|
Quick question where is the best place to get the actual rules around a Magus? I see lots of threads and lots opinions but I am having a hard time finding answers.
I saw that the there is a FAQ entry about the cast, move and use the free attack to deliver the spells...which was good. But is there more?
Here is a question that was brought up in today's game. The Magus wanted to use Spell Combat and Spell Strike together. His argument was that Spell Combat allowed him to 2 attacks at a -2 like two weapon fighting and that since the melee attack in Spell Strike was free he could make the second attack with his sword. In essence, cast shocking grasp, hit the monster with his sword doing weapon and shocking grasp and then hit the monster again with his sword as his second attack taking the -2.
To me this seemed wrong, the way I read Spell Combat is it allows you to attacks, one touch attack to deliver the spell and one sword attack. I read Spell strike as being able to use you sword to deliver a touch spell as part of a melee attack. They seem to be two different types of combat. My argument was he needs two "weapons", ie the spell and sword to use spell combat and that he could not use the one weapon to do what basically is two weapon fighting. And that was an either or type of attack..the idea of using your sword again to attack seems wrong to me.
Is there a ruling on this? Am I wrong? Just because it feels wrong does not make it wrong....please point me to the right ruling so I can show up with evidence one way or the other.
Sorry if this has been covered but I was unable to find anything that seemed to cover it that was a definite ruling.
Your Player was right he gets a free attack with his weapon to deliver the touch spell in place of the free touch attack the spell would normaly grant, if he misses with this attack he holds the charge and can deliver the spell with his next attack.
|
|
Your Player was right he gets a free attack with his weapon to deliver the touch spell in place of the free touch attack the spell would normaly grant, if he misses with this attack he holds the charge and can deliver the spell with his next attack.
Maybe I am not explaining this right. I agree with holding the charge just like any other touch spell and being able to deliver it on the next weapon attack. The question is really does Spell Combat and Spell Strike give him 2 melee attacks with his weapon in a single round? I like having a high enough base attack does.
To be honest I think thats the first time I see this question comming up . There where some threads on this board when UM came out and the Magus was new,so if you check the archives you might find something,I think some developers explained how it is supposed to work in these threads.Theres also a "Guide to Spellstrikes" or whatever its called,also search function might help.
But if you look at both abilities it explains itself:
Spell Combat allows you to cast a Spell while making a Full Attack.
The Spells effects carry out like always, so if you cast a Touch Spell you get the free touch attack these spells grant.
Spellstrike basically allows you to substitute this free Touch Attack with a Weapon Attack.
Spell Combat and Spellstrike can be combined.
ergo: A magus gets an additional attack with his weapon when he uses Spellstrike with Spell Combat.
I know it says in the Spell Combat description that it works "much like Two Weapon Fighting" but its actually closer to Rapid Shot.
I honestly do wonder why it is so many people have such a hard time with Magus.
This one is pretty simple. Spellstrike lets him cast a spell and deliver it with a attack rather then a touch. That's all it does. Nothing more or less. it does not change the action economy of the spell. It is still just casting a spell.
Spell combat lets him attack after casting a spell at -2. The spell he cast with spellstrike is still just casting a spell so of course he can do it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The question that Slamy seems to be asking is, when the magus is using spellstrike, does that attack do both spell damage and weapon damage, with the weapon doing additional damage on a separate attack.
The way I understand spellstrike, no. Spell combat allows you to attack once with your weapon, and then again with a spell. If your magus casts a touch spell, spellstrike allows you to use the weapon to deliver the spell as a touch attack (with all the accompanying bonuses to the attack roll) but the only damage that spellstrike does is the touch spell damage, not the weapon damage (again) on top of that.
Chris, spellstrike does both the spell and the weapon damage. All of the weapon damage, including all bonus damage.
Grick's thread is extremely correct.
Honestly, it'd be pretty stupid in 99.995% of all cases for it to use all the bonuses to-hit that an attack roll would get, when you could just use the touch attack that casting the spell grants. Touch attacks are going to be easier the vast majority of the time.
Here's Jason Bulmahn answering a question sort of like this . But it illustrates the fact that they do get a free attack.
Cheapy is correct, see the Spellstrike text:
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.
The question that Slamy seems to be asking is, when the magus is using spellstrike, does that attack do both spell damage and weapon damage, with the weapon doing additional damage on a separate attack.
