Magus Question


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I've got a question from a game last night. I need an actual PFS verdict, and as usual the Rules forum is giving 2-3 different answers. So please, don't bump this thread out of the realm of PFS.

Anyways. We had a magus using a 2h weapon. The magus would "hold" the weapon one handed, cast, put both hands on the weapon, and then deliver the attack through a 2h weapon.

I don't think that the magus (or any other class) was meant to be able to cast spells while wielding a 2h weapon. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the text requiring a free hand to cast spells. Can anyone give me a "hand" here?

Sovereign Court

If you are talking about Spellstrike, where the Magus delivers a touch spell through a weapon then yes he can. The text specifically states 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". (Bold mine) So he isn't really casting the spell separately, so there's no need to hold the sword with one hand while he casts the spell.

Now, if you are talking about Spell Combat where the Magus casts a spell and makes a melee attack as if he were using two weapon fighting then no he can't. That ability is like TWF but with sword on one hand and spell in the other.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Roac has the right of it. Especially since you can spellstrike, move, and then attack to deliver it. Do note, as Roac did, that the 2-handed magus characters out there won't be able to Spell Combat (as it mimics TWF), which is the trade off they're taking to be 'bursty' via spellstrike instead.

Silver Crusade

Roac wrote:

If you are talking about Spellstrike, where the Magus delivers a touch spell through a weapon then yes he can. The text specifically states 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". (Bold mine) So he isn't really casting the spell separately, so there's no need to hold the sword with one hand while he casts the spell.

Now, if you are talking about Spell Combat where the Magus casts a spell and makes a melee attack as if he were using two weapon fighting then no he can't. That ability is like TWF but with sword on one hand and spell in the other.

The melee attack granted is an extra free action to deliver it. If a spell has a somatic component, wouldn't they still need a free hand to cast it?

EDIT: And if you can hold a weapon in one hand, why not take your melee attacks, then free action to "hold" the weapon, and have a free hand to cast spells?

What it really comes down to it, can a player "hold" a 2h weapon with one hand?

Dark Archive

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

EDIT: And if you can hold a weapon in one hand, why not take your melee attacks, then free action to "hold" the weapon, and have a free hand to cast spells?

What it really comes down to it, can a player "hold" a 2h weapon with one hand?

Absolutely. It can't be wielded, but it can be held.

Silver Crusade

bdk86 wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

EDIT: And if you can hold a weapon in one hand, why not take your melee attacks, then free action to "hold" the weapon, and have a free hand to cast spells?

What it really comes down to it, can a player "hold" a 2h weapon with one hand?

Absolutely. It can't be wielded, but it can be held.

So, full attack with weapon, free action to free a hand, cast a spell, free action to grab blade, hit with an extra 2h weapon attack? That just doesn't seem right, somehow.

Dark Archive

That does seem like a bit much, but making the ruling based on whether or not you need two hands to just hold a two handed weapon makes little sense and screws up a mage with a quarterstaff or an archer with their bow as needing to hands just to have it out.

Silver Crusade

This also impacts TWF and quick draw. Hold a greatsword 2h, take all your iterative attacks, free action to hold it one handed, quick draw your off hand weapon, take your TWF attacks. It just gets kinda silly.

Dark Archive

My only answer was whether or not you can "hold" a two-handed weapon in one hand and use the free hand for something else.

Using this to then take "two sets" of attacks or actions is silly.

Silver Crusade

bdk86 wrote:

My only answer was whether or not you can "hold" a two-handed weapon in one hand and use the free hand for something else.

Using this to then take "two sets" of attacks or actions is silly.

No more silly than using two free actions to get around needing to have a free hand to cast spells.

Dark Archive

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
bdk86 wrote:

My only answer was whether or not you can "hold" a two-handed weapon in one hand and use the free hand for something else.

Using this to then take "two sets" of attacks or actions is silly.

No more silly than using two free actions to get around needing to have a free hand to cast spells.

Which, again, I agree with.

