Spell Combat, Full-Attack, and Haste

[Grick]

Spell Combat is it's own full-round action, not a full-attack action.

Spell Combat (Ex): "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"

Question 1) When "he can make all of his attacks" does this mean all attacks he would be granted as if he were making a full-attack? As written, since Spell Combat is not a full-attack, it does not benefit from the extra attack granted by haste, despite having access to the Hasted Assault arcana, and the haste spell itself.

Question 2) All of those attacks are made "with his melee weapon", does this specifically mean the light or one-handed melee weapon in his other hand, or can they be made with any mixture of weapons he is wielding so long as his other hand remains free?

Question 3) Can an unarmed strike be considered "in his other hand" or does Spell Combat require a manufactured weapon? Can he use a manufactured weapon which does not use a hand, for instance a boulder helmet, barbazu beard, or armor spikes?

Question 4) If the attack portion of Spell Combat is intended to work like a full-attack, does this only include attacks made with that specific melee weapon, or could he also make attacks with secondary natural weapons, so long as they don't share a limb with either of his hands?

Feel free to discuss, however clicking the FAQ request flag would be greatly appreciated.

Full disclosure: There were previous FAQ requests here, but it was requested that I make a new thread specifically about this issue in order to gain a wider audience.

[Grick]

Full disclosure part 2: James Jacobs has said here that haste would grant an extra attack. I did not mention this in the original post because I did not want the thread marked 'Staff response: no reply required.' While I appreciate James' input, and I feel he is correct in the intent, it's not a complete response to all of the issues raised.

[Cheapy]

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this issue that seems to come up thrice per day.

[Xaratherus]

Cheapy wrote:

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this issue that seems to come up thrice per day.

As a new(ish) fan to the magus class, I would appreciate answers to these questions as well.

[Ciaran Barnes]

But a staff response isn't required. You already know the gist of what the clarification would be. Spell Combat and Haste came up at my table just this past week for the first time and we ran it - with discussion - how JJ described in Grick's 2nd post. Maybe they will respond though. Its hard to say which questions staff decides will be answered.

[Cheapy]

I've found that more clickies for the FAQies helps questions get answered.

I once made a post asking about the totem warrior archetype and what it did, and despite it actually affecting very little in the game, it somehow got roughly a billion FAQs, so it was answered recently.

[Grick]

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

But a staff response isn't required. You already know the gist of what the clarification would be.

James is not campaign leadership, which means GMs in Pathfinder Society Organized Play are bound by the rules to not allow magi to get an extra attack from haste when they use Spell Combat.

The rules do not match the intent. Thus, the rules should be changed (unless James is wrong and the way it is actually is the intent).

Further, even though we know haste should work with Spell Combat, we don't know why.

Is it because haste is incorrect and needs to include non-full-attack actions which provide more than one attack? That seems reasonable, especially since haste already needs to be changed to reflect that it works on unarmed strikes.

Or, is it because Spell Combat is supposed to be a full-attack action? If so, that enables really weird stuff like two-weapon fighting, flurry of blows, and natural attacks.

Because we only know half of the intent, and that intent itself is not binding in official play, a staff response is required.

[Bigtuna]

Grick wrote:

is it because Spell Combat is supposed to be a full-attack action?

- the whole "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" part do point in that direction. But wouldn't work with flurry og blows since flurry is in it self a full-attack action, so they would exclude each other.

On the other hand if spellcombat could be used "as part of" a full-attack action they could be used together.

Since haste uses the term "When making a full attack action" changing spell combat to "a full-attack action" would make the work together.

But changing to a "full-attack action" doesn't define whether it would include or exclude secondary natural attacks, or attacks from extra limbs for that matter.

So how about "when making a full attack the magus can make all of his attacks 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 magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)."

Assuming that was the intent...

[Grick]

Bigtuna wrote:

So how about "when making a full attack the magus can make all of his attacks 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 magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)."

If the intent was to let you use it with flurry of blows or TWF, to let you use any type of weapon, and also use natural attacks, then that would work.

I don't think that's the intent, though.

If I were to re-write it, I would do so thusly:

Grick's Revised Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield a weapon at the same time. 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 manufactured light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with this melee weapon as if making a full-attack. He can also, as part of this action, cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action. All attacks made during this action take a –2 penalty, including any attacks made as a result of casting a spell. If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

(That's only 10 characters off from the original wording!)

This would answer the questions as such:
1) It counts as a full-attack for purposes of haste (or any other modifiers to a full-attack that can be applied to one weapon).
2) It has to be on or in a hand.
3) An unarmed strike or natural weapon would not count, but an archetype or feat could certainly modify this.
4) It would limit the attacks granted by the full-attack (and anything modifying it, such as haste) to be made only with the light or one-handed melee weapon.

