Cleave example is flawed.
The specific language of Full Attack is trumped by the more specific language of Cleave, which calls it out as a standard action. And as you know standard action can not be a full attack. And also it grants a one attack not multiple. If you hit with the attack THEN you get an extra attack.
Dead Shot, Deadly Shuriken and Tiger Claws are all also poor examples as well, since none of those abilities/feats grant an extra attack, they grant one buffed attack.
The Cleave example is not flawed, imo. Cleave proves that not all actions that make multiple attacks must be Full Attack actions. Scorching Ray is another example (as it allows multiple ranged touch attacks).
Spell Combat may be an action of this sort. Sure, it happens to be a Full Round action, but it might not be a Full Attack.
Flurry of Blows is explicitly a type of Full Attack action. So of course it is a Full Attack action.
|
But, while the nature of how natural attacks couple with Spell Combat is interesting, it really gets away from the core question of "How do Spell-Combat, Full-Attack, and Haste cooperate?"
As it is right now, you cannot use natural attacks in conjunction with Spell Combat, however if it was ruled that Haste granted an extra attack, then secondary natural attacks would also have to be allowed. I.E. my Tengu/Half-Orc/Tiefling with a bite attack would get another opportunity to deliver a previously missed touch spell.
So how about we get back to that core question, hmm?
You are being a bit unfairly dismissive. While the issue we are tackling is the title issue, both questions (and others) were asked in the original post and both have been continually discussed since the first page.
Anyway I'm tending towards agreeing with you. For an action to be a Full Attack, it should be clearly so, but the text does not make it sufficiently clear that Spell Combat is a Full Attack, so RAW I'd say that it is not a Full Attack. (Given the chance I would houserule it to be a type of Full Attack, as I'd prefer that to be the intent of the ability.)
A big part of my premise is that the specific language of all the different action types is still relevant unless trumped by the specific language of a Special Ability, Spell, Feat, etc. When we are figuring out how Special Abilities, etc work, we don't throw out and ignore all the language under the actions types in regards to how attacks, spells, etc work. It's only when that language is contradicted by the Special Ability etc, then it is trumped by the Special Ability, etc. I don't see the language of Spell Combat contradicting the Full Attack language that would indicate that the Full Round Action will be a Full Attack when the iteratives are taken.
In the case of Cleave it is specifically called a standard action which is incompatible with being a Full Attack.
I suppose by this premise Battle Fury would be a Full Attack if multiple targets were attacked. Has it been stated not to be the case by devs? If so, then that will definitely weaken my premise.
|
Sorry, but the two different quotes being used here do not apply. They are stating different things for different circumstances.
Yes, of course natural weapons and unarmed strikes are melee weapons. They certainly aren't ranged weapons, now are they?
Natural weapons are not manufactured weapons. They are, by definition, the opposite. You wield manufactured weapons. You do not wield natural weapons.
Natural weapons are treated as light weapons for purposes of how damage bonuses are applied when using them (and for the Weapon Finesse feat). This does not make them manufactured weapons.
You cannot use natural weapons during Spell Combat.
Now you are being obtuse. Diego Rossi gave you a direct Developer quote specifically defining what the word "Wield" means that invalidates your entire argument. Here I'll re-quote it for you:
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
A natural attack you are trying to hit something with is by definition a melee weapon you are wielding, this fulfills half the requirements to use spell combat.
The other half of the requirements is that that weapon is a light weapon. Referring to two separate entries from official material
CRB: Weapon finesse: Natural attacks are considered light weapons.
Pathfinder Companion: Sargava, the Lost Colony:Piranha Strike
When wielding a light weapon, you can choose to take a -1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (-50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
This completes the second half of the requirements for spell combat.
Natural attacks are wielded, light, melee weapons that are legal choices for spell combat.
If you have any legal source that contradicts this post it otherwise stop trying to force your opinion through. This is the rules forum, we do RAW here not house rules.
I propose that this thread needs further confusion, and so
To bring this back on topic: Other than taking a pedantic view of the text of spell combat and its use of the word "wield" (and note that by no means do I mean 'pedantic' as a pejorative; I deal in pedantry myself on occasion): What are all the arguments for not allowing spell combat to function with a natural weapon? Or is the only reasoning for not allowing it because natural weapons aren't 'wielded'?
