Do people still misinterpret spell combat and spell strike as giving extra attacks instead of a standard action cast and free touch? I was really uttered to hear so many people of seemingly high intelligence interpreting it as"if I spam arcane mark" that somehow equals more attacks per round. Thoughts?
Techically it does.
You might not agree with this but it does, anyway it's quite easy to get out of the strictly technical are by using a specific trait (although that trait is a magic trait and magi usually need another magic trait).
I don't see it, the wording is convoluted but as I understand you attack as a free and cast standard,abducts either separate(spell combat) or all at once(spellstrike)
Damn phone I hate auto spelling!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing to stop you using spell combat and spellstrike in the same round. One gives you a free spell during your full attack, and the other allows you to use a spell to gain a free melee attack. It's silly, but it's RAW (and more-or-less RAI).
No you either cast as part of your attack( standard and free) with no penalty or take a minus 2 and benefit from your weapons crit range. There is nothing here giving two spells and an attack or two attacks and a sp,ell or two attacks and two spells at second level
Sigh, people who read text in a manner that let's them abuse the wording for their own nefarious purpose...come on I've seen others say the same thing in other areas of this board, I know not everyone is abusing the action economy that isn't , despite complex wording, allowed by the rules.
No you either cast as part of your attack( standard and free) with no penalty or take a minus 2 and benefit from your weapons crit range. There is nothing here giving two spells and an attack or two attacks and a sp,ell or two attacks and two spells at second level
This is... really far off.
Spell Combat: You make attacks with your weapon as if doing a full attack (though without any extra natural attacks or anything, so it might be a bit less) and also cast a spell. You take a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, and may add a bit more of a penalty to increase your concentration check if you're casting defensively.
Spellstrike: When you cast a melee touch spell, you can deliver the spell through your weapon, including the free touch attack that goes with touch spells when you cast them.
You can combine the two. Which means that at second level, a Magus can use Spell Combat, to attack as normal and cast a touch spell (such as shocking grasp) which then nets a 'free' attack with his weapon, thanks to spellstrike, in addition to having it deliver the spell should it hit.
Edit:
Sigh, people who read text in a manner that let's them abuse the wording for their own nefarious purpose...come on I've seen others say the same thing in other areas of this board, I know not everyone is abusing the action economy that isn't , despite complex wording, allowed by the rules.
Maybe people are saying that because... they actually know what they're talking about?
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.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
dot
Then why does any min Maxer combat type roll anything but a magus since based on these interpretations he out fights any other character at low levels due to making more attacks in a tons than any other single character of any other class. Makes perfect sense to have one class capable of attacking twice and casting two spells per round at level two, all benefiting from his scimitar crit range. What's unbalanced about that?
One spell cast and two attacks, not two spells cast, first of all.
second of all, at 2nd level, theres very very few times a day this can be done, unless you're talking about arcane mark, at which point its more like two weapon attacks, and no spells cast, since arcane mark doesnt actually do damage or any useful in combat spell effect.
its also difficult to do at low levels due to the concentration checks involved.
realistically, the barbarian still does more damage, which is why not every min maxer chooses a magus, to answer to your question
Oh, as to that and my original post,yeah my question was definitely answered.
Then why does any min Maxer combat type roll anything but a magus since based on these interpretations he out fights any other character at low levels due to making more attacks in a tons than any other single character of any other class. Makes perfect sense to have one class capable of attacking twice and casting two spells per round at level two, all benefiting from his scimitar crit range. What's unbalanced about that?
Because 3/4th BAB, requires one handed weapons, -2 penalty to hit, lower health, DMs who deny you your class featrures when they badly read the text (like you did), etc.
You don't get 2 spells/rd, you get 2 attacks (one of which is a spell effect or Arcane Mark).
Oh, as to that and my original post,yeah my question was definitely answered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there really people that have such a hard time understanding what is frankly very simple? There is no fallacy here and you really need to stop trying to pass off you passive aggressive hate for the class as anything but that.
Nope, love the class, and the way my GM handled it it is comparable to a two weapon ranger even without the extra melee attack. No other class at second or first is attacking and casting so there is already an advantage action wise.
