|
"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.
How can that be true when the magus is allowed to take a move action between casting and attacking? The attack in this case is not a part of casting the spell.
Xyllen, good job getting some information directly from a source (I'm not trying to be a smart-ass). James clearly is not a fan of the magus using spellstrike with a two-handed weapon. He also compares it to playing an armored, heavily armed wizard. Somebody else did something along those lines....
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.
He refuses to make a specific rules judgement on it. I don't blame him. After all, he is the Creative Director and, as such, writes primarily flavor, usually leaving the hard-and-fast rules bit to the rules guys. If I was a flavor guy confronted with a rules question that went against the way I felt it was supposed to be flavored, it would be all I could do to be reasonable enough to just stay out of it. That said, I think if you look very thoroughly at the discussion that you will see that it is legal by RAW. You should also see that it was never intended to work that way. If you want to house-rule that magi just plain can't use one or some or even any of his class features while holding/wielding/in possession of/familiar with the existence of two-handed weapons than, by all means, house-rule it because you are just putting rules in place to enforce the intended flavor.
|
Just my 2 cents. I don't think the Magus class designer thought of combining Spell strike with still spell and wielding a 2 handed sword.
All things that might be combined together are not contemplated when writing the text for a class, give the rules guys a break. We as GM's must use common sense if a feat says you do not use somatic components when casting a spell you have to use common sense when combining casting a spell with spellstrike the reason that spell strike says you must have a hand free is because most spells have a somatic components if you negate the somatic component you can at a cost weild a twohanded weapon and spellstrike IMO. Dont rules lawyer use common sense.
Give the rules guys a break use your head.
the reason that spell strike says you must have a hand free is because most spells have a somatic components if you negate the somatic component you can at a cost weild a twohanded weapon and spellstrike IMO.
Spellstrike does not say you must have a hand free.
Spell Combat, on the other hand, does require that you have a hand free (and wield a one-handed or light weapon in your other hand). This is still true even if you use a stilled spell, or just cast a spell that does not have somatic components. We know this is the case because the text actually says so.
Spell Combat: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)"
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)
I think that the wizard would have to discharge the shocking grasp before drawing his sword. The FAQ clarification of the spellstrike ability seemed to me to be indicating that Magi alone could touch their weapons without discharging a touch spell.
Edit: added quote.
I think that the wizard would have to discharge the shocking grasp before drawing his sword.
He's not yet holding the charge, so the rules for holding the charge don't (yet) apply.
If he ends his turn and hasn't discharged the spell, then he has to worry about accidentally touching things.
Holding the Charge: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
Let me see how you make a two handed fighting wizard that casts spells and melees AT THE SAME TIME. Within legal Paizo published Pathfinder rules.
Alternating is not an issue. Simultaneous melee and spellcasting is the issue as that's the core mechanic of the magus.
The only ways that a wizard could, rules as they are as of today, cast a spell and melee in the same round (other than taking the free action touch attack that comes with touch spells) is to use Quicken or to take at least six levels of magus and select the appropriate magus arcana (Broad Study).
If there was confusion about my TWF wizard example, please allow me to clarify: TWFW (his name for convenience' sake) is NOT trying to wield a spell in one hand and a weapon in the other; TWFW is trying to two-weapon fight (probably wearing armor; this guy is pretty dumb) instead of just being a wizard - as intended to be played! TWFW is only an example of a perfectly legal build that is altogether built contrary to the way his class was intended to be played.
Simultaneous melee and spellcasting is actually not the issue being debated; rather, this thread has boiled down to an argument over what sort of action it is to put one's spellcasting hand back on a two-handed weapon after having cast. The debate ranges from non-action to move action.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: I just saw the two-handed bit in your "let me see..." part. Sorry about that. In addition to the requirements I already wrote, you're going to need an extra arm. I guess you're gonna have at least two levels of alchemist, too.
I only scanned the thread after the Jason B's quote that pretty much squashes any spell combat arguments that could possibly be made, and hope the following two pages are about spell strike (if you still think Spell Combat with a Greatsword is legal, there's nothing anyone, including the creators of the darn game, can say to change your mind).
In the begining people were talking about common sense, part of what that is supposed to mean, is quit taking what is written as gospel. If you analyze every word of every statement looking for loop holes, I promise you'll find them. If you step back a little, and try to understand what was intended, how were they meant to be used, and what point are the creators trying to get across, you'll have fewer problems. It's obvious to anyone that wants to see it that the devs went to great lengths to make sure people knew the class wasn't meant to be used with two handed weapons. They used phrases like "hand free" and "Light or one-handed". Now sure if you analyze hard enough and take each individual word and put every sentence through the ringer, you can get around this. Look to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules.