Maybe we need to put RE: question #1 or something like that some people kniw which of the initial questions we are debating :)
Maybe we need to put RE: question #1 or something like that some people kniw which of the initial questions we are debating :)
I'm not sure that this falls neatly under one of the original questions. Perhaps I should move it to a new thread?
|
Since the wording of Spell Combat is not precise, then trying to drill deeper into the exact wording is not the way forward. If the section on Spell Combat were intended to have the authority of a legal document then parsing meaning is the way to go, but it is inappropriate to use this method to solve this conundrum because Spell Combat, like the rest of the rules, is written for the layman by a writer using normal language rather than legalese, with a few defined game terms thrown in.
The way forward is to try to actually understand both SC and haste, and how they interact.
Why on earth would haste not work with SC?
|
|
I propose that this thread needs further confusion, and so
** spoiler omitted **
To bring this back on topic: Other than taking a pedantic view of the text of spell combat and its use of the word "wield" (and note that by no means do I mean 'pedantic' as a pejorative; I deal in pedantry myself on occasion): What are all the arguments for not allowing spell combat to function with a natural weapon? Or is the only reasoning for not allowing it because natural weapons aren't 'wielded'?
This matter has probably been discussed to death. Those who believe SC works with natural weapons have quoted corroborating evidence from multiple books and direct Dev quotes, the dissenters refuse to accept it. At this point it is mostly just arguing for arguments sake.
As for your questions, no a Manticores spikes are not natural weapons, they are extraordinary abilities and fall under their own specific rules.
And yes, all natural weapons are melee weapons. The multiple developers have stated it in no uncertain terms.
This matter has probably been discussed to death. Those who believe SC works with natural weapons have quoted corroborating evidence from multiple books and direct Dev quotes, the dissenters refuse to accept it. At this point it is mostly just arguing for arguments sake.
As for your questions, no a Manticores spikes are not natural weapons, they are extraordinary abilities and fall under their own specific rules.
And yes, all natural weapons are melee weapons. The multiple developers have stated it in no uncertain terms.
I lean toward the side that natural weapons could be used with spell combat as well. While I can understand both sides of the "wield" argument, think there are enough examples of 'intent' to support allowing it with natural weapons; I wanted to to see what counterarguments there were (other than that one) in case I was missing something.
Now, in regards to question 1: I would offer up the spell dancer archetype as an example of why the extra action from 'haste' would more than likely apply to spell combat. Combine that with hasted assault and the access to the spell itself, and it seems sort of off-kilter to believe that it wouldn't function with what is arguably the most central component of the class (and yes, I'm aware there are additional benefits to it - I would argue that if they didn't intend for the class to utilize haste in combination with the rest of its arsenal they would have given it access to the other affects of haste through some manner other than referencing the haste spell itself).
Off-topic, ignore unless you're interested in digression:
|
|
Alright, let's start off, once again, with a description of 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). 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.
Most people will read this and think to themselves, "Oh, cool, I get to use this ability with a light or one-handed weapon. Let me look in the Equipment chapter and see what light or one-handed weapons there are..."
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Player A says out loud, "Sweet, not only can I use things like a dagger, or a longsword, or a dwarven waraxe, but I can even use unarmed strikes. That's awesome!"
Player B replies, "Yeah, and you can use natural attacks."
Player A furrows his brow. "Where does it say that?"
Player B responds, "Well, it doesn't, technically, but that is what is intended."
Player A says, "Well, I'm thinking of playing this Magus in Pathfinder Society, so I'm going to need some Rules as Written to show my GM."
*And a debate is born!*
Argument #1: Natural attacks are considered melee weapons, therefore you can use them with Spell Combat.
Let's examine this a bit further:
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).
Aha! So a classification such as "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" only refers to usefulness in combat. These two groupings were designed so that certain spells, defenses, abilities, etc. would interact with different weapons in given circumstances, such as a Protection From Arrows spell. Given these two categories, natural attacks would logically have to be classified as "melee weapon". It's the Player Bs of the world that take this a step further to mean "weapon", when in actuality they should just stop at "melee".