My point was that the solution here is not to "ban" holding a two-handed weapon in one hand; the ban needs to be on using free actions to switch it around in said hands. I see no reason a character can't hold such an item in one hand; it just has no practical use until it is wielded properly.

Liberty's Edge

What if a magus were to cast empty-handed, take a 5 foot step, quickdraw his greatsword and then attack?

Silver Crusade

Flynn Walker wrote:
What if a magus were to cast empty-handed, take a 5 foot step, quickdraw his greatsword and then attack?

No problem. Since that is a one trick pony (sheathing a weapon is a move action).

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

bdk86 wrote:
My point was that the solution here is not to "ban" holding a two-handed weapon in one hand; the ban needs to be on using free actions to switch it around in said hands.

Keep in mind that dropping a held weapon (i.e., letting go with both hands) is already a free action. Letting go with one hand (i.e., an even easier task) needs to also be a free action; making it harder to let go with one hand than to let go with both hands violates the Guide's new "GMs need to use common sense" rule.

Similarly, it's only a move action to bend over, pick up a weapon off the ground, straighten back up, and be "wielding" said weapon. That's far more work and time than simply placing a second hand on a weapon you're already holding. Thus, failure to make that a far lesser action than picking up a fallen weapon would also violate the "common sense" rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote: wrote:

EDIT: And if you can hold a weapon in one hand, why not take your melee attacks, then free action to "hold" the weapon, and have a free hand to cast spells?

What it really comes down to it, can a player "hold" a 2h weapon with one hand?

Spell combat:

"To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

spellstrike is a go, but the rules for spell combat plainly prohibit two-handed weapons

Silver Crusade

dog8homework wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote: wrote:

EDIT: And if you can hold a weapon in one hand, why not take your melee attacks, then free action to "hold" the weapon, and have a free hand to cast spells?

What it really comes down to it, can a player "hold" a 2h weapon with one hand?

Spell combat:

"To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

spellstrike is a go, but the rules for spell combat plainly prohibit two-handed weapons

Ahhh. That is what I was looking for. Thank you sir!

Liberty's Edge

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I've got a question from a game last night. I need an actual PFS verdict, and as usual the Rules forum is giving 2-3 different answers. So please, don't bump this thread out of the realm of PFS.

Anyways. We had a magus using a 2h weapon. The magus would "hold" the weapon one handed, cast, put both hands on the weapon, and then deliver the attack through a 2h weapon.

I don't think that the magus (or any other class) was meant to be able to cast spells while wielding a 2h weapon. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the text requiring a free hand to cast spells. Can anyone give me a "hand" here?

There is going to be GM variance on this as there is nothing that states you can hold a two handed weapon in one hand and then essentially "re-equip" it as a free action. The only rules reference to such an act is on page 186 of the core rulebook under draw or sheathe a weapon which states,

"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."

Having to reorient your hands around a weapon that requires two hands to wield properly would surely fall into this category especially since it specifically calls out "so that you have a free hand". You are not considered wielding said weapon so putting a hand back on it, pulling and readying it into a combat ready state does require the same amount of effort as drawing it from its sheathe.

Again, GM variance on the basis of 'Doesn't say I can' vs. 'Doesn't say I can't'.

Silver Crusade

An attack with a two-handed weapon requires two hands that are not holding anything else, at the moment of the attack. Only one hand is required to hold the weapon when it is not being used to attack!

Changing your grip on a two-handed weapon is part of its normal use. It is not an action (not even a free action) in the same way that jumping is not an action but part of a move action.

As part of a full attack you can use any iterative attack with any weapon you can spare the hands to use at the instant you use that weapon. You can attack with a greataxe at +11 and kill the baddy, quick draw a dart ant throw it at baddy number two at +6, then 5-foot step up to him and belt him with aforementioned greataxe at +1. At each moment you attack with the axe you have two hands free to do so. When you draw and throw the dart you have one hand free to do so as the other is holding the axe.