I only scanned the thread after the Jason B's quote that pretty much squashes any spell combat arguments that could possibly be made, and hope the following two pages are about spell strike (if you still think Spell Combat with a Greatsword is legal, there's nothing anyone, including the creators of the darn game, can say to change your mind).
In the begining people were talking about common sense, part of what that is supposed to mean, is quit taking what is written as gospel. If you analyze every word of every statement looking for loop holes, I promise you'll find them. If you step back a little, and try to understand what was intended, how were they meant to be used, and what point are the creators trying to get across, you'll have fewer problems. It's obvious to anyone that wants to see it that the devs went to great lengths to make sure people knew the class wasn't meant to be used with two handed weapons. They used phrases like "hand free" and "Light or one-handed". Now sure if you analyze hard enough and take each individual word and put every sentence through the ringer, you can get around this. Look to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules.
Just want to clarify: the "pro" crowd is voting pro-spellstrike with a two-handed weapon without having to use a move action to put his spellcasting hand back on his weapon. We have already established that spell combat absolutely will not work with a two-handed weapon without some house-rules, since it's pretty well spelled out that it cannot be used with such a weapon.
The melee and spellcasting for Spellstrike is not simultaneous; that's the crux. There are two primary arguments against using Spellstrike with a 2-hander:
A) You have to be wielding the weapon at the time the Touch spell is cast even if you will be using the weapon later to deliver the spell.
B) Changing grip is a 'move action' so if you charge the Touch spell first, you can't move and then deliver with the weapon; you have to cast at point-blank and take an AoO.
I think there are two more arguments for it, although they both may be the same thing:
It appears, at least to me, the devs didn't want the Magus to use two handed weapons. They went to a lot of trouble to add those phrases in there. Now you can look at a small picture view and saw since they didn't specifically apply those same phrases to Spellstrike, that means it's okay, but I don't agree with that. I think the intent was for the class as a whole to bar 2 handed weapons.
Second, it brings up a host of other rules issues, as James has been trying to say. For example, would you allow someone with a spiked gauntlet to two-weapon fight with a Greatsword and a spiked gauntlet?
What about a light shield? Since a light shield leaves me a free hand, I can swing my Greatsword, let go, and get my shield bonus to AC. I can't threaten with the Greatsword, but I can always shield bash.
If those scenarios seem okay to you, well then maybe a two-handed spellstrike fits in with your style, if not, what's the difference?
|
|
Greatsword and spiked gauntlet? No problem. Since the same thing can definately be achieved with a greatsword and armour spikes, no DM needs to cry himself to sleep about how unfair it all is.
Greatsword and light shield? No. The description of light shields lets you carry, but not USE, weapons in that hand.
Greatsword and buckler would be okay, but your melee attacks which utilise your buckler hand take a -1 attack penalty.
Second, it brings up a host of other rules issues, as James has been trying to say. For example, would you allow someone with a spiked gauntlet to two-weapon fight with a Greatsword and a spiked gauntlet?
No. But only because the gauntleted hand has already been involved in a full-attack routine. If a 16th level fighter wanted to full-attack like this, though: greatsword+16, spiked gauntlet+11, greatsword+6, use Quickdraw feat to draw javelin, javelin+1; I'm OK with it.
What about a light shield? Since a light shield leaves me a free hand, I can swing my Greatsword, let go, and get my shield bonus to AC. I can't threaten with the Greatsword, but I can always shield bash.
I'm going to assume you meant buckler since light shield says that you can't wield a weapon in that hand. In this case, if you wanted to full-attack with the greatsword at a -1 to each attack, then, at the end of your attacks let go of your greatsword with your buckler hand to get your +1 AC at the expense of threatening with your greatsword (you wouldn't be able to shield bash, though, since it's a buckler), than sure. It's stretching the rules (one could say that spellstriking with a two-hander is, too) but, unless it proved to be a real game-breaker, I'll allow it.
In either case (the buckler or the spellstrike case), if it proves to imbalance the game and take away from the over-all fun at the table, I'll talk to the player and work something out. I understand that I can't house-rule for PFS (for which this thread was started) or enforce or authorize a re-build, but I don't see any of these as being blatant abuse of the rules. I see them as stretching, for sure, but not outright abusing or breaking.
|
|
Warrior A, base attack +6, greatsword and spiked gauntlet, 2WF, Improved 2WF:
Primary greatsword at +6, secondary spiked gauntlet at +6, then greatsword at +1, then spiked gauntlet at +1. No problem.