Let's even go a step further and see what the Bestiary says about Natural Attacks:
Natural Attacks: Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. The natural attacks by size table lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.
Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders to not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table 3-1 for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
This description clearly highlights the fact that was already understood: that natural attacks are "attacks made [/i]without a weapon[/i]". Furthermore, natural attacks can be combined with weapon attacks, a fact that would not need to be stated if the two were not different entities. The last paragraph about unarmed strikes compliments the description of light weapons mentioned in the CRB as well.
The distinction of "manufactured" vs. "natural" is seen in various other Paizo sources as well, such as several spells, feats, and monster descriptions. This is yet another classification that sets natural attacks apart from weapon attacks.
Argument #2: The Weapon Finesse feat says that natural attacks are the same as light weapons.
Does it?
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
It is the last line here that the Player Bs of the world focus on for their argument. However, given all of the distinctions we have learned of thus far, I believe the word we need to focus on here is "considered". The feat does not say that natural attacks are light weapons, it says they are considered light weapons. This makes sense, too, since there needs to be a workaround for low-strength monsters to use their natural attacks. Given that this is the only place in either the CRB or Bestiary where natural attacks are "considered light weapons", I believe the proper course of action would be to interpret this phrase as only being applicable to the feat where it is mentioned. EDIT/ADDENDUM: You may feel free to compare this phrasing, again, with that of unarmed strikes, which are always considered light weapons. The word "always" is not present in this special exemption for natural attacks.
Argument #3: Wielded. This is in response to the phrase in Spell Combat that says the user must be wielding a light or one-handed weapon in order to use the ability. This argument is extremely sketchy, since it also relies on a natural attack falling under the classification of light weapon. As another caveat, nowhere in the CRB is the term "wielded" defined. For that, we have an obscure posting from the forums:
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
Not only are natural attacks mentioned nowhere in this comment, but the poster even specifically mentions weapons or weapon-like objects, to which we know natural attacks are not.
Are you holding a glass bottle in your hand? Are you trying to hit someone in a bar brawl with it? Then you are wielding that bottle. It is a weapon-like object.
You do not hold a natural attack. You do not wield a natural attack. You use a natural attack. For the Player Cs of the world that try to argue you somehow are holding your claws, and therefore are wielding them, ask them if they are similarly holding their talons, or their bite attack, or their gore attack. You can't try to argue that one type of natural attack is used differently than the others that are out there. Wielding a bite sounds rather silly, does it not?
ADDENDUM: It took me an hour to type this all up, and I now have to head off to work, but I feel the gist of my explanation was made. So, to conclude once again...
Natural Attacks cannot be used with Spell Combat.
Okay, to rebut:
First, we know that spell combat can be used with unarmed strikes. Why?
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
So spell combat functions with an unarmed strike because it is "considered" a light weapon.
Well, the exact same wording is used in argument 2 in the weapon finesse description. Neither one are weapons. Both are considered weapons. To hang your argument on the word 'always'? Not sure that I buy it.
If anything, I would argue that the text you quoted from the Bestiary, regarding creatures without natural attacks being able to use unarmed strikes instead, indicates that the two are roughly equivalent.
You also state that you don't consider natural attacks as qualifying for spell combat because the description specifically states that they are "attacks made without a weapon".
But isn't that exactly what an unarmed strike is? By definition, 'unarmed' means that you aren't carrying a weapon - so it is an "attack made without a weapon". Yet it still qualifies.
I would also point out that the distinction regarding natural attacks used in conjunction with weapon attacks is not really a useful point simply because unarmed attacks can also be used in conjunction with weapon attacks. The differentiation is there because they are two separate modes of attack, but that does not mean that the alternate method cannot be used with spell combat; in fact, we know for certain that in the latter case, unarmed strikes can be used.
Moving on...
I would argue that, just as you say you can't 'wield' a bite, you can't 'wield' a fist; in my eyes, that wholly invalidates argument 3 as a basis for disqualification. We already know there is at least one exception to the whole 'wielding a light or one-handed weapon', because it works with unarmed strikes, and we agree that you can't 'wield' a fist.
This just reinforces why I don't buy hanging the argument off the word 'always' in the unarmed strike description; the word 'wield' here should mean something, but we know it doesn't - we know for certain that there's at least one exception, that of unarmed strike.