Using Two-Weapon Fighting adds a wrinkle; the extra attacks granted by this feat (and the improved/greater versions) must be by the same weapon, and that weapon may not be used to make iterative attacks during the round you're using it to make the extra 'off-hand' attacks. While doing this you may still mix and match with your iterative attacks at will, just not using your off-hand weapon for those attacks.

Check out 'armour spikes' in the equipment section of the core rulebooks.


some people seem to be confusing spell strike and spell combat. they are to different things.

the two handed weapon bit works with spell strike. it does not work with spell combat. the prohibition requiring a light or one handed melee weapon is for spell combat not spell strike.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
So please, don't bump this thread out of the realm of PFS.

Unless there is a reason the rules would be different in PFS due to the Organized Play rules, this is just a rules question.

Dark Archive

Chaos is correct. This is an old argument that has always had the same answer. Many players will try to tell you they can do crazy stuff with weapons and shields in order to be casting. But it is simpler than that.

A two handed weapon can only be wielded in two hands. Yes, you can 'let go' with one hand. The weapon is no longer being wielded, and has to be re-readied or a new weapon drawn. And that is, and always has been, a move action. The most relevant source has been given:

"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."

There is also one about manipulating an object being a move action. Also, if you have your two handed weapon in one hand when you cast the spell, you do not have a weapon available to deliver the strike.

Liberty's Edge

Mojorat wrote:

some people seem to be confusing spell strike and spell combat. they are to different things.

the two handed weapon bit works with spell strike. it does not work with spell combat. the prohibition requiring a light or one handed melee weapon is for spell combat not spell strike.

The arguement is with Spell Strike, You don't have a free hand to cast the spell when wielding a two-handed weapon. Nowhere in the rules does it state that you can as a free action, drop your weapon from one hand cast a spell and then put a hand back on it.

Drawing a weapon is a move action. You are not wielding it anymore if you are holding it in one hand. What do you do to attack with a weapon that you are not wielding? You draw it.

Don't like the term drawing because it's not in a sheathe? Ok. Move on to Manipulating an item, which is also a move action.

These are all rule references to back up why I think that you can't just ignore the fact that you can't cast a spell while wielding a two handed weapon. There was even a feat in 3.5 called Somatic Weaponry that allowed you to trace the somatic components with your weapon. Why would such a feat even exist if you could just juggle your giant sword around? The action system hasn't changed.

I would like to see rules references for the other side, because everything I've seen so far is just "You can do it because I said so.."

Silver Crusade

The 3.5 feat you mention is so that you can cast while using weapon and shield or two weapons.

I've been involved with the demonstrations of halberd and greatsword combat at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds. During combat with each weapon the wielders' hands were never still. In a single attack they can spin the weapon, hold the blade end to use the quillons to hook round the opponent's ankle to take his leg, then re-adjust for the killing blow.

In its normal use a two-handed weapon does not require both hands to be 'glued' to one spot for an entire 'round'. Each normal attack involves several hand movements around the weapon. It is not used like a baseball bat except by people who have no idea what thay're doing!

In game terms taking your hands on or off a two-handed weapon is not an action, not even a free action! It is part of the attack action!

It is not comparable to drawing or sheathing a weapon to ready it for use. Letting go with one hand costs no action, not even a free action, so you can cast a spell/draw and throw a dart etc. as part of a full attack.

It is not comparable to manipulating an object; Putting your second hand on the weapon for a two-handed strike is simply part of that attack action! So you can use your greatsword to attack at +1 after you have thrown your dart at +6.

It IS comparable to jumping, which is not an action, not even a free action! Jumping is something you can do as part of a move action.

A Magus' Spell Combat special ability has a restriction that applies when using it; '...while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.' This restriction does not apply when NOT using Spell Combat!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind that staff wielding wizards will find themselves unable to cast spells without first having either carefully put their staves away (move actions) or actually or dropped their beloved staves to the floor (free actions) to be later picked up (move actions).