Swap the spiked gauntlet for armour spikes and you'd get the same result, and it's right in the rulebook under 'armour spikes'.
The only wrinkle is that if you use a weapon for the extra off-hand attacks granted by the 2WF feat tree, then you cannot use that weapon to make any iterative attacks in the same round. See the 'armour spikes' entry again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It appears, at least to me, the devs didn't want the Magus to use two handed weapons. They went to a lot of trouble to add those phrases in there. Now you can look at a small picture view and saw since they didn't specifically apply those same phrases to Spellstrike, that means it's okay, but I don't agree with that. I think the intent was for the class as a whole to bar 2 handed weapons.
A barbarian loses Fast Movement when she wears heavy armor. Clearly, the developers went to a lot of trouble to add that in there. Therefore, when wearing heavy armor, should a barbarian also lose Rage and Damage Reduction?
A cleric must present her holy symbol in order to channel energy. They went to a lot of trouble to say so. Now, the small picture says that's only relevant when channeling energy, but I assume you don't agree with that. The intent was for the class as a whole to require that the holy symbol be presented at all times, right?
Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor. If she does, she is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities for a time. Clearly, druids should not wear metal armor, so lets all just decide that their animal companion goes away, too. Yes, the Nature Bond is neither a spell, nor a supernatural or spell-like ability, but it's the spirit of the rule, right?
|
|
Alternating is not an issue. Simultaneous melee and spellcasting is the issue as that's the core mechanic of the magus.The melee and spellcasting for Spellstrike is not simultaneous; that's the crux. There are two primary arguments against using Spellstrike with a 2-hander:
A) You have to be wielding the weapon at the time the Touch spell is cast even if you will be using the weapon later to deliver the spell.
B) Changing grip is a 'move action' so if you charge the Touch spell first, you can't move and then deliver with the weapon; you have to cast at point-blank and take an AoO.
Spell Combat, on the other hand, is a situation of simultaneous melee/casting and no one has been arguing otherwise. But I still say the best option is to dip 2 levels of Barbarian:Titan Mauler to get Joutungrip if you really want to wield the big bad buster sword and still get the full benefit of the Magus class mechanics.
The Titan Mauler dip you describe is not legal. Spell combat specifically says your must be wielding a light or one handed weapon. Jotungrip lets you wield a two handed weapon sized for you in one hand at a penalty, it does not change a two handed weapon's category to one handed or light.
Well, I think the OP's question is more than answered. (In fact, since the post that said: spellstrike-yes, spell combat-no, he's been satisfied)
Now that the discussion has changed to "what else can you do, than?", I'm out. I'm sure I'll end up defending something that I'm not certain of if I try to keep up with that one.
Have fun!
Abyssian
"Treated as X for purposes of Y" does not imply "treated as X for all purposes". In fact, it implies "NOT treated as X for any other purpose than Y".
Except when Y also says "and the like" and the two examples of Y have differing mechanics.
Strength bonus to damage depends on how the weapon is wielded, with an exception for light weapons.
Power Attack depends on both the weapon type, and how it is wielded.
Since the only common thread between the two named abilities is how the weapon is wielded, one could possibly assume that "and the like" refers to anything else in which the ability depends on how the weapon is wielded.
Spell Combat explicitly lists the type of weapon, but also says it must be wielded "in the other hand" which one could take to mean that it depends on both the type of weapon and how it's wielded (just like power attack).
So IF Jotungrip's "the like" refers to any ability that depends on how the weapon is wielded, and IF Spell Combat's "other hand" means it must be wielded exclusively with one hand (ruling out three-armed folks using two arms on a one-handed weapon) THEN it's somewhat reasonable to assume the jotungripped greataxe would work with spell combat.
That's a lot of IFs, but it's not completely cut and dry.
You certainly CAN move.. and draw a weapon as you do
He wasn't talking about drawing a weapon, he was talking about re-gripping a weapon that's already drawn.
Assuming what you meant was "You certainly CAN move.. and re-grip a weapon as you do" then that means you're not using the Manipulate an Item action to determine re-gripping a weapon (which you mentioned here).
Since you're admittedly not drawing a weapon, and you're not manipulating an item, there's absolutely no rules justification for your decision that re-gripping a held weapon is a move action, especially one that turns into a free action when using your move action to move.