Personally? RAW, I think that to try to argue that you can clearly say it works or does not work with spell combat is wholly a matter of house-ruling. So to say emphatically that the rules say that you can't use natural attacks with spell combat? You haven't proven your point.
I'm not saying that I would allow spell combat to be used with natural attacks either (although I lean that way); I'm saying that you're overstepping your bounds by claiming that the rules make your case, when in fact they aren't clear in either direction.
|
|
You took the time to make a post clearly stating what you believe and the reasoning behind it as was requested and you bring up several points that we can see why you believe how you do.
Now lets address those points and see if we can come to some understand on why so many of the interested parties here disagree on this topic.
First we must state that the Pathfinder RPG is an organic system where new material and Developer decisions allow the system to grow and change based on the direction they wish the game to go. The developers have decided to use these forums as a one of the platforms to disseminate the information on what that direction is.
Argument rebuttal 1# Natural weapons are melee weapons but not real weapons appears to be the point you are making here. From the quotes you have posted it does appear to be that the intention was to classify Natural weapons as completely different and that they would be handled with a separate mechanic.
HOWEVER, the developers have stated their desire to change how natural attacks interact with the game and have been re-clarifying this in a number of rulings to bring these in line with the rest of the gameplay.
Most recently we have a direct ruling and guideline given to future game designers to confirm them all as melee weapons and put it as natural weapons and manufactured weapons.
You should say "creatures striking with manufactured weapons" rather than "creatures striking with melee weapons," because natural attacks and unarmed strikes are melee weapons, and you're actually wanting to exclude manufactured weapon attacks from being affected by this ability.
This statement even in the most narrow context indicates the only difference between these two types of weapons is one is manufactured and the other is not.
Your Argument Rebuttal #2: Multiple feats says that natural attacks are the same as light weapons but only for those feats.
Here your statement is that this feat which has been used as the basis for the argument that all natural weapons are light weapons has the word "considered" in it. This may indicate that they are only light weapons in regards to this feat. this argument would have merit except it isn't the only feat that refers to natural weapons as light weapons. The follow up feat, Piranha Strike, for this completely omits the considered word from it and adds all natural weapons as valid for this feat which only works with Light Weapons.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +1.Benefit: When wielding a light weapon, you can choose to take a -1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (-50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
This text strongly declares that natural attacks are light weapons and that they are also a wielded weapon at that since they require the weapon to be wielded to benefit from this feat.
Your Argument Rebuttal #3: Weapons must be wielded to use spell combat with and you don't wield natural weapons so they aren't weapons.
As we posted above we have black and white text stating that natural weapons are light weapons that must be wielded (not considered to be, but are actual weapons).
As for the term "wielded" not being defined in the CRB you are correct there, which is why one of the developers and authors of the game used these forums to present that definition with a simple easy to understand statement and several examples to clarify and prevent misunderstandings.
Wielding means "actively trying to use the weapon, in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects"
(paraphrased).
This argument is honestly the weakest of the ones you have presented. The game rules as written consider EVERY item in the game as a weapon, this is why they defined the improvised weapon attack and created feats and classes/archetypes to that topic. We have multiple Developers, feats, spells and effects all stating the same thing, Natural weapons ARE weapons and we have clear definitions of what "to wield" means.
All the criteria this ability requires to use (wield light or one-handed, melee weapon and your off-hand free) has been met when using a natural attack, it is a valid option for Spell Combat.
Your arguments would have had merit 5 years ago but the game has grown beyond that point and expanded to allow for new combinations that where previously prohibited. The new material in the game has rendered your objections obsolete.
|
|
Unarmed strikes are specifically called out as weapons in the equipment section. Natural attacks are not. The only place where they are even mentioned as such is a feat that is meant to be used with natural attacks. There is no mention of natural attacks in Spell Combat. The base assumption is light and one-handed weapons. That's it. Burden of proof is on Player B to show that natural weapons should be included in that grouping, and the vast majority of evidence is against them.
RAW, at a PFS table, natural attacks cannot be used with Spell Combat. Ppl may feel free to homebrew what they wish, but to do anything else is going against RAW.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unarmed strikes are specifically called out as weapons in the equipment section. Natural attacks are not. The only place where they are even mentioned as such is a feat
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
.....