The way I understand spellstrike, no. Spell combat allows you to attack once with your weapon, and then again with a spell. If your magus casts a touch spell, spellstrike allows you to use the weapon to deliver the spell as a touch attack (with all the accompanying bonuses to the attack roll) but the only damage that spellstrike does is the touch spell damage, not the weapon damage (again) on top of that.
Sorry in advance,but this is nonsense, first of all when you use Spellstrike to deliver a touch spell its not a Touch Attack anymore you roll aginst normal AC. And of course you do your normal attack damage in addition to delivering the spell.
What you are describing would mean that there is no difference between Spellstrike and just casting a Touch Spell.
Really? I must be doing something wrong because they seem very unbalanced to me. But then I am not a power gamer. It looks like there has been a bunch of discussion on this class so I do not feel so bad being confused.
The magus' Spellstrike ability is similar to an ability that all spellcasters have. The Holding a Charge paragraph in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook says,
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
So a sorcerer can get the free melee attack with casting a touch spell, and if he has Improved Unarmed Strike or a bloodline that gives him a claw attack, then the attack itself does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The magus can use a one-handed or light melee weapon instead of unarmed strike or a natural attack, that is all.
For most spellcasters, getting close enough to use a touch attack was dangerous, so the Core Rules gave them lots of perks, which most players were still too timid to use. The magus has more hit points than a wizard or sorcerer and can cast spells in light armor, so he feels protected enough to use those freebies that other arcane casters passed up.
So a sorcerer can get the free melee attack with casting a touch spell, and if he has Improved Unarmed Strike or a bloodline that gives him a claw attack, then the attack itself does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The magus can use a one-handed or light melee weapon instead of unarmed strike or a natural attack, that is all.
I don't think you're quite correct, Mathmuse. That section that you quoted is from the "Holding the Charge" bit, which talks about what you can do on subsequent rounds. A sorcerer cannot cast a spell and then deliver it through a free melee attack on the same round. That is something that is special to the Magus's Spellstrike ability.
I don't think you're quite correct, Mathmuse. That section that you quoted is from the "Holding the Charge" bit, which talks about what you can do on subsequent rounds. A sorcerer cannot cast a spell and then deliver it through a free melee attack on the same round. That is something that is special to the Magus's Spellstrike ability.
Well if it's quickened, it's not free but they can do it...
But seriously, a Magus isn't any more powerful than a fighter. Their spells and class features offset the weaknesses that casters traditionally have in combat. Sure they can nova a bit better,with their arcane pool, but when their out of tricks they're just a 3/4 BAB class.
I don't think you're quite correct, Mathmuse. That section that you quoted is from the "Holding the Charge" bit, which talks about what you can do on subsequent rounds. A sorcerer cannot cast a spell and then deliver it through a free melee attack on the same round. That is something that is special to the Magus's Spellstrike ability.
So a sorcerer can get the free melee attack with casting a touch spell, and if he has Improved Unarmed Strike or a bloodline that gives him a claw attack, then the attack itself does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The magus can use a one-handed or light melee weapon instead of unarmed strike or a natural attack, that is all.
Thank you for the correction. I had thought of any case where the spellcaster does not use the free touch attack at the immediate end of casting the touch spell as "holding the charge." But the exact wording of the paragraphs refers to holding the charge as occurring on subsequent turns: "Holding the charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely."
I wonder if that means that the sorcerer can touch objects between the casting the touch spell and using the free attack from the touch spell. The accidental discharge rules apply only to holding the charge.
|
I don't think you're quite correct, Mathmuse. That section that you quoted is from the "Holding the Charge" bit, which talks about what you can do on subsequent rounds. A sorcerer cannot cast a spell and then deliver it through a free melee attack on the same round. That is something that is special to the Magus's Spellstrike ability.
So a sorcerer can get the free melee attack with casting a touch spell, and if he has Improved Unarmed Strike or a bloodline that gives him a claw attack, then the attack itself does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The magus can use a one-handed or light melee weapon instead of unarmed strike or a natural attack, that is all.Thank you for the correction. I had thought of any case where the spellcaster does not use the free touch attack at the immediate end of casting the touch spell as "holding the charge." But the exact wording of the paragraphs refers to holding the charge as occurring on subsequent turns: "Holding the charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely."
I wonder if that means that the sorcerer can touch objects between the casting the touch spell and using the free attack from the touch spell. The accidental discharge rules apply only to holding the charge.