If the action type required to do something is undefined, then it's either not possible within the ruleset, or it uses the action type of the most similar defined action. JJ's post shows that it is possible (as does the existence of crossbows etc.). So what action is closer to putting a free hand back on a held weapon? Taking that hand off the weapon to begin with? Swapping a held or wielded weapon from hand to hand? Pulling a ball of bat guano from a small pouch? Pulling an arrow out of a quiver? Or pushing a keg of ale five feet.
The first four are free actions. The last one is a move.
Though why people want to single me out on rules, when someone is claiming that they can take AOOs with weapons that they aren't wielding is beyond me.
That was debunked on the first page. Further, it was pretty clear that he was confused about "threatening while casting" vs "threatening after taking a non-specified action to wield a weapon." He's since mentioned putting a hand back on the weapon, so there's no reason to continue it. If, for instance, he was still posting something completely incorrect and claiming that's what the rules say (rather than just something he wants to do at his table to keep a mediocre feat from being potentially impacted in a minor way) then yes, we would continue to show how he's wrong until either he realizes his mistake, or is considered to no longer be worth the bother (either due to being a troll, or just refusing to consider the evidence).
|
|
The verb 'to wield' is used to mean different things at different times within the rules. This causes no end of confusion (and, seemingly, no end of posts!).
Usually it is used to mean 'executing an attack with'. An earlier post mentioned one of the game designers stating that is how it should be understood. At other times it just means 'holding a drawn weapon'.
The solution to this problem is therefore relatively straightforward. Whenever you come across 'wield', 'wielding', or the like, replace it with either 'attacking with' or 'holding' as appropriate.
In order to do this we must define 'attacking with' and 'holding':
'Holding' in this context means having a weapon unsheathed and in hand. Only one free hand (free as in holding nothing except the weapon in question and that hand/arm is unrestrained) is required to hold either a light, one-handed, two-handed or ranged weapon. Also in this context, 'holding' a weapon means that, for a one-handed weapon the hand holding it must grip it by the hilt or equivalent, not by the wrong end! Those runes on your new sword that you can't translate? They mean 'This way up! For a two-handed weapon like a bow or greatsword the one hand holding it must hold it by the 'right end' also.
For weapons which have a scabbard or a sheath or the like, 'drawing' the weapon only requires one hand even if the weapon is a two-handed weapon. Drawing a weapon changes the status of the weapon from 'sheathed' (therefore unusable in combat, which is what the explanation for 'Draw or Sheath a Weapon' is talking about James) to 'held', using the definition of 'holding' above.
'Attacking with' in this context means 'in the actual process of executing an attack with'. A weapon requires either one or two hands to 'attack with' as defined in the equipment chapter. A one-handed weapon may also benefit from the attacker using two hands to execute the attack. When not actually in the act of executing an attack, the weapon is merely 'held' as defined above. Any change from 'holding' a weapon (whether it is a one or two-handed weapon) in one hand to 'attacking with' it using two hands is part of that attack in the same way that jumping is part of a move action. Letting go with one hand while still 'holding' with the other is not an action either. You can check that by perusing the Actions In Combat table to try, and fail, to find such an action. The only joy you'll find there is in the section on 'action types' under 'not an action', and I reproduce it below:
'Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.' Core rulebook p.182.
Of all the things in this chapter surely this is the closest to what we're looking for. I have both fired an arrow from a bow and fought with two-handed weapons in real life (nobody died!) and nocking an arrow is more complex than using your previously free hand to deliver an attack, or parry for that matter.
'You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.' Core rulebook p.180. If you are 'holding' a weapon as above, and you have the requisite number of hands free (unrestrained, holding nothing but the weapon in question) then you can attack with that weapon as described under 'threatened squares', and therefore threaten squares, and make AoO when such an attack is provoked, even if you are 'holding' a two-handed in one hand; the free hand joins in as part of the attack.
So, replacing 'wielding' with either 'holding' or 'attacking with' helps save our sanity. If in doubt which of the two 'wielding' means at a particular time, try both and see which makes sense!
A couple of examples to help you on that road to sanity:
'...someone is claiming that they can take AoOs with weapons that they aren't wielding...'
changes to either '...can take AoOs with weapons they aren't 'holding'... (no-one is claiming that!) OR '...can take AoOs with weapons they aren't 'attacking with' (no-one is claiming that either).
An Arcane Bond weapon, wand or staff must be 'wielded'. Core p.78. This is either 'must be held' (makes sense) OR 'must be in the process of executing an attack' (which makes no sense as 'using it' in this context means avoiding being forced to make a concentration check or lose the spell you're casting.
