Spellstrike can be used with spell combat, wand wielder can be used with spell combat, there is nothing excluding the use of both of them.The Spellstrike rules exclude it.
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."
As you can see, the rules state that you must have cast a spell in order to use Spellstrike. That spell also has to have a range of "touch" and it must be from the magus spell list.
FAQ: " No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting."
As you can see, the FAQ clarifies that activating a wand is not actually spellcasting.
Since activating a wand is not casting a spell, you cannot use Spellstrike with a wand.
Wand wielder states in place of casting the spell.Wand Wielder (Su): "The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat."
As you can see, the arcana specifies that it allows you to replace the casting a spell component of Spell Combat with activating a wand. This does not mean that activating a wand is now casting a spell. This therefore means that you still cannot use Spellstrike with a wand, even if you're using the wand with Spell Combat.
You...
What does 'touch' have to do with wand wielder specifically? You could get around that with close range, but we aren't discussing ray spells vs. touch spells. Not sure why you called out 'touch' as being specific in any way, to this particular discussion.
I'm also curious why do you always jump in on these discussions as if your interpretation is law on the matter? Or at least you come off that way.
|
...Spellstrike can be used with spell combat, wand wielder can be used with spell combat, there is nothing excluding the use of both of them.The Spellstrike rules exclude it.
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."
As you can see, the rules state that you must have cast a spell in order to use Spellstrike. That spell also has to have a range of "touch" and it must be from the magus spell list.
FAQ: " No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting."
As you can see, the FAQ clarifies that activating a wand is not actually spellcasting.
Since activating a wand is not casting a spell, you cannot use Spellstrike with a wand.
Wand wielder states in place of casting the spell.Wand Wielder (Su): "The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat."
As you can see, the arcana specifies that it allows you to replace the casting a spell component of Spell Combat with activating a wand. This does not mean that activating a wand is now casting a spell. This therefore means that you still cannot use Spellstrike with a wand, even if you're using the wand
He jumps into these discussions because 99% of the time he is right and watching incorrect information getting thrown around is irksome.
As for the touch question it's because spellstrike only works with touch spells the MAGUS casts, Wand wielder doesn't change that fact. All it does is let you replace the casting of a spell with activating a wand for the purpose of the spell combat ability only.
In this example he's showing you he's laying out exactly why you can't use a wand with spellstrike (no matter what spell is in it) since wand wielder specifically only references the spell combat ability.
Incorrect. It is spells on the magus list but need not be magus spells.
What exactly is your definition of "magus spells" then?
No.
How does that differ from what I said? In order to cast shocking grasp twice, you have to cast shocking grasp twice. Generally, that means one of them must be quickened. The person I was replying to was making it sound like you can cast multiple times with spell combat, I was making it clear you have to actually cast again outside of that action in order to get a second spell off.
You would need broad study for that to be so... there is another arcana that lets you 'rob' wizard spells without dippping, can't recall it's name. But you need the right arcana, otherwise your other spell lists don't count.
Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list..."
James is saying that since Shocking Grasp is on the magus spell list, it qualifies for Spellstrike. It doesn't say "cast using a magus spell slot" it just says on the list. (I think the intent is probably spell slots, but that's not what's written)
The Broad Study arcana lets you do the same with spells that are not on the magus spell list, like touch of fatigue.
What does 'touch' have to do with wand wielder specifically? You could get around that with close range, but we aren't discussing ray spells vs. touch spells. Not sure why you called out 'touch' as being specific in any way, to this particular discussion.
Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list..."
Since you're talking about using Spellstrike, and since Spellstrike requires a spell with a range of "touch," it's completely specific to this exact discussion.
Wand Wielder doesn't change the requirement of having cast the spell any more than it changes the requirement of the range being touch. Both of those are requirements to use Spellstrike.
|
No.How does that differ from what I said? In order to cast shocking grasp twice, you have to cast shocking grasp twice. Generally, that means one of them must be quickened. The person I was replying to was making it sound like you can cast multiple times with spell combat, I was making it clear you have to actually cast again outside of that action in order to get a second spell off.
Sorry, I had missed the last part of this piece:
If you then, for instance, cast a quickened shocking grasp as a swift action, you can again choose to make the attack it grants with a touch or with your weapon via Spellstrike.
I had read it as if you were saying that the magus had to deliver the second attack as a touch attack only.
Incorrect. It is spells on the magus list but need not be magus spells.What exactly is your definition of "magus spells" then?
