Spell Combat and Haste

[GM Arkwright]

A very long thread seemed to conclude that Maguses could benefit from an extra attack from Haste when using Spell Combat. I am going to be playing a Magus on the weekend so I would like to be certain. Can anyone confirm this?

[Bruno Kristensen]

Why wouldn't they?

Spell Combat:

"At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. 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. 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)."

Haste:

"When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon."

While the second bolded part might indicate that it isn't possible, the first says it works much like two-weapon fighting, and Haste works fine with TWF.

[Starglim]

Spell combat is not a full attack action.

It's up to the GM whether previously published abilities that work on a full attack work with spell combat, despite not being stated to do so.

[GM Arkwright]

Could I have a third opinion, please?

[james maissen]

GM Arkwright wrote:

Could I have a third opinion, please?

Spell Combat is loosely written. It alludes to TWF, but doesn't delineate exactly how it is similar.

I would surmise that with this level of writing, that the author was not looking to delineate between full attack action and as a full round action.

Also considering that the class has an arcana for them to benefit from haste, it seems unlikely that they would wish to purposefully exclude the signature ability from the haste effect without mention. It is asking for a level of reading and rules knowledge that is out of character for them.

Finally, when you compare a magus to a fighter in terms of damage the magus is geared to burn resources to attempt to compete here. With haste, the magus maintains this goal, if only barely... without it, not at all.

I would easily rule spellcombat to work with haste for the above reasons,

James

[gustavo iglesias]

james maissen wrote:

Also considering that the class has an arcana for them to benefit from haste, it seems unlikely that they would wish to purposefully exclude the signature ability from the haste effect without mention. It is asking for a level of reading and rules knowledge that is out of character for them.

This.

RAW, the wording might have different interpretations. But RAI it is clear imho.

[Grick]

As written Spell Combat is not a full-attack, so it does not gain an extra attack from haste. You also can't attack with (secondary) natural weapons.

While it could be the intent was to work with haste, it's less likely that the intent was to work with multiple manufactured and natural weapons. (Since Spell Combat says "attacks with his melee weapon" which is presumably referring to the light or one-handed melee weapon he's required to wield in order to use the ability)

If you'd like to see it addressed, there's a FAQ Request post here.

If you're looking for opinions to help guide your home game, James Jacobs says it should work with haste. (though he doesn't say whether this is because haste should affect spell combat, or whether it's because spell combat should be a full-attack.

Given that Jason Bulmahn has said haste works with unarmed strikes, it's possible that haste will be changed to reflect these intentions, rather than spell combat being changed.

[galahad2112]

This seems to be the same situation as a Magus taking a 1 level dip into maneuver master monk - You get a cool ability that currently does not work with spell combat.