Then why does any min Maxer combat type roll anything but a magus since based on these interpretations he out fights any other character at low levels due to making more attacks in a tons than any other single character of any other class. Makes perfect sense to have one class capable of attacking twice and casting two spells per round at level two, all benefiting from his scimitar crit range. What's unbalanced about that?
/faceplam.. Really? More attacks has NEVER equated to better. If it did TWF wouldn't be the weakest fighting option. The fact is more attacks ate lower to hit is always sub-par to larger single hits.
If this "more attacks is better" Fallacy was anywhere hear true TWF rogues would be the best damage class.... see how that works out for them? Or FoB monks for that matter.
Magus is good single target damage sure but is still not even the best at that one thing.
-Edit- And what is this two spells per round stuff? Not unless we are talking higher lvls with some quickened spells.
|
So with arcane mark you can basically get two melee attacks a round at low levels at -2 to your attack rolls. Incredibly overpowered indeed. It's almost as good as flurry of blows!!
I know, right? It's almost as over-powered as Two-Weapon Fighting! Oh, wait... It's on exactly the same power level as Two-Weapon Fighting, which the forums conclusively, routinely show to be worse than attacking with a single, two-handed weapon.
Who is now being combative?
So you think being comparable to one of the worst builds one could come up with is alright? (here is a hint. two weapon fighting is terrible without added sources of damage like sneak attack or smite and so on.)
Its becoming clear that your attitude stems from very little understanding of the system. Since when it comes to single target damage Megus is trumped by a simple two handed barb. So how exactly is there a problem?
Good thing vegetables and refuse can't make it they fiber optic cables or I would need to rinse off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good thing vegetables and refuse can't make it they fiber optic cables or I would need to rinse off.
Yep that about sums up how much sense anything you have posted made.
You really told me . Go have a cookie as reward.
Didn't Buhlman or Jacobs or some other guys like way important in Paizo already lay down the law on this? so why is it still being discussed as if its some sort of new discovery??
Yes they did. Its not so much being discussed as its one person thinking disagreeing with people that clearly know more then him makes him cool or something.
So you know, The internet.
as of this post I am done discussing it. Come on pathfinder 2.0!
I have to admit, I don't see where those two effects combine to allow him to cast two spells a round.
Spell combat allows him to throw a spell as part of a full attack action. Essentially, the cast spell is his 'off-hand attack'.
Spellstrike allows him to put it through a weapon instead of making a touch attack.
So, he'd get one extra attack per round? Equivalent to TWF, if he spams Arcane Mark.
I don't see the issue with that.
Spell combat would allow him to attack once and then cast Shocking Grasp, and make a touch attack...all normal.
Spellstrike allows him to instead channel the normal touch attack into a weapon strike. So instead of trying a touch attack, he can instead take a free melee attack. He'd get two attacks.
If he spams Arcane Mark, that's just TWF, albeit with the primary weapon.
I have to say that's NICE...because it's the primary weapon. Clearly superior to normal TWF, and the option to deliver a potent spell can clearly be strong.
It's also a full round action, so he can't move and do it.
I call it POTENT...especially at low levels, where it's basically the only way there is to get two attacks with your main weapon...but it's going to matter less at later levels.
============
I'm also going to make an interesting point. Shocking Grasp notes that it must be delivered with a successful melee touch attack.
Arcane Mark bears no such language. While the range may be touch, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that the spell can't be delivered as a melee touch attack, ie. if the subject is trying to avoid it, it can't be scribed.
Which would shut down infinite primary weapon double attacks rather abruptly.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcombat lets you cast a spell with one hand, and melee attack with the other hand.
It borrows the draw backs of two weapon fighting -2/-2
It CAN be modified by adding in spellstrike at level 2.
Spellstrike does not change the action economy, it modifies it, instead of a touch attack with off hand (spell) and a melee attack, you can melee attack and then channel the touch attack through the melee weapon.