Since wizards do cast while holding staves and continue to threaten while they do, it can be assumed that switching from holding in one hand to wielding in two hands don't require actions or, if they do, only require free actions.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
As part of a full attack you can use any iterative attack with any weapon you can spare the hands to use at the instant you use that weapon. You can attack with a greataxe at +11 and kill the baddy, quick draw a dart ant throw it at baddy number two at +6, then 5-foot step up to him and belt him with aforementioned greataxe at +1. At each moment you attack with the axe you have two hands free to do so. When you draw and throw the dart you have one hand free to do so as the other is holding the axe.

Correct. Sound crazy and game breaking? It's not. Neither is a Magus who regularly Spellstrikes with a two-handed weapon (who can't use Spell Combat, by the way). Try to remember that the falchion or elven curve-blade wielding Magus is not one-handing a scimitar and adding his crazy Dex modifier to damage.


Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Anyways. We had a magus using a 2h weapon. The magus would "hold" the weapon one handed, cast, put both hands on the weapon, and then deliver the attack through a 2h weapon.

First, whenever you, as the GM are trying to make a ruling, don't FIRST make the ruling and THEN going looking for support. This is just another way to be an adversarial GM and it's a trap.

Second, the only place where you have a leg to stand on is the action it requires to wield a weapon. That is a move action, or a free action as part of a move action, or a free action via the feat quick draw. If they are trying to ignore that then you can speak to them about it.. but AGAIN see the first point.

As you've described it, it is perfectly viable:

Cast a touch spell (standard action by and large)
Wield the 2handed weapon (move action as it certainly was accessible)
Deliver the spell (free action on the turn it is cast, and via spellstrike can be a normal melee attack with ANY melee weapon).

Perfectly legal.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, Go to this

also, go to this


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically SKR and James Jacobs seem to imply that changing your grip on a weapon (1 hand to 2, 2 to 1, whatever) is a free action. And NOT one of those "A GM has authority to regulate the amount of free actions that can reasonably be taken" kind of free action, either. You just do it.

Liberty's Edge

galahad2112 wrote:
Basically SKR and James Jacobs seem to imply that changing your grip on a weapon (1 hand to 2, 2 to 1, whatever) is a free action. And NOT one of those "A GM has authority to regulate the amount of free actions that can reasonably be taken" kind of free action, either. You just do it.

Both of those are referring to weapons that can be wielded with one hand. You are no longer wielding a two handed weapon in one hand so must spend a move action to reequip it.

I've asked for rules references to the contrary and have only been met with 'nuh uh you're wrong' so I really don't think there is anything I can do to help you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, wait, you're saying that when I hold my, let's say...greatsword in one hand, it's intrinsically different than holding my morningstar with my light shield hand? I can pass my morningstar from hand to hand, and even have one of those hands specifically unable to wield a weapon, then pass it back, and still be "wielding" my morningstar, BUT if I take one hand off of my greatsword, putting my other hand back on is a move action?


galahad2112 wrote:
BUT if I take one hand off of my greatsword, putting my other hand back on is a move action?

Yes, if you are carrying around your greatsword in one hand then you are not wielding it. Therefore it takes a move action for you to be able to attack with it, as it takes a move action to start to wield a weapon.

So if you want to cast a spell while holding your greatsword that's wonderful, but afterwards you will need to wield the greatsword in order to attack with it.

Now you can combine this with a normal move and do so as a free action, or you can pony up for the quick draw feat and do so as a free action, or you can even spend cash for a glove of storing and do so as a free action. But if you don't do any of these, then you're looking at a move action.

-James


The best "workaround" I came up with that is within the rules is the Katana.

it is a one handed weapon. (with the feat) as that is the case you are still wielding it while casting.

putting your other hand on it is a free as it was alread wielded (no this is not spelled out, please see Jiggys post about common sense, god i wish it was)

In other words, pick a weapon that is 1 handed, but that you can put 2 on, yes you lose about 1-3 base damage, but for most of these builds its all about 1.5 str.

just my $.02


@ James Maissen

But switching my morningstar to my shield hand, casting, then switching back is okay?