[Cheapy]

I feel like that's missing one of the often asked questions about spell combat,but I'm drawing blanks on it.

Guess it may have been the cantrip issue.

[Buba HoTep]

So by JJ's perspective we can do;

Spell Combat + Spell Strike + Haste = 3 attacks at -2?

[james maissen]

Buba HoTep wrote:

So by JJ's perspective we can do;

Spell Combat + Spell Strike + Haste = 3 attacks at -2?

*IF* you've successfully cast a touch spell, then yes. (Though the +1 from haste would also apply).

It's the same as a monk flurrying and hasted. (Actually a bit worse, as the monk gets a higher bonus to hit when flurrying...)

-James

[Pupsocket]

James Jacobs has already answered the stated question about Haste and Spell Combat. He didn't resolve the implied question, "is spell combat a full attack action", because the man is just not that meticulous.

Look at it this way: "Spell Combat works like two-weapon fighting, except for these changes". Two-weapon fighting is a full-attack action.

JJ's answer was not "Yes. Despite SC not being a FA, I think Haste ought to work". It was closer to "Uh, yes? Dude, I'm not sure I understand why you would even ask that, so here's an answer about casting multiple spells".

[Grick]

Pupsocket wrote:

JJ's answer was not "Yes. Despite SC not being a FA, I think Haste ought to work". It was closer to "Uh, yes? Dude, I'm not sure I understand why you would even ask that, so here's an answer about casting multiple spells".

JJ: "Haste would grant the magus an extra weapon attack as it does normally."

He doesn't say whether this is because Spell Combat is supposed to be a full-attack action, or whether this is because the Haste spell is not correctly worded.

And since we know the Haste spell is not correctly worded, and we can imply that "all of his attacks with his melee weapon" doesn't mean the same thing as "all of his attacks with any combination of melee weapons, unarmed strikes, and/or natural weapons" the actual answer isn't quite as simple as you make it sound.

[Ravingdork]

Doesn't spell combat specifically say it functions like two-weapon fighting? Ergo, it IS a full attack action as well as a full round action (just like any other full attack).

[Grick]

Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't spell combat specifically say it functions like two-weapon fighting?

"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

Ravingdork wrote:

Ergo, it IS a full attack action as well as a full round action (just like any other full attack).

That would mean improved two-weapon fighting lets you cast two spells. And greater two-weapon fighting means three spells!

Or, instead, it's to get across the idea that you're attacking with a weapon in one hand, and casting a spell with the other hand.

[BuzzardB]

Grick wrote:

That would mean improved two-weapon fighting lets you cast two spells. And greater two-weapon fighting means three spells!

Or, instead, it's to get across the idea that you're attacking with a weapon in one hand, and casting a spell with the other hand.

Well it does say much like, not just like.

The actual feat TWF and consequently ITWF and GTWF require an actual weapon in your off-hand.

[Ravingdork]

Grick wrote:

That would mean improved two-weapon fighting lets you cast two spells. And greater two-weapon fighting means three spells!

Or, instead, it's to get across the idea that you're attacking with a weapon in one hand, and casting a spell with the other hand.

Not only is that a straw man, but it takes the logic entirely too far.

We all know you get ONE extra spell with Spell Combat at a -2 penalty to hit on attacks, whether or not you have Two-Weapon Fighting, so why would having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting make any difference at all when clearly Two-Weapon Fighting does not?

[Cheapy]

We also know that that text is just fluff :)

[Ravingdork]

Cheapy wrote:

We also know that that text is just fluff :)

It can't be all fluff. Fluff never refers to game mechanics. If it was just fluff, it literally wouldn't serve any purpose.

I like to think that it has a reason for existing--that reason being to clear up some of the issues brought up in this thread.

[GreenMandar]

I just caught below while looking to see where it actually says two-weapon fighting must be used with a full attack, since the description later on doesn't. This seems to be very relevant.

From Combat Section in Core Rulebook. Bolding mine

PRD wrote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

Combine that with the fact the a Full Attack is just a subtype of Full-Round action (Table 8-2), not a different type and it strongly suggests that Spell Combat is usually a Full Attack. I say usually because I'm not sure if you could cast a buff spell and use as singe attack and have it just be a full-round action, not a full attack, but that is going another level deep.

[Artanthos]

The last part you highlighted would do it, or for some special reason.

[GreenMandar]

I cringe to ask, but based on the definition of Full Attack, it would seem to indicate that until you can satisfy one of the above conditions (which many low level characters can't), you can't do a Full Attack. So...RAW Haste wouldn't give an extra attack. Can anyone please tell me where I'm wrong (and I hope I am) other than something like "nobody does it that way" or "I don't like that".