So you DONT get two attacks, plus a spell. You get one attack, and one spell (unless at higher levels you get more iterative attacks), with spell strike, that spell can be channeled through your sword.
As to the silliness with arcane mark, would you spell combat with arcane mark without spell strike? No. It has no benefit. So trying to use it to get a "free" weapon attack at level two by spellstriking with arcane mark is cheese. I don't allow it, because arcane mark is not an attack spell, and using it in this manner is cheese.
I admit that I have a hard time, at first, getting my head around what looked like absurd abuse of "normal" action ecconomy. However we have a level 10 Magus in our current game and he certainly doesn't out damage/over shadow anyone else at the table. In fact I've been supprized by just how not OP'ed he is.
Assuming flanking, the Ninja can out damage him.
The Reach Cleric [actually a Oracle of wood] does a little less damage.
The Sylvan Sorcerer totally out damages him, without adding in the Sorcerer's Giant Mantis companions output.
The thing is, it looks overpowered on paper but it isn't.
no its not OP, it is essentially 'just' TWF with spell and sword (the intent of the design) that is limited by the number and types of spells you can cast a day (as opposed to regular TWF which isnt limited to number of times per day)
There are ways to use zero level spells, indefinitely with spell combat/spellstrike but, IMO, arcane mark isn't one of them, and is a deliberate attempt at exploit/abuse.
Hey Conundrum!
This Changes the mechanics of Spell Combat plus Spellstrike from
Full Attack + Touch Spell
to
Full Attack + Touch Spell + Free Attack
This is correct. In its previous incarnation, spellstrike was not even really a bonus.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing(PS, we also added a few cool new touch spells for them to use)
Here he is explaining it as well.
So, does this mean I can attack with my weapon as normal with spell combat, then cast my spellstrike spell and attack with my weapon with the free melee weapon attack?
Or do the opposite and with a spell like chill touch that gets multiple touches, cast spellstrike, use free attack, then attack as normal and get the chill touch twice in that round (or more for higher BAB)? Seems like it to me...
Both of those situations are now possible, if I am understanding your question.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Grick also has an excellent guide to the magus, spell combat, and spellstrike here.
I do find it pretty fun that a 3rd party company released a class that at level 20 could make a single attack and cast a single spell as one action, and it was immediately called overpowered.
Hope that helps!
Spellcombat lets you cast a spell with one hand, and melee attack with the other hand.
It borrows the draw backs of two weapon fighting -2/-2
It CAN be modified by adding in spellstrike at level 2.
Spellstrike does not change the action economy, it modifies it, instead of a touch attack with off hand (spell) and a melee attack, you can melee attack and then channel the touch attack through the melee weapon.
So you DONT get two attacks, plus a spell. You get one attack, and one spell (unless at higher levels you get more iterative attacks), with spell strike, that spell can be channeled through your sword.
As to the silliness with arcane mark, would you spell combat with arcane mark without spell strike? No. It has no benefit. So trying to use it to get a "free" weapon attack at level two by spellstriking with arcane mark is cheese. I don't allow it, because arcane mark is not an attack spell, and using it in this manner is cheese.
Thank you.
no its not OP, it is essentially 'just' TWF with spell and sword (the intent of the design) that is limited by the number and types of spells you can cast a day (as opposed to regular TWF which isnt limited to number of times per day)
There are ways to use zero level spells, indefinitely with spell combat/spellstrike but, IMO, arcane mark isn't one of them, and is a deliberate attempt at exploit/abuse.
FAQ says Arcane Mark isn't an exploit. So you are behind the times.
Thank you.Spellcombat lets you cast a spell with one hand, and melee attack with the other hand.
It borrows the draw backs of two weapon fighting -2/-2
It CAN be modified by adding in spellstrike at level 2.
Spellstrike does not change the action economy, it modifies it, instead of a touch attack with off hand (spell) and a melee attack, you can melee attack and then channel the touch attack through the melee weapon.
So you DONT get two attacks, plus a spell. You get one attack, and one spell (unless at higher levels you get more iterative attacks), with spell strike, that spell can be channeled through your sword.
As to the silliness with arcane mark, would you