You have the idea of it: Spells cast via the character's magus class. So I guess it is 'magus spell slots' in your terms.
Thus a magus1/wizard5 could have a fireball spell memorized, but not memorized via magus spell slots... thus he could not cast a fireball as a magus.
It would be, however, a spell on the magus spell list and thus the character could use spell combat with casting that fireball.
I'm not sure if PF has anything currently that differentiates this way, but I seem to recall that 3.5 did... but I'm drawing a blank on what that might be.
None of these terms are official, though as I mentioned I think some of it might have been demarcated in 3.5, but I don't recall where. There is a grey area when it comes to many terms along these lines (and others such as caster level, etc).
-James
Spell blending was the arcana i was thinking about, let's you add/rob spells from wizards list, without dipping.
Trouble with casting from wizards list, is now you have to deal with arcane spell failure from casting that wizard spell (IF you are wearing armor)
You also can't do it combine with spellstrike or spell combat unless you have broad study (but you still have to deal with arcane spell failure even if you do)
Using spell blending is the way to go if there is a spell or two that you want. It doesn't look like multiclassing in another arcane class (like wizard) has much synergy.
Edit: assuming a straight magus, no archetypes, and the magus had close range arcana.... what spells would you WANT to steal from the wizard list by using spell blending?
Straight Magus probably some Cold Energy Spells if I can get them easily.
broad study has made me think of a magus/inquisitor build (specifically a vampire hunter) but I havent done it yet.
What inquisitor spells could be fun to spell combat with, via broad study?
How much could you really stack your sword? arcane pool, pool strike, spell strike, flames of the faithful, bane.... CHOP!
Hmm... I really need to look into a Magus/Inquisitor. I wonder what it would be like to go Magus/Inquisitor/MT... Focusing less on Combat and more on Spells...
if you were to do that, magus would be a poor base choice, but then, so would inquisitor.... max 6th level spells.... both classes have more features and special abilities than spells, the only thing MT does for this build is max out the spells.... not very appealing.
What I am thinking is focusing more on making them an Armoured Blasting Magus with a Support Casting Inquisitor. Focusing on Spells less than Weaponry.
The Idea is less optimization more interesting concept.
You also can't do it combine with spellstrike or spell combat unless you have broad study (but you still have to deal with arcane spell failure even if you do)
I'm not sure that I understand your position, but in case you have confused mine:
Fireball is a spell on the magus spell list.
Therefore a magus can use spell combat with that spell (assuming he has one memorized).
It does not matter if the magus has the fireball memorized by virtue of his magus class spell slots or some other class.
James
Well he can't spell combat with fireball because it's not a touch spell, so he would need close range in order to do it.
The point Im making is, if you went with levels of wizard (in order to get fireball but not have it through magus) all the spells the wizard would cast, that are not on the magus spell list, are subject to arcane spell failure due to armor.
If you are trying to steal spell combat from a 1 level dip in magus, it isnt going to work, because you need the close range arcana in order to do the fireball thing. So you would need at least one arcana, which a level 1 magus doesn't get. There isn't a good reason for the multiclass you are trying to put out there (1 magus/5 wizard)
Doesn't Spell Combat &/or Spellstrike have a clause saying the spell must be gained through Magus Levels?
it says on magus spell list... i think it's assumed through magus levels, but it's not said.... the reason why it's assumed is probably because as I outlined.... it just doesn't pan out in the long run, might as well be a full wizard or a full magus and take the right arcana.
True.
Though the question begs why would anyone give up the Magi's Special Abilities for the Wizard's
well the appeal would be to try and get spell combat as a wizard.... it just doesnt fly without the rest of magus. I looked at it thinking hmmm, but it is written well enough to rpevent this loophole-ism.
Is there really still this little group of "Magus be broked!!1" people. Really? Its a class that does single target damage well. That's it. And even then they are still not the best at it and more so often times ending encounters through damage is sub-optimal.
Is there a good AC Magus build? Sure but they are still easier to kill then a paladin. Is there a build that has a lot more gold to spare then others? Sure but not nearly as much as a full caster that only needs one item. (not even needs really.)
Frankly unless someone has banned all full casters they have to place complaining about Magus.
Magi are only Over-Powered if your GM is foolish enough to throw a lone boss at you.
Magi are only Over-Powered if your GM is foolish enough to throw a lone boss at you.