You can make attacks with natural weapons...
(Bolding mine.)
Haven't been following this thread, but I popped in because I was curious why it's been going for so long. First thing I see is someone saying "the rules don't say X" when the rules *do* say X, very explicitly, in the exact place where anyone trying to understand the topic should have looked *first*. Guess my question's been answered. :/
Natural attacks, including Unarmed Strike and Universal Monster Rules weapons such as claw and bite, are all light melee weapons. This is for anything requiring a light melee weapon and is not restricted to a list of feats.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ah, so we're trumping Core Rules with the Bestiary. Good idea. Especially in PFS where players actually can't use Bestiary content unless they bring it with them.No, the section regarding melee weapons is from the CRB.
You mean the section which doesn't say anything about natural weapons one way or the other?
Yes, *that* is from the CRB.
The part you also cited, bolding where it referred to natural attacks as not using weapons, is from the Bestiary.
But the part that defines natural attacks as weapons, that you chose to omit from your arguments, is from the CRB.
-------------------
Let's really focus down on this point:
In the CRB chapter that's all about manufactured goods and other things you can purchase, it fails to mention natural attacks at all.
In the CRB chapter on combat, it defines natural attacks as being a type of weapon.
And by looking at those two facts, you have concluded that natural attacks are *not* weapons? You believe that the absense of natural weapons in the Equipment chapter overrules their explicit definition in the Combat chapter?
|
|
No. The part you have focused on really just classifies natural attacks as melee weapons, which they are, because they are not, obviously, ranged weapons. That's all it's doing. You're reading more into it than it's saying.
If natural attacks were "always considered light weapons", the CRB would say so, like it does with unarmed strikes. It doesn't, so they aren't. It's that simple.
|
|
Also, keep in mind the context of this discussion, which is the ability to use natural weapons with Spell Combat, which you can't. That's all I'm saying.
Which is your opinion which EVERYONE in this has disagreed with and quoted multiple Dev clarifications and direct quotes from current legal sources contradicting you.
At this point it seems obvious you have made your decision and will not be swayed no matter what facts are put before you. That is your right but we no longer need to try and convince you of the rules anymore if you aren't going to bring anything new to the table.Gentlemen (and ladies) lets return to the subject at hand namely the inability to use haste while using spellcombat.
Any new arguments on this subject?
No. The part you have focused on really just classifies natural attacks as melee weapons, which they are, because they are not, obviously, ranged weapons. That's all it's doing. You're reading more into it than it's saying.
If natural attacks were "always considered light weapons", the CRB would say so, like it does with unarmed strikes. It doesn't, so they aren't. It's that simple.
Incorrect. It doesn't say - so the answer is indeterminate. To rule one way or the other is to institute a "homebrew rule".
Rules as played in PFS are not automatically "rules as written". There are particular rulings made on unclear areas that apply to PFS games only, but those clarifications may or may not be considered canon outside PFS.
In other words, those rulings are "homebrew" rulings for the PFS group; that does not equate to errata or FAQ answers from designers that necessarily apply to the game as a whole.
You are correct when you say that in PFS you cannot use spell combat with natural weapons, because in an absence of wording stating that you CAN, PFS always defaults to you CAN'T. But that doesn't make "can't" the RAW; it means that in non-PFS games, the rules are unclear and pending clarification by the designers in an errata or FAQ, the issue is totally up to the GM - i.e., every response to it is home brew..
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also, keep in mind the context of this discussion, which is the ability to use natural weapons with Spell Combat, which you can't. That's all I'm saying.
Which is easy enough to show, given that the ability requires the weapon be wielded "in the other hand", and I can't think of any natural weapons that are wielded "in" your hand.
As for defining natural attacks, how can they be melee weapons without being weapons? How did that post of yours make it past your brain's logic filter? "It's not defining them as weapons, it's defining them as melee weapons, which aren't weapons!" Seriously?
|
|
Also, keep in mind the context of this discussion, which is the ability to use natural weapons with Spell Combat, which you can't. That's all I'm saying.Which is easy enough to show, given that the ability requires the weapon be wielded "in the other hand", and I can't think of any natural weapons that are wielded "in" your hand.