[Artanthos]

GreenMandar wrote:

I cringe to ask, but based on the definition of Full Attack, it would seem to indicate that until you can satisfy one of the above conditions (which many low level characters can't), you can't do a Full Attack. So...RAW Haste wouldn't give an extra attack. Can anyone please tell me where I'm wrong (and I hope I am) other than something like "nobody does it that way" or "I don't like that".

RAW you may or may not be right.

The melee focused crowd trying so hard to shut all the other classes down won't agree though.

[Kazaan]

Quote:

Question 1) When "he can make all of his attacks" does this mean all attacks he would be granted as if he were making a full-attack? As written, since Spell Combat is not a full-attack, it does not benefit from the extra attack granted by haste, despite having access to the Hasted Assault arcana, and the haste spell itself.

Full Attack is a specific full-round action in the same way that Attack is a specific standard action. Or, to put it a different way, Full-Attack is an action that subsumes your Full-Round action and Attack is an action that subsumes your Standard action. It's because of this reasoning that something like Vital Strike can't be coupled with the Full-Attack action because it specifically calls out applying only to the Attack action. Therefore, since Spell Combat specifically calls out being a specific Full-Round action (more specifically, it's a "Use Special Ability" action that subsumes your Full-Round action), by RAW, it qualifies neither for Haste nor for Defensive Combat nor standard TWF combat rules (or any TWF feats). Yes, the Magus has both the Haste spell and Hasted Arcana but Haste does more than just give you an extra attack. Furthermore, a Magus can still use full-attack when he chooses to.

Quote:

Question 2) All of those attacks are made "with his melee weapon", does this specifically mean the light or one-handed melee weapon in his other hand, or can they be made with any mixture of weapons he is wielding so long as his other hand remains free?

Now, normally when you use TWF, you must declare what weapon is your off-hand to determine what penalties apply before you make your attacks. You don't necessarily have to declare what your main-hand weapon(s) will be because that has no effect. So, if you have a Longsword, Dagger, and Boot Blade, you could declare the Boot Blade as your off-hand but then divide your iteratives between Longsword and Dagger; the system allows for that. Therefore, while the Spell Combat (Ex) ability refers to "the melee weapon", it's not really different in that respect from TWF referring to "your main-hand weapon". So you can divide your iterative attacks among more than one weapon that you wield so long as you meet the requirement of having one hand free for spell-casting.

Quote:

Question 3) Can an unarmed strike be considered "in his other hand" or does Spell Combat require a manufactured weapon? Can he use a manufactured weapon which does not use a hand, for instance a boulder helmet, barbazu beard, or armor spikes?

Just as a Boot Blade or a Barbazu Beard counts as an off-hand weapon despite not being wielded in your "hand", a weapon can be used as your main-hand weapon even if it's not a hand-held weapon. By the same token, Unarmed Strike (which was recently clarified by official FAQ to be "your whole body"), can also be used since it is, indeed, a light weapon that "counts as melee" except for specific listed exceptions (none of which are pertinent to Spell Combat except maybe for counting as Armed or not in which case, you must have IUS for it to qualify). Spell Combat doesn't specifically call out a manufactured weapon, just that you must "wield a weapon in your 'hand'" and the 'hand' term has been shown to be just used for convenience and space purposes so they don't have to further list "hand, foot, head, chin, knee, shoulder, elbow, etc."

Quote:

Question 4) If the attack portion of Spell Combat is intended to work like a full-attack, does this only include attacks made with that specific melee weapon, or could he also make attacks with secondary natural weapons, so long as they don't share a limb with either of his hands?

This is a little more vague, but I think the best way to adjudicate it is, since Spell Combat is based off your normal iterative attacks, using natural attacks would be handled the same way they would be in the case of a Monk with Feral Combat Training; they count as iterative weapons.

[Lou Diamond]

Grick said wrote:

That would mean improved two-weapon fighting lets you cast two spells. And greater two-weapon fighting means three spells!

Grick you are mixing ap[ples and oranges. The only way you can cast more than one spell in one round is to use the quickend spell feat even the new mythic rules do not let you cast more than one spell per round except using the quickend spell feat. In no way do any of the advance two weapons feats effect the number of spells on can cast in one round.

The two weapon fighting feats effect the number of physical attacks not the number of spells one can cast in a single round.

The wording for spell combat says work like not is like twoweapon fighting.

When making a full attack you take one 5 foot step cast a sell making a concetration check then deiliver the spell as a touch attack through your weapon as apart of you full attack with a minus 2 penalty to hit. { Your spell is delivered through your weapon on the first sucessfull to hit roll you make] Note the braced wording is mine but I feel should be added as it reflects how touh attacks work.]]