I wrote:
Sound crazy and game breaking? It's not.

Why are people trying to gimp this Magus for sacrificing spell combat (and the arcane mark extra attack) for what amounts to an average of +2 damage per hit?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
galahad2112 wrote:

@ James Maissen

But switching my morningstar to my shield hand, casting, then switching back is okay?

You don't have to do this... you have a free hand with a lgt. shield anyway.


galahad2112 wrote:
So, wait, you're saying that when I hold my, let's say...greatsword in one hand, it's intrinsically different than holding my morningstar with my light shield hand? I can pass my morningstar from hand to hand, and even have one of those hands specifically unable to wield a weapon, then pass it back, and still be "wielding" my morningstar, BUT if I take one hand off of my greatsword, putting my other hand back on is a move action?

yes because its easier to use it in one hand since its made for one hand combat, where as a greatsword is heavier so it needs to be used two handed so when you one hand than try to two hand it again its a move action.


Morris Chan wrote:
galahad2112 wrote:
So, wait, you're saying that when I hold my, let's say...greatsword in one hand, it's intrinsically different than holding my morningstar with my light shield hand? I can pass my morningstar from hand to hand, and even have one of those hands specifically unable to wield a weapon, then pass it back, and still be "wielding" my morningstar, BUT if I take one hand off of my greatsword, putting my other hand back on is a move action?
yes because its easier to use it in one hand since its made for one hand combat, where as a greatsword is heavier so it needs to be used two handed so when you one hand than try to two hand it again its a move action.

everyone is straying the point is can you do Spellstrike with a 2h weapon and the answer is yes. its not limited to spell combat which is doing damage with a weapon than doing damage with a spell as a "offhand" attack like if you were using TWF.

Liberty's Edge

The real point is what you just weighed your opinion on in your previous post, that is, that re-readying a 2h weapon after you release a hand is a move action.

Liberty's Edge

my final point to try to convince you otherwise is this:

By your logic you could Two weapon fight with a Greatsword and a spiked gauntlet by making a Greatsword attack, then spiked gauntlet, then Greatsword, etc. Since it is a free action to switch between the two. This is OBVIOUSLY a break in the games mechanics so how about we just stick to the rules. :)


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.


Alternatively, dip 2 levels of the Barbarian archetype Titan Mauler to get Joutungrip which allows you to wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand for a -2 to attack roll. That way, it becomes a matter of switching grip from 1-handed to 2-handed which is indisputably within the rules and you don't have to sacrifice Spell Combat


Chaos, would two-weapon fighting using a greatsword and a spiked gauntlet work - according to your interpretation of the rules - if the character had the Quick Draw feat? If so, is it a gamebreaker? Not really? Hmm...

Now, for this particular rules question, there is no printed rule that spells it out either way, the entire thread is interpretation. With the exception of one very relevant post:

Jiggy wrote:
...the Guide's new "GMs need to use common sense" rule.

This happens to be for PFS, specifically, so there is exactly one rule that really is spelled out as "the way it needs to be," which is the rule mentioned in the quoted text above.


Hinarin wrote:
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.
FAQ wrote:

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


@ Chaos et all

My point is that it just seems silly to be able to switch your 1 hand weapon to a 2 hand grip for free, while requiring a move action to put your second hand on a 2 hand weapon. And, yes, I know that it really doesn't matter, because, by and large, you either cast or use your weapon. The only exceptions to the whole shebang are spell combat magi and less-than-standard-action-casting-time spells. Since spell combat specifically states that you CAN'T use a 2 hand weapon, that eliminates the former from this discussion. Since this is a discussion about SPELLSTRIKE, I'm totally on board with James Maissen about casting the spell, taking a move action to either a) ready my weapon or b) move AND ready my weapon, since the casting of the spell is (usually) a standard action, so the difference between a full-round action and a standard action is purely semantic.

Since I'm fairly sure that the OP has gotten a satisfactory answer (yes, the magus CAN perform his schtick), I'm going to drop out of the discussion. Happy Gaming!