As for defining natural attacks, how can they be melee weapons without being weapons? How did that post o f yours make it past your brain's logic filter? "It's not defining them as weapons, it's defining them as melee weapons, which aren't weapons!" Seriously?
I never said natural attacks weren't weapons.
EDIT: Aha! I found the post. Insert the word "light" in front of the word "weapons". Now I see the confusion.
You are correct when you say that in PFS you cannot use spell combat with natural weapons, because in an absence of wording stating that you CAN, PFS always defaults to you CAN'T.Thank you. That is basically the crux of my argument in one, easy to swallow sentence.
You're welcome. As a non-PFS player, I would still prefer a dev clarification on RAI, since the RAW is incomplete in this instance.
Maybe if we bribe James or SKR with a cookie...?
If natural attacks were "always considered light weapons", the CRB would say so, like it does with unarmed strikes. It doesn't, so they aren't. It's that simple.
That is a false assumption. Another assumption was that if it is not allowed then it would specifically say so, such as the monk flurry class feature that specifically says that if a monk has natural weapons then he cannot use them with flurry.
Everywhere that natural weapons are referred to as light melee weapons there is no side rule saying "but only for this feat" or "only for this feature".
I am sure that your assessment that the Pathfinder Society would rule against using natural weapons is not allowed with Spell Combat is accurate, but please keep in mind this is a house rule and not RAW. The rules as they are would allow for a natural weapon to be used.
I should point out that no one in their right mind would want to use natural weapons in this way. Say you have a druid/magus who can assume the shape of a raptor, which normally gets five attacks a turn with a Full Attack action... and say said druid/magus now wants to use Spell Combat which is a Full Round action -- he would only be able to deliver one normal talon attack and then using Spell Combat (not using Spell Strike here) with a touch attack from his off hand/talon. He would be giving up four attacks that round. Even with Spell Strike he would only get two talon attacks in and be giving up two claw attacks and a bite. There is no building around this limitation as it was included in the magus class to prevent this sort of non-sense.
The rules as they are would allow for a natural weapon to be used.
I skipped a bunch of the arguing in the middle of this thread, but are you saying that "all of his attacks with his melee weapon" is not referring specifically to the "light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand"?
Because otherwise, any natural attack (or unarmed strike) is not being wielded in the other hand, regardless of it's status as a weapon.
I should point out that no one in their right mind would want to use natural weapons in this way. Say you have a druid/magus who can assume the shape of a raptor, which normally gets five attacks a turn with a Full Attack action... and say said druid/magus now wants to use Spell Combat which is a Full Round action -- he would only be able to deliver one normal talon attack and then using Spell Combat (not using Spell Strike here) with a touch attack from his off hand/talon. He would be giving up four attacks that round. Even with Spell Strike he would only get two talon attacks in and be giving up two claw attacks and a bite. There is no building around this limitation as it was included in the magus class to prevent this sort of non-sense.
But if you're arguing what I mentioned above, there's nothing preventing him from making all of his attacks with any/every melee weapon, which would include unarmed strikes and natural weapons, so he wouldn't be giving anything up. He wouldn't even lose his claw attack, since having a claw doesn't make his hand no longer free.
If Spell Combat is a full-attack action, and it's not limiting that full-attack to the weapon used as a requirement, then a raptor magus could certainly use all of his attacks and also cast a spell (if the spell doesn't have somatic/material/focus components, etc.)
But if Spell Combat does limit the attacks to the weapon mentioned, then that rules out all natural weapons and unarmed strikes, because they are not wielded in hand (they are, in some cases, made using that hand, but not wielded in it).
Unless people are arguing that an unarmed strike (punch) or claw are actually physically within the hand, as part of them are under the skin and attached to bone/muscle, etc. Which would be a novel interpretation.
|
|
That's basically why this debate got to where it was when you arrived.
If a Magus under a Haste effect benefits from the extra attack during Spell Combat, then there is no reason why he/she would not also benefit from any additional secondary natural attacks.
It devolved into a few of us vs. a few of us arguing whether or not it was possible to use a natural attack in conjunction with Spell Combat in the first place.