As for haste Haste lets you move an additional 30' and make one additioal attack at your full bab as part of a full round attack.

Here is how I understand how haste works with spell combat you simpley gain one additioal physical attack as part of you full attack at your full bab-2 as you are casting a spell diliverd with a touch attack via your weapon. [I no way does this refer to you gaining the ability to cast an additional spell with your hasted action. that has already been ruled on and said you cannot cast an additioal spell with your hasted action. [You might be able to cast a quickend spell as your hasted action if you have not sed yor swift action for the round. For a more diffentive rulinging on this I will difer to Cheapy or Raving Dork]

Guys sorry for the wall o text

BuzzardB

[BuzzardB]

Lou Diamond wrote:

BuzzardB

sup?

[GreenMandar]

Bold is by me.

Kazaan wrote:

Full Attack is a specific full-round action in the same way that Attack is a specific standard action. Or, to put it a different way, Full-Attack is an action that subsumes your Full-Round action and Attack is an action that subsumes your Standard action. It's because of this reasoning that something like Vital Strike can't be coupled with the Full-Attack action because it specifically calls out applying only to the Attack action. Therefore, since Spell Combat specifically calls out being a specific Full-Round action (more specifically, it's a "Use Special Ability" action that subsumes your Full-Round action), by RAW, it qualifies neither for Haste nor for Defensive Combat nor standard TWF combat rules (or any TWF feats). Yes, the Magus has both the Haste spell and Hasted Arcana but Haste does more than just give you an extra attack. Furthermore, a Magus can still use full-attack when he chooses to.

Thank you for steering us back the fact that "Use Special Ability" is the first step in tying to figure out how to treat Spell Combat, we were all missing that. I would also agree therefore that initially (as a Special Ability) it would not qualify for Haste or Defensive Combat or anything else that requires. However at that point the description of the Special Ability takes over and things become less clear. There are several things together that seem to indicate, but not directly say that Spell Combat should be at least treated as a Full Attack.

Point #1 I don't see anywhere that these action types are always mutually exclusive. Meaning, it seems that in some rare cases an action can classify as more than one type. My example would be Flurry of Blows, which is an Extraordinary Special Ability just like Spell Combat, but then the description says that is a full-attack action.

Point #2 While Spell Combat doesn't say that is Full Attack action. The bit from the Spell Combat description "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" certainly suggests that it could. Unfortunately we don't know how "much like" TWF if should be (outside of the things that are already described as different of course).

Point #3 The description of Full Attack listing not only extra attacks from BAB, but TWF (which connects back to #3. Not sure if "or for some special reason" would apply to Special Abilities.

Point #4 JJ saying that Spell Combat gets Haste which it probably shouldn't otherwise, unless as Grick is suggesting Haste needs to be revised.

Thoughts?

[Kazaan]

GreenMandar wrote:

Point #1 I don't see anywhere that these action types are always mutually exclusive. Meaning, it seems that in some rare cases an action can classify as more than one type. My example would be Flurry of Blows, which is an Extraordinary Special Ability just like Spell Combat, but then the description says that is a full-attack action.

I see Flurry of Blows (Ex) as more of a passive ability in the same scope as Overhand Chop (Ex) is. They aren't inherent actions. Flurry of Blows passively gives you additional benefits (and some restrictions) when you make a Full Attack, but FoB isn't an ability that gets "used" in he mechanical sense. Full-Attack is the only ability that gets used but it is altered by FoB. Overhand Chop does the same to an Attack action or a Charge action. Here's another example; Two-Weapon Warriors get Doublestrike (Ex) which allows them to make a main-hand and off-hand attack as a standard action. Not an Attack action, but a Use Special Ability action. This means you can't use it with fight defensively because it's neither the Attack nor the Full-Attack action. By contrast, Mobile Fighter's Whirlwind Blitz (Ex) is a passive ability that modifies the Full-Attack action so that it subsumes a Standard rather than Full-Round action. So, mechanically speaking, when you use an ability like Flurry of Blows, Overhand Chop, or Whirlwind Blitz, those are Use Special Ability actions that are non-actions to use; they're automatically applied when you choose to apply them to the action that they modify. But Spell Combat is a Use Special Ability action that subsumes a Full-Round action and Doublestrike is the same but subsumes a Standard action. They may base certain aspects off of aspects of Full-Attack, but I think that's the limit.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

GreenMandar wrote:

I cringe to ask, but based on the definition of Full Attack, it would seem to indicate that until you can satisfy one of the above conditions (which many low level characters can't), you can't do a Full Attack. So...RAW Haste wouldn't give an extra attack. Can anyone please tell me where I'm wrong (and I hope I am) other than something like "nobody does it that way" or "I don't like that".