Fortunately, in the same paragraph, it says 'If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or IN HAND (emphasis mine)...'
Makes sense really. Does anyone imagine that the writer intended to discriminate against wizards who use a staff? Why?
Hope this all helps. Happy gaming!
All this is very helpful when it comes to making sense of the rules. For instance,
|
|
James, in my previous post (and others) I actually present evidence to support the 'non-action' case. This includes quotes from the core rulebook (with page numbers) as part of establishing that case.
This is in marked contrast to the cases for 'move action' or 'free action'. I would welcome a chance to critique any such evidence, or even be persuaded if they were convincing!
That such evidence is not forthcoming is eloquent. It is still an open forum and I invite others to present their evidence on this thread, no matter which of the three actions they support.
In my last post I made sure that everything in it was either supported by the rules, or at least not contradicted by any rules. I invite evidence to the contrary.
I notice that in reply to Grick's post asking if the 'Draw or Sheath a Weapon' section was your only reason for believing that changing grip is a move action. You said 'No' but didn't say what the other reason(s) might be. Yet the way you describe it, for you changing grip is either a move action or something which may be combined with a regular move. The only place such a thing is possible is Drawing a Weapon!
It's time to put up or shut up in this debate; to all (me included), provide rules quotes with page numbers, supported with how those rules make sense. Any quotes from the designers of the game would be helpful.
I'm heartened that no quote from a designer who mentions this subject (however obliquely) contradicts anything I said in my previous post. If anyone finds such quotes then post them.
It's not enough to keep re-stating views now, without evidence to back it up. I've provided evidence for the 'non-action' case, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary there is no logical conclusion that there is 'no case to answer'. I welcome more evidence and, if and when it appears, the readers of this thread will consider that evidence and weigh it against the evidence that has gone before.
Doesn't the 'evidenced-based' approach make sense? Is there anything we would use instead?
There is historical records of knights holding a longsword by the blade and using the hilt as a hammer.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi, et. al - I suggest you cease arguing at this point.
There seems to be precisely one person involved in the discussion who believes that putting a second hand back on the hilt of a sword is a move action, despite clear evidence that the folks at Paizo believe it to be possible to do this in a situation where no move action is available.
You're not going to convince him he's wrong, so just let it lie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Treated as X for purposes of Y" does not imply "treated as X for all purposes". In fact, it implies "NOT treated as X for any other purpose than Y".Except when Y also says "and the like" and the two examples of Y have differing mechanics.
Strength bonus to damage depends on how the weapon is wielded, with an exception for light weapons.
Power Attack depends on both the weapon type, and how it is wielded.
Since the only common thread between the two named abilities is how the weapon is wielded, one could possibly assume that "and the like" refers to anything else in which the ability depends on how the weapon is wielded.
Spell Combat explicitly lists the type of weapon, but also says it must be wielded "in the other hand" which one could take to mean that it depends on both the type of weapon and how it's wielded (just like power attack).
So IF Jotungrip's "the like" refers to any ability that depends on how the weapon is wielded, and IF Spell Combat's "other hand" means it must be wielded exclusively with one hand (ruling out three-armed folks using two arms on a one-handed weapon) THEN it's somewhat reasonable to assume the jotungripped greataxe would work with spell combat.
That's a lot of IFs, but it's not completely cut and dry.
The quoted statement refers to how bonus damage from strength is treated while wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand with Jotungrip. It exist solely to prevent players from wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while also attempting to claim the x1.5 bonuses normally associated with wielding a weapon in two hands.
I strongly challenge how someone could claim that strength bonus to weapon damage and power attack are in any way, "like" abilities comparative to spell combat which is for all intensive purposes "magical two weapon fighting". All the rule is saying is that wielding a two handed weapon in one hand makes the Two Handed weapon count as one handed for damage calculations, it doesn't somehow change the category of the weapon to one handed.
Indeed the clause has nothing to do with mundane Two weapon fighting either, as TWF does not have a stipulation limiting the type of weapon that can be wielded in the main hand, egro Jotungrip will work for Two weapon fighting and does not require this quoted statement to function. Thus the statement has nothing to do with spell combat(and even if it did it would still be defeated by the stipulation that you cannot use spell combat with weapons not in the light/one-handed classification). It should be noted as well Jotungrip will not allow you to wield a "one handed" weapon in your off hand while two weapon fighting and claim only a negative -2/-2 as Jotungrip does not let you treat one handed weapons as light weapons.