I don't know about RAW... but to me RAI is:
Natural attacks are made with natural weapons and should qualify similarly to spiked gauntlets and "glove"-weapons for feats and class abilities, like they already do for weapon finesse...
they don't for monk's flurry but I believe that's because of the monk's harsh weapon restriction/code, not because natural weapons are not wielded (thus is a RP reason).
Why specify/write a natural-weapon-restriction for Monks, but not for Magi?
It doesn't make sense to allow spiked gloves, but not claws for a Magus. For Monks the reason is role play, just like Druids are limited to non-metal armor, and Clerics are not.
Actually when you read the monk's flurry and spell combat, you'll read that both are full-round/full-attack (and thus mutually exclusive). They both also state that they work "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" or "much like two-weapon fighting".
Now a monk doesn't get extra attacks for extra limbs on top of flurry, but he does get the extra attack from haste, right?
FoB specifically calls out:
A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
However Spellstrike says:
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack
That would imply that you could actually wield more then 1 weapon if you have extra limbs capable of wielding weapons.
To me Spellstrike+SpellCombat would mean: 1 hand is doing the casting and does no attack.
However you get all other attacks you'd normally get from all other weapons/limbs.
I must admit I don't see how getting an extra attack from haste would make a magus overpowered. Just don't forget to apply the -2 for Spell Combat to all attacks.
Otherwise how do you rule a magus, who has extra limbs/arms... let's say it's a 4-armed race who normally can wield 4 weapons and do multi-weapon-attacks with them? (Or classes that give you extra limbs to wield weapons)
I'd say: He has to dedicate one arm/hand to casting and does the attacks of all other arms as he would normally do, but with an additional -2 to all attacks (and I'd cumulate this with the -2 for multi-attacking).
-2 from Spell Combat
-2 multi-weapon attack
= -4
Also I'd say only one weapon get's to channel the spell as you can't hold the charge in two hands, or hold two charges at the same time.
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack
He get's to choose the weapon, but once chosen, the choice is final.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.
[u]Alternatively[/u], 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.
The rule from "holding the charge" means you don't even need Spellstrike to do Spell Combat with natural weapons: unless you are actively holding a charge, anything you touch gets a "discharge" from the touch spell.
tldnr;
Imho haste gives you 1 extra attack.
One weapon channels your spell and you get a -2 from spell combat.
If you have extra limbs with weapons you get an extra -x from multiweapon fighting on top of -2 from spell combat.
Natural weapons don't use Spellstrike: you only use Spell Combat with "Holding the Charge".
Ok, I hope that my line of thoughs wasn't too messy, sometimes it's a labyrinth. :-)
And that's where pedantic reading breaks down.
Off-hand is only relevant for two-weapon fighting, it's poorly named and has nothing to do with hands, as it can also apply to feet, helmets, or two-handed greataxes.
In other words, just because the wording of Spell Combat says you wield your weapon "in your other hand" isn't a limitation saying you must use a hand-held weapon with spell combat any more than the TWF default rules are limiting you to hand-held weapons by using the terms "main-hand" and "off-hand".
That's certainly one interpretation, and part of the reason for the FAQ requests here.
However Spellstrike says:
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attackThat would imply that you could actually wield more then 1 weapon if you have extra limbs capable of wielding weapons.
Of course you can. Spellstrike works with any weapon. Greatswords, barbazu beards, armor spikes, etc. No problem. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic, though.
I must admit I don't see how getting an extra attack from haste would make a magus overpowered.
I don't think anyone is saying that it is. In fact, it's pretty clearly the intent. The question is whether it should work because haste should say so, or because Spell Combat needs to be changed, and what the consequences of those might be.
Also I'd say only one weapon get's to channel the spell as you can't hold the charge in two hands, or hold two charges at the same time.
If you're holding the charge (of a touch spell you cast, from the magus spell list) then you have the option to use Spellstrike to deliver it. This doesn't mean you must use Spellstrike to deliver it. Since you have the option, this means one round you can use your sword, another round you can use your hand to touch. You can even switch weapons all you like, and Spellstrike with any of them, it doesn't get 'locked in' to any particular weapon. This FAQ explicitly says so.