Although characters without at least a +6 BAB, TWF, Flurry, etc. have no reason (usually) to take the full attack action, they are not forbidden from doing so; it's just that their full attack consists of one attack.

If a first level fighter with a greatsword had haste cast on him, he gets an extra attack, but can only take it if he gets a full attack somehow (usually by taking the full attack action, but Pounce would also work if he could get it).

The writer of Spell Combat knew what he meant. Unfortunately, the words he wrote didn't convey enough information for the rest of us to be certain what he did mean!

I can see no reason, conceptually, why the writer would believe that haste or fighting defensively wouldn't combine with Spell Combat. I'm sure he just wanted to make sure that Spell Combat couldn't be used at the same time as (actual) TWF.

For me, trying to get into the writer's head (caveat emptor), I would consider Spell Combat to be a specific form of TWF, where the off-hand weapon must be the spell, and since this ability is gained from Spell Combat and not from the TWF line of feats then ImpTWF and GreaterTWF won't help.

In normal TWF only one weapon (the one you designate as your off-hand weapon for that full attack) can take the extra attack(s) granted by TWF, and the other attacks can be taken by any combination of weapons except the one you designated as your off-hand weapon for that round. This means that Spell Combat is TWF, but the off-hand weapon must be the spell!

This is not official errata, of course. : )

But, would it work? If not, why not?

[GreenMandar]

@Malachi Silver claw regarding Haste, I'll go with that or the "or for some special reason" part of Full Attack, using Haste as the special reason. Does that create a logic loop? Yeah probably. Meh.

@Kazaan I'm not really seeing how Spell Combat is anymore of an ability that gets used, then Flurry of Blows is. At least based on the descriptions. They have very similar language in regards to being used. Also both refer to being similar to TWF, but certainly not identical language. (see below).

Emphasis mine.

Flurry of Blow description wrote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

Spell Combat description wrote:

Spell Combat (Ex): 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). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

I realize that Spell Combat doesn't specifically call it out as a Full Attack like FoB. But I disagree that therefore it means Spell Combat CAN'T be a Full Attack. One could argue that when it meets the language describing Full Attack it should be treated as one unless something specifically says otherwise. It's another interpretation. Neither fully supported RAW. I thought there was a quote from one of the developers where they either compared Spell Combat to Flurry of Blows or TWF, but I can't find it. It might shine more intent onto all this.

[Kazaan]

The developers have already weighed in on the subject, albeit, indirectly. The 'Attack' action and the 'Full-Attack' action aren't generic or abstract terms. They are specific, named actions and they are mechanically significant. This was the source behind all the brouhaha about Vital Strike. It stated that it functions when you use "the attack action" and people read that generically to include full-attacks. It was later clarified that "the attack action" is a specific action that is only performed as a standard action and the full-attack action is a completely separate animal. Furthermore, they clarified that Vital Strike couldn't be combined with an action that specifically calls out requiring a Standard or Full-Round action of its own, such as Charge, even though it may only involve a single attack. Based on that explanation, even though Spell Combat and FoB are very similar, they are, mechanically speaking, two very different abilities that require two very different actions. Spell Combat requires the Use Special Ability action which is also a specific, mechanically significant action to perform a Full-round action that, just so happens, to give you all your normal iterative attacks that you'd get if you had made an actual full-attack. But USA isn't, itself, a full-attack even if it gave you your iteratives, off-hands, natural attacks, and everything else exactly the way that Full Attack gave (though, such an action likely wouldn't be introduced except to satisfy very specific balance issues). There are many ways to interpret it; some of those ways aren't necessarily correct. This way is the one that the developers themselves use.

[GreenMandar]

I see the FAQ about Vital Strike.
Vital Strike FAQ
Are you referring to just that or was there more discussion that you can link to?

[Kazaan]

That pretty much sums it up. There's further issue where people used to use Vital Strike with the Full-attack action thinking it meant you only double a single attack (ie. Your first iterative) but are still allowed to take the remaining attacks as normal. It was, likewise, clarified for that issue that Full-Attack is a completely different animal from Attack and even if you were making a Full-Attack that only had a single strike, it still wouldn't qualify for Vital Strike. But trust me... you don't want to dive into that old mosh pit. The conclusion is more than adequate to illustrate the point.

[GreenMandar]

If your interpretation is right, we still have James Jacobs statement about Haste that conflicts with it.

[Diego Rossi]

Can you explain the reasoning behind this arcana if it a magus can't use his key ability with haste?

PRD wrote:

Hasted Assault (Su): The magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to move more quickly. This functions as haste, but only targets the magus and lasts for a number of rounds equal to the magus's Intelligence bonus. The magus must be at least 9th level before selecting this magus arcana.