This. But then again that goes for more then Magus. Witch is good at shutting down one target. Paladin will wreck and evil big bad. Ranger with Favored enemy + Favored defense + instant enemy. Heck one Irresistible Dance spell can end a BBEG even without a failed save.
No one has really said anything about magus being OP....at least not recently.
I think the broken part, or the idea of it comes from super fast theorycraft without realizing "oh that doesn't work that way" and "oh that's not that big of a deal"
Personally I like bladebound for flavor for a certain character build, but I dont generally prefer it.
I actually dont like it's your same alignment (Elric's did not seem to be) I think it would be more fun with a conflicting alignment, or at least one step off your alignment, like an inquisitor from his God. so for example, a CN Elric could have a CE Stormbringer.
But it would also be more fun to have a 'split personality' type thing going on, like with the master chymist, as it were. The fact that the blade is intelligent doesn't really come into play. I find it hard to imagine a LG magus, with a LG black blade , having a different set of goals that would come into play as mattering... Lost fluff IMO
Am I over thinking this? Am I missing any glaring...Nope, you've got it right. The magus is broken.
Not that far up the page. But no Pendagast my comments had not been directed at you. They had been at post like that one from people that clearly put as much thought into the post as they did in understanding game balance.
I think i selectively deleted it in my mind.
Magus is my favorite class, because it lets me be "elf" from basic... only cooler.
My first ever character, that I didn't use a pregen to play, was my Elf , named Elric.
he had a +1 Sword (not a long sword, or a short sword...just SWORD) that glowed and I thought it was really cool. He was Chaotic..... ahhh the rules light system, where no one can tell you "you can't do that" because there is very little you can do.... lol
Nice... What edition?
good question... Blue box, I think, dont quote me, I was 12, bought it at walden books, I dont recall levels above 6th.
You could be a dwarf, elf, or halfling. they were races as classes. Humans could be fighter, cleric, thief or magic user. That was it.
Sounds like OD&D... Maybe AD&D but didn't AD&D allow Dwarves, Elf, & Halflings multiple classes? Even if they were just Alternate Racial Paths.
No... wasn't AD&D. thats what I played most of my life. It was one of the forms of basic.
Yeah I was sure it was OD&D.
Well he can't spell combat with fireball because it's not a touch spell, so he would need close range in order to do it.
Spell Combat works just fine with fireball, there's no restriction on only working with touch spells.
Close Range (Ex) doesn't work with fireball, because it's not a ray.
Yes it does. Because the two don't cast the same way. The magus has a casting style that gives the option for spell combat, the wizard does not. for purposes of argument I'm going to assume that magus spell slots are different from wizard spell slots.
Nobody is saying the slots are the same.
The rules say from the magus spell list. The spell is on the list.
The writers might have meant using spell slots, or never considered someone using it otherwise. It would be kind of awkward to say "using a magus spell slot" in the abilities.
This FAQ item is an example of Jason Bulmahn responding to a question using "spell list" then answering about spell slots of a specific class. This isn't airtight, as JB never actually writes "spell list" outside of the quoted question.
This is going to be difficult. First the quick rod is about half of his cash. But more importantly, he needs to hold the rod in order to use it. And that won't work with spell combat. Moreover, it won't even work if the magus has a weapon in the other hand unless the spell is also stilled.
Tiefling + Tail = win :oP
Yep a well built fighter will do more damage...
but the Magus is a bit more flexible.. thanks to spells.
Really the Magus should have been allowed to take and Arcana that expands their Enchantment possibilities.
But no you have to be a bleeding Gnome.
|
|
What I want to know is if they could use Spellstrike with a wand that is stored in their weapon via the Weaponwand spell?
Most of the posts in this theead were done before the last bout of FAQs on the Magus. There are several errors in the replies.
About your question:
Magus, Spell Combat: What spells can I cast when using spell combat?
The relevant text of the ability is:
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."
The spell you cast when using spell combat has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots.
(Other magus abilities may modify what spells can be used with spell combat. For example, the broad study magus arcana explicitly states the magus can use spell combat to cast spells from the selected non-magus spellcasting class.)
Spell combat isn't spell strike, but spellstrike has the same text:
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.
so we should assume that to use spellstrike you must cast the spell from a spell memorized in your magus spell slots, unless you have the Broad study arcana, and even if have it you need to use one of your spell slots, not a spell cast by a device.
There's an arcana calles wand mastery. It lets you use a wand with spell combat. I couldn't find a similar ability for spell strike.
Spell storing needs a targeted spell as its only rewuirement.