Hold on, you were actually right in your previous interpretation (you just quoted the wrong rule to back it up). Anytime you cast a touch range spell you get a free attack the round you cast it. If you don't discharge the spell in the round you cast it then you fall under the holding the charge rules.
A sorcerer cannot use his claw or fist to make the free touch attack granted by casting a touch spell. He can only make a touch attack.
It's only after holding the charge, which happens at the end of his turn, that he can use unarmed strike/natural attack to deliver the spell.
And yes, 'touching anything' only happens while holding the charge, which only happens after the turn in which you cast the spell ends.
Even if the touch spell is quickened, the touch itself is still a free action, and bound by the normal rules.
Spellstrike allows you to make that free touch attack with your weapon, as well as with later attacks during that round or any subsequent rounds.
There are some very, very strong magi builds out there that even without spells and all their arcane pool depleted can do pretty well, but most of those revolve around options to use Dex to damage.
But! You aren't crazy in thinking it's a strong class. Their first level ability, the ability to full attack and cast a spell, is extremely strong. I've seen many "gish" classes (fighter mages, basically) that give that ability as a cap stone or at the very least 10+ levels in.
But in most instances, they'll do fine with some nice Burst capabilities. One problem with them is the "15 minute adventuring day", where there's only really one encounter. This means the magus can "nova" all his powers to be pretty powerful. But avoid those, and their power is pretty nice.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But in most instances, they'll do fine with some nice Burst capabilities. One problem with them is the "15 minute adventuring day", where there's only really one encounter. This means the magus can "nova" all his powers to be pretty powerful. But avoid those, and their power is pretty nice.
*cough*NPCvillain*cough*
Spell Combat and Spellstrike in unison work as Two Weapon Fighting.
One extra attack in the Full Attack action, with all attacks at a -2. Difference is that the gained extra attack from TWF is a spell delivered through your weapon.
|
Spell Combat and Spellstrike in unison work as Two Weapon Fighting.
One extra attack in the Full Attack action, with all attacks at a -2. Difference is that the gained extra attack from TWF is a spell delivered through your weapon.
I've been considering taking TWF to continue attacking with touch spells using my off hand after the initial round. Mostly with Frostbite and Elemental Touch.
I am not sure how this would interact with Dervish Dance.
Spell Combat and Spellstrike in unison work as Two Weapon Fighting.
One extra attack in the Full Attack action, with all attacks at a -2. Difference is that the gained extra attack from TWF is a spell delivered through your weapon.
It can work that way, yes, if you're casting touch spells. Also note if you fail to cast (either failing the check to cast defensviely or by taking damage from provoking an AoO) you lose the spell and don't get the free attack. If you cast a non-touch spell, you don't still get a free attack.
I've been considering taking TWF to continue attacking with touch spells using my off hand after the initial round. Mostly with Frostbite and Elemental Touch.
That'll work if you wield a second weapon in your off hand. While a held charge is considered being armed, it may not be considered wielding a weapon, so check with your GM first.
I am not sure how this would interact with Dervish Dance.
You cannot use Dervish Dance if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand. If the charge is considered wielding a weapon for TWF, it should also be considered wielding a weapon for Dervish Dance.
You cannot use Dervish Dance if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand. If the charge is considered wielding a weapon for TWF, it should also be considered wielding a weapon for Dervish Dance.
I don't agree. Would you someone with Improved Unarmed Strike to Dervish Dance and use an off-hand punch? They should both be the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot use Dervish Dance if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand. If the charge is considered wielding a weapon for TWF, it should also be considered wielding a weapon for Dervish Dance.I don't agree. Would you someone with Improved Unarmed Strike to Dervish Dance and use an off-hand punch? They should both be the same thing.
The intent of dervish dance is you are attacking only with a single one handed weapon. I wouldnt let someone use unarmed strikes in conjunction with dervish dance.
The intent of dervish dance is you are attacking only with a single one handed weapon. I wouldnt let someone use unarmed strikes in conjunction with dervish dance.
And that may be the intent (although I'm not sure we know that for a fact), however is it RAW?
Here's my real point though: If you would allow an Unarmed Strike to be used, you should allow a spell to be used. If you wouldn't allow one, you shouldn't allow the other.