[Kazaan]

Can you explain the reasoning behind Monk's Fast Movement when he can't use his key ability, Flurry of Blows with it? Not every ability a class has must synergize perfectly with every other. Furthermore, Haste has other benefits besides just the extra attack. And as far as JJ's statement, we all know he's basically a fluff writer and he's been very wrong in the past. He had also stated, back before Vital Strike was clarified, that you could apply it to the first iterative of a Full-Attack. JB later officially contradicted him. And that's not the only case. I take what JJ says with a grain of salt. Nothing against the guy, but he doesn't have that architectural comprehension of the system and the mechanical terminology. He looks at it from the surface the way any other GM or Campaign Writer would. He's just not all that reliable when it comes to questions of RAW; at least not more reliable than any of us.

[Darkflame]

i think the jist of it all is that spellcombat states :

Spoiler:

spellcombat: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.

pointing out you get attacks like you would as if two-weapon fighting
and two-weapon fighting only gets extra attacks when dooing the full attack option.

The spell you cast is much like the aditional attack you get when you do the full attack action with an offhand weapon. Inclusing anny extra attacks from BAB+6 and haste.

[Kazaan]

This is the danger of oversimplification. It makes it easier for people to wrap their minds around but it can also lose important mechanical details and set up seemingly vague situations like this.

PRD wrote:

Spell Combat (Ex): 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). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

The pertinent lines are:

1) "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
It doesn't say that it's exactly like two-weapon fighting, it says it's "much like" two-weapon fighting. That's a statement of similarity, not congruence. If it were exactly like two-weapon fighting, then having the Improved TWF feat would allow you to make a second attack with your off-hand weapon (which, in this case, is a spell). Or, best case scenario, since you're limited to a single casting for your "first" off-hand attack, you could use a non-hand-held weapon like the boot-blade for your second off-hand. This isn't the case.

2) "As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon...
He can make all his attacks with his melee weapon. This refers to his normal iterative attacks based on BAB. You'll notice that no where does it say, "This functions just like a full-attack action" as is the case with the Fast Bombs ability. Another comparison would be the Deadly Shuriken ninja trick or the Dead Shot gunslinger deed. Both allow you to fire a single shuriken/shot as a full-round action but you make all the attack rolls normally allowed by your BAB and if any one roll gives you a hit, then the whole attack hits. Haste, likewise, wouldn't work with these abilities because it isn't an attack roll granted by your normal BAB bonus and it isn't a full-attack action (even though it utilizes the iteratives available by a full-attack). The extra attack provided by Haste isn't a normal attack; it's an exceptional attack and the nature of the exception is explicitly laid out. It must be taken as part of a full-attack action or a full-round that explicitly calls out that it functions "just like" the full-attack action, not just any full-round action that happens to involve attacks (ie. Tiger Claws).

3) "A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks."
Here's another exemplar of how Spell Combat is different from normal TWF. With TWF using a pair of weapons, you can freely place your off-hand attacks between normal BAB iteratives. With Spell Combat, even though your spell is taking the place of your off-hand attack, it still can't be inserted between BAB iterative attacks; it's either all your iteratives and then your spell -or- your spell first and then all your iteratives.

Conclusion) While the attacks that Spell Combat gives are based on the iterative attacks you'd get while making a full-attack, the whole ability doesn't function "just like" full-attack so neither Haste nor ITWF nor any other ability that adds additional, exceptional attacks to your full-attack will work on Spell Combat, just like they won't work on Deadly Shuriken, Deadly Shot, Tiger Claw, etc.

[Artanthos]

Kazaan wrote:

Conclusion) While the attacks that Spell Combat gives are based on the iterative attacks you'd get while making a full-attack, the whole ability doesn't function "just like" full-attack so neither Haste nor ITWF nor any other ability that adds additional, exceptional attacks to your full-attack will work on Spell Combat, just like they won't work on Deadly Shuriken, Deadly Shot, Tiger Claw, etc.

It does not state what you are implying at all.

I would say spell combat is defined as a full round action under RAW. If it were not, the following would not work:

Ranged Spellstrike wrote:

Ranged Spellstrike (Su)

At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and deliver it through a ranged weapon attack. Even if the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies the attack. At 11th level, a myrmidarch using a multiple-target spell with this ability may deliver one ray or line of effect with each attack when using a full-attack action, up to the maximum allowed by the spell (in the case of ray effects). Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost.

Emphasis mine.

You cannot hold the charge on rays, they must be used on the round cast. A full round action is specified on a round the ray spell is cast and an attack is made with the bow. An action only possible via spell combat as no specific rules excepts are invoked.