Natural weapons don't use Spellstrike: you only use Spell Combat with "Holding the Charge".
This doesn't make any sense.
Spell Combat has nothing to do with holding the charge. If you use Spell Combat while holding a charge, that charge will dissipate when you cast a spell. You could certainly deliver that charge by attacking first, then casting a spell afterwards. Spell Combat doesn't require you to use touch spells at all, you could use it to cast mage armor if you like.
Also I'd say only one weapon get's to channel the spell as you can't hold the charge in two hands, or hold two charges at the same time.If you're holding the charge (of a touch spell you cast, from the magus spell list) then you have the option to use Spellstrike to deliver it. This doesn't mean you must use Spellstrike to deliver it. Since you have the option, this means one round you can use your sword, another round you can use your hand to touch. You can even switch weapons all you like, and Spellstrike...
Brain-labyrinth...
what I mean is:If you have 4 hands and use Spellcombat to channel chilled touch, you could not channel 2 touches with one weapon and two more touches with other weapons:
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attackHe get's to choose the weapon, but once chosen, the choice is final.
as in: any _one_ weapon... not _all_ weapons :-)
Or another example: You cast chill touch... can you then channel 1 touch through your main-hand weapon and do the normal touch with your spell-armed hand? Imho: no.
|
Or another example: You cast chill touch... can you then channel 1 touch through your main-hand weapon and do the normal touch with your spell-armed hand? Imho: no.
Any why not? If I had a monk/wizard I could certainly cast chill touch one round and flurry the next, applying chill touch to every opponent struck (up to the limit of the spell).
As per the linked FAQ a few posts up, spellstrike is an expansion of touch spell delivery options. It is also a non-action and is explicitly not bound to a single delivery mechanism chosen at the time of casting.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or another example: You cast chill touch... can you then channel 1 touch through your main-hand weapon and do the normal touch with your spell-armed hand? Imho: no.Any why not? If I had a monk/wizard I could certainly cast chill touch one round and flurry the next, applying chill touch to every opponent struck (up to the limit of the spell).
I think he meant on the round you cast it (in concert with Spell Combat, as well), not on subsequent rounds.
If you have 4 hands and use Spellcombat to channel chilled touch, you could not channel 2 touches with one weapon and two more touches with other weapons:
Why not?
An orc sorcerer with the (inexplicably) draconic bloodline has a bite and two claws. If he is holding the charge of a CL3+ chill touch, and he full-attacks, he could deliver the spell with each of those natural attacks that hit.
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attackHe get's to choose the weapon, but once chosen, the choice is final.
as in: any _one_ weapon... not _all_ weapons :-)
The rules don't say this (or even suggest it).
If you make a melee attack, and you're wielding a weapon, you can deliver the spell through that weapon.
Lets say a level 15 magus is holding a longsword in one hand, a dagger in the other hand, and is wearing a boulder helmet. He casts chill touch, then holds the charge. Next round, he performs a full-attack.
Attack 1: Melee attack with longsword. He can deliver the spell through that weapon as part of that melee attack.
Attack 2: Melee attack with dagger. He can deliver the spell through that weapon as part of that melee attack.
Attack 3: Melee attack with boulder helmet. He can deliver the spell through that weapon as part of that melee attack.
A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell.
As you can see, using Spellstrike does not lock you into using one weapon or even one type of delivery. You can use Spellstrike one round, use a touch another round, and use a completely different weapon the third round.
Or another example: You cast chill touch... can you then channel 1 touch through your main-hand weapon and do the normal touch with your spell-armed hand? Imho: no.
If you're using spell combat, sure. Cast the spell, use your free attack to make a touch attack. Then, since spell combat lets you make your attacks with your weapon, make your attacks with your weapon, with the option to use Spellstrike to deliver the spell if you hit.
|
|
I think he meant on the round you cast it (in concert with Spell Combat, as well), not on subsequent rounds.Or another example: You cast chill touch... can you then channel 1 touch through your main-hand weapon and do the normal touch with your spell-armed hand? Imho: no.Any why not? If I had a monk/wizard I could certainly cast chill touch one round and flurry the next, applying chill touch to every opponent struck (up to the limit of the spell).
Spellstrike has no relation to spellcombat other than being a magus class feature.