimitar, would you say it's a move action to put their other hand on the weapon to get 1.5 str damage? It's being properly wielded either way.
I personally believe that putting your other hand back on the hilt of a two-handed weapon requires the same amount of effort, which is nowhere near the effort of actually drawing a weapon from a sheath.
As the absolute worst-case scenario, I'd think it would require the same amount of effort (and possibly follow the same restrictions) as activating Power Attack.
Please, if you feel like posting on this thread, actually read this FAQ first:
Can a magus use spellstrike (Ultimate Magic, page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
Sean K Reynolds
Designer
I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to re-post it, but, if I am counting correctly, this is already the fourth time.
The magus doesn't need to have a weapon in his hand when he casts the spell to use spellstrike. The magus doesn't need to use the same weapon he had in his hand if he did have one in his hand when he cast a touch spell to use spellstrike. Please only read the rules that are written rather than inferring from word choice in singled out sentences to make up rules that aren't there.
"a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."
Can't be part of the spell if your not wielding it.
A local store has a big event. By walking through the doors, you get a coupon for 10% off your next purchase, valid until the end of the day. This doesn't mean you have to use the coupon the instant you walk through the doors, in fact you can't use the coupon yet because you haven't picked anything out.
Walking through the doors granted you the coupon which you can use later. You don't have to make the purchase at the time you receive the coupon. You can use your coupon at any time during the day. When you do use the coupon, you use it with any items you're purchasing.
Casting the touch spell granted you the attack with you can use later. You don't have to make the attack at the time you receive it. You can make the attack at any time during the turn. When you do make the attack, you make it with any weapon you're wielding.
Here see if this helps your views out ... JJ said this after I out right asked him to explain how it could be done.
Everything James says (In this post btw) is correct.
A magus is crippled by using a two-handed weapon, as his main class feature (Spell Combat) doesn't work with it.
Is it possible for a magus to use a broadsword with spellstrike? Yes.
Is it possible for a wizard to wear plate and use a sword? Yes.
Are either of those the intended flavor of the respective class? No.