Myrmidarch does not modify the spell combat ability. It does clarify that the magus has the option to take a full round action in conjunction with casting a spell and attacking with a weapon in the same round.

[Kazaan]

Artanthos wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Conclusion) While the attacks that Spell Combat gives are based on the iterative attacks you'd get while making a full-attack, the whole ability doesn't function "just like" full-attack so neither Haste nor ITWF nor any other ability that adds additional, exceptional attacks to your full-attack will work on Spell Combat, just like they won't work on Deadly Shuriken, Deadly Shot, Tiger Claw, etc.

It does not state what you are implying at all.

I would say spell combat is defined as a full round action under RAW. If it were not, the following would not work:

Ranged Spellstrike wrote:

Ranged Spellstrike (Su)

At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and deliver it through a ranged weapon attack. Even if the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies the attack. At 11th level, a myrmidarch using a multiple-target spell with this ability may deliver one ray or line of effect with each attack when using a full-attack action, up to the maximum allowed by the spell (in the case of ray effects). Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost.

Emphasis mine.

You cannot hold the charge on rays, they must be used on the round cast. A full round action is specified on a round the ray spell is cast and an attack is made with the bow. An action only possible via spell combat as no specific rules excepts are invoked.

Myrmidarch does not modify the spell combat ability. It does clarify that the magus has the option to take a full round action in conjunction with casting a spell and attacking with a weapon in the same round.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, Arthritis. Clarify.

[Mathwei ap Niall]

Kazaan wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Conclusion) While the attacks that Spell Combat gives are based on the iterative attacks you'd get while making a full-attack, the whole ability doesn't function "just like" full-attack so neither Haste nor ITWF nor any other ability that adds additional, exceptional attacks to your full-attack will work on Spell Combat, just like they won't work on Deadly Shuriken, Deadly Shot, Tiger Claw, etc.

It does not state what you are implying at all.

I would say spell combat is defined as a full round action under RAW. If it were not, the following would not work:

Ranged Spellstrike wrote:

Ranged Spellstrike (Su)

At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and deliver it through a ranged weapon attack. Even if the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies the attack. At 11th level, a myrmidarch using a multiple-target spell with this ability may deliver one ray or line of effect with each attack when using a full-attack action, up to the maximum allowed by the spell (in the case of ray effects). Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost.

Emphasis mine.

You cannot hold the charge on rays, they must be used on the round cast. A full round action is specified on a round the ray spell is cast and an attack is made with the bow. An action only possible via spell combat as no specific rules excepts are invoked.

Myrmidarch does not modify the spell combat ability. It does clarify that the magus has the option to take a full round action in conjunction with casting a spell and attacking with a weapon in the same round.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, Arthritis. Clarify.

If I'm understanding him correctly he is intimating that the Myrmidarch has something in it's 11th level ability that talks about them being able to use ray spells while full-attacking.

It's a point but irrelevant since that entry is referring to Spellstrike not Spell Combat. There is nothing in the quoted ability that changes the rules of how spell combat works. that ability as written will only work when the magus is casting a ray spell as a free, swift or immediate action (probably with the Quicken metamagic feat) so the Magus will still have a full round action left to declare a full attack.

Honestly, the Myrmidarch archetype is so full of rules confusion and misunderstandings it is in serious need of a re-write to make it's abilities understandable and worthwhile to take.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

(Forgive me, Artanthos) I'm pretty sure he's saying that the quoted ability shows that Spell Combat is a full attack, not just any old full-round action.

Your previous attempted demonstration was based upon your interpretation of how the different rules are worded. That's okay as far as it goes, but how does that make sense beyond the rules of grammar? How does it make sense that haste would not give you an extra attack? In the latest FAQ, the devs made it clear that haste is meant to be applicable across the board, even when the wording of the monk's unarmed strike ability muddied the issue. In fact, the devs thought it was obvious that haste applies, and never even considered the interpretation that it wouldn't work with UAS! I'm confident that they would be equally incredulous that anyone would think that haste wouldn't work with Spell Combat.

Similarly, what conceptual reason could there be to disallow fighting defensively when using Spell Combat? Spellcasters can already cast defensively, warriors can already fight defensively when TWFing. Why would the devs deliberately arrange things so that using Spell Combat and fighting defensively would be mutually exclusive?

It doesn't make sense. If there are two ways of interpreting RAW, and one way makes sense and the other way doesn't, go with the way that makes sense every time!

[Artanthos]

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

It's a point but irrelevant since that entry is referring to Spellstrike not Spell Combat. There is nothing in the quoted ability that changes the rules of how spell combat works. that ability as written will only work when the magus is casting a ray spell as a free, swift or immediate action (probably with the Quicken metamagic feat) so the Magus will still have a full round action left to declare a full attack.