Abyssian wrote:
Hinarin wrote:
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.
FAQ wrote:

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

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks, Abyssian for that clarification. Sadly I wrote this on another post, too. Hopefully I am ignored on that one…Haha. :)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

In game terms taking your hands on or off a two-handed weapon is not an action, not even a free action! It is part of the attack action!

It is not comparable to drawing or sheathing a weapon to ready it for use. Letting go with one hand costs no action, not even a free action, so you can cast a spell/draw and throw a dart etc. as part of a full attack.

It is not comparable to manipulating an object; Putting your second hand on the weapon for a two-handed strike is simply part of that attack action!

This.


Glad to help, Hinarin. I would not have known about the spellstrike loophole, either, since I really don't check FAQs...ever. I do read pretty much every magus thread I see, though, and Galahad linked the FAQ page so it was fresh in my head and easy to find.


I thought i had mentioned this in my previous post, but apparently not. Do people complaining about 2handed swords and spellstrike realize the magus is royaly gimping himself by cofusing on a twohanded weapon?

With a longsword you can do spell combat /and/ hit with two hands when needed. with a great sword you cant /ever/ do spell combat.

As far as the game is concerned, i can cast shocking grasp, walk 30 feet draw my weapon while doing so then get a free attack with said long sword and attack with it two handed.

compared to that releasing the grip on the weapon casting a spell re-gripping then hiting with it isnt really a big deal.

But i repeat Why would anyone give up spellcombat for a few extra damage dice?

Silver Crusade

Chaosthecold wrote:

my final point to try to convince you otherwise is this:

By your logic you could Two weapon fight with a Greatsword and a spiked gauntlet by making a Greatsword attack, then spiked gauntlet, then Greatsword, etc. Since it is a free action to switch between the two. This is OBVIOUSLY a break in the games mechanics so how about we just stick to the rules. :)

I'm glad this is your final point, as it supports what I've already said.

You CAN fight with a greatsword and a spiked gauntlet using TWF. Chaosthecold wants us to stick to the rules, but he seems to be making up his own and pretending it's RAW!

In the core rulebook-equipment-armour-armour spikes it states that 'You can...make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case.' This means that (core rulebook!) you CAN use a greatsword for iterative attacks while using armour spikes for off-hand attacks. So using a two-handed weapon in TWF is NOT 'an OBVIOUS break in the game mechanics' as Chaosthecold would have us believe.

Now, since we're 'sticking to the rules', I've got the same core rulebook as everybody else. The difference is, I've read mine. I've read what it says and realised what it doesn't say. Nowhere in the list of 'Actions In Combat' does it say that changing your grip on a weapon is any kind of action at all! There is no such action on the list! Why? Because it is not an action!

There are those on this thread who assert that changing your grip from 1 to 2 hands is the same as the 'draw a weapon' action. No it isn't!

We all know what a sheath is, we all know what a scabbard is. The act of drawing a weapon from one is a move action, no-one is disputing that or disputing the effects of combining drawing and moving or using Quick Draw. But changing grip is NOT 'drawing a weapon' just because you say it is! Pointing out that drawing a weapon readies it for use does NOT mean that putting your other hand on a weapon to ready it for use means you are drawing it! All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.


Mojorat wrote:


But i repeat Why would anyone give up spellcombat for a few extra damage dice?

People care to react like the sky is falling to many things without taking the time to think them through.

The magus suffers from this 'OMG' syndrome because the damage they do is flashy as opposed to say the 'bland' fighter, who can do just as much and isn't burning through resources to do so.

Heck I recall when 3.5 came out and people claimed the Mystic Theurge was BROKEN and WAY too powerful. Reality has a way of getting ignored.

That said enforcing the rules is something that's worthwhile, and the poor feat quickdraw has been lessened in PF so let's not lessen it's value even further. If people wish to wield weapons as free actions, then they should invest in being able to do so. There are many ways to accomplish this.

-James


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.