You cannot use Dervish Dance if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand. If the charge is considered wielding a weapon for TWF, it should also be considered wielding a weapon for Dervish Dance.I don't agree. Would you someone with Improved Unarmed Strike to Dervish Dance and use an off-hand punch? They should both be the same thing.
Dervish Dance (Combat): "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
Two-Weapon Fighting: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
Dervish Dance explicitly prohibits using a weapon in your off hand. Two-Weapon Fighting only works when using a weapon in your off hand. They are mutually exclusive.
The intent of dervish dance is you are attacking only with a single one handed weapon. I wouldnt let someone use unarmed strikes in conjunction with dervish dance.And that may be the intent (although I'm not sure we know that for a fact), however is it RAW?
If you two weapon fight with a scimitar and an unarmed strike, you are making that unarmed strike as an off-hand attack by the two weapon fighting rules. Unarmed attacks are a weapon, you are using a weapon in an off-hand. It is ABSOLUTELY RAI and pretty solidely RAW that this shoudlnt work with dervish dance
Here's my real point though: If you would allow an Unarmed Strike to be used, you should allow a spell to be used. If you wouldn't allow one, you shouldn't allow the other.
If you are delivering a touch spell with an off hand (and not with the scimitar) i would agree, they shouldnt work together. If everything goes through the scimiar, OR the spell is not an attack, I would allow it.
EDIT: Nevermind just re-read it, and understood what you're saying.
Okay then, if they didn't use Two-Weapon Fighting and just accepted the penalties to hit would you allow it? Figure since it's going against Touch AC the penalties really wouldn't be that significant.
Two-Weapon Fighting: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."Ah so you're saying a fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike can't use a longsword and an unamred strike with two-weapon fighting. I think there are a lot of people that would disagree with that.
That isn't at all what he is saying. He is saying that if you make an off hand attack, you cannot use dervish dance, whether that off hand weapon is unarmed or a weapon. If you use two weapon fighting you cant use dervish dance.
Right re-read and edited my post.
Okay then, if they didn't use Two-Weapon Fighting and just accepted the penalties to hit would you allow it? Figure since it's going against Touch AC the penalties really wouldn't be that significant.
Can you plainly state what you're talking about?
There's not really a subject in your post, and you didn't quote anyone so we have to guess who you're responding to.
If you have a held charge, you can make a touch attack as a standard action.
You can also make an unarmed strike or natural weapon attack, using whatever actions you have available, targeting normal (not touch) AC and delivering the spell with the first one that hits. This means if your BAB is +6, you could make a full-attack and make an unarmed strike at +6, and another unarmed strike at +1, and the first one that hits deals weapon damage and delivers the spell.
The magus can do all of that, or he can use his sword in place of any of those attacks, targeting normal AC etc.
What it explicitly prohibits is carrying a weapon.
So if you're two-weapon fighting with a scimitar and a short sword, you're not carrying the short sword, you're wielding it, so you get Dex to hit and damage with both of them?
Empty hands are clearly considered 'weapons,' but nothing is being carried in the hand.
If an empty hand is a weapon, it's not possible to disarm someone without using a weapon, which means it's impossible to pick up the item you disarmed.
Dervish Dance is already a feat that straddles the borderline between a great feat and one that's really too good. (In the justifiable view of some, it jumped over that line long ago)
Anything that makes it even more powerful is an automatic nonnegotiable no in my book.
Heck, even the guy who got it in thinks it probably should have tougher prerequisites.
Dervish Dance is not so great,its just good if you have some way to get extra damage or more attacks ike the magus and even then....
I have played 5 Magi so far, and made dozens of builds for theorycrafting, and dervish dance is not the gamechanger it is made out to be. I also tried to build some Battle Dancer Bards with Dervish Dance and the builds <i could come up with where not very strong,good AC and Stat distribution but weak offense,same goes for fighters,rangers,barbarians and so on...
Have you seen a SINGLE theorycrafter here not include this feat in thier Magus build. When a feat becomes a "must have" that means it needs a second look especially when it impacts so heavily on a build.Dervish Dance is not so great,its just good if you have some way to get extra damage or more attacks ike the magus and even then....
When a non-core feat*
|
|
Have you seen a SINGLE theorycrafter here not include this feat in thier Magus build. When a feat becomes a "must have" that means it needs a second look especially when it impacts so heavily on a build.Dervish Dance is not so great,its just good if you have some way to get extra damage or more attacks ike the magus and even then....
I guess Power Attack is too good then.