It is relevant because spellstrike does not give a character the ability to cast a spell and attack in the same round as a full attack action.

Since spellstrike is not granting the ability, which class feature is?

Quicked spell is not your answer. It's not even an option for the quoted ability before 16th level (baring certain corner cases).

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

(Forgive me, Artanthos) I'm pretty sure he's saying that the quoted ability shows that Spell Combat is a full attack, not just any old full-round action.

Forgive my lack of clarity. This was my intent.

[Ravingdork]

It seems pretty clear to me that it is meant to function EXACTLY like TWF except where specifically noted (namely that the off-hand attack is a spell and that said spell cannot be cast in between attacks).

[Mathwei ap Niall]

Artanthos wrote:

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

It's a point but irrelevant since that entry is referring to Spellstrike not Spell Combat. There is nothing in the quoted ability that changes the rules of how spell combat works. that ability as written will only work when the magus is casting a ray spell as a free, swift or immediate action (probably with the Quicken metamagic feat) so the Magus will still have a full round action left to declare a full attack.

It is relevant because spellstrike does not give a character the ability to cast a spell and attack in the same round as a full attack action.

Since spellstrike is not granting the ability, which class feature is?

Quicked spell is not your answer. It's not even an option for the quoted ability before 16th level (baring certain corner cases).

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

(Forgive me, Artanthos) I'm pretty sure he's saying that the quoted ability shows that Spell Combat is a full attack, not just any old full-round action.

Forgive my lack of clarity. This was my intent.

I fail to see anything i what is written that backs up what you are saying.

First you need to look at the archetype in question and remember that the Myrmidarch CAN'T use spell combat with a ranged weapon. Ranged Spellstrike only works with ranged weapon attacks and Spell combat only works with melee combat attacks.
This point right there should stop your argument from going any further.

We are talking about using Spell combat and Haste together, that's the point of this discussion, not spellstrike and haste. Now since Ranged spellstrike and spell combat are incompatible together the ability you quoted has no bearing on this discussion. Lets return to the topic at hand.

[Kazaan]

Ok, I see what you did there Arthritis. Mathwei is right. Ranged Spellstrike doesn't couple with Spell Combat; it's a completely different animal. A normal Touch spell says you get a free touch attack to deliver the spell in the same round that you cast. A normal Spellstrike says you have the option, instead, to deliver via free melee attack with properties as outlined in Spellstrike rules. A Ranged Spellstrike says you have the option to cast a Ranged Touch spell and deliver by Ranged Attack. This means that when you cast a normal Touch Spell, it can be delivered by melee weapon or melee touch attack and in addition, if you cast a Ranged Touch spell, it may be delivered by a Ranged Touch attack or a Ranged Weapon attack. Lastly, at lvl 11, you can cast a Ranged Touch attack and, instead of delivering by free ranged attack, you can deliver via free full-attack. That itself leads to the dilemma of whether you can combine a move action with your Cast a Spell standard, but that's a debate for another thread.

[bbangerter]

@Kazaan. At 11th level he plainly needs to use a full-attack action to deliver multiple ranged touch attacks.

For ranged touch attack spells that allow only a single target, or because the magus is less than 11th level I should think that the entire process becomes a standard action.

prd wrote:

At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and make a free attack to deliver it through a ranged weapon attack.

Bolded words aren't part of the text, but my interpretive addition to clarify it.

Basically you replace your free ranged touch attack for casting a ranged touch attack spell with a free attack with a ranged weapon.

Nothing here gives the magus extra attacks (like spell combat does), so it would still fall under the normal limit of standard actions of 1 attack.

[Kazaan]

bbangerter wrote:

@Kazaan. At 11th level he plainly needs to use a full-attack action to deliver multiple ranged touch attacks.

Yeah, that's what I said. He delivers the multi-target ranged touch spell with a full-attack with a ranged weapon. The only question is whether that full-attack is done as a free action granted by casting the spell (whole process only subsumes a Standard action) or if the whole thing becomes a Full-Attack Full-Round action.

[Mathwei ap Niall]

Kazaan wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

@Kazaan. At 11th level he plainly needs to use a full-attack action to deliver multiple ranged touch attacks.

Yeah, that's what I said. He delivers the multi-target ranged touch spell with a full-attack with a ranged weapon. The only question is whether that full-attack is done as a free action granted by casting the spell (whole process only subsumes a Standard action) or if the whole thing becomes a Full-Attack Full-Round action.

which is why I said that the Myrmidarch needs a serious re-write to make sense of how any of it's abilities actually work.

Anyway that is a topic for a different discussion since it has nothing to do with Spell combat and Haste interaction. If you want to chase down that issue I'd recommend starting a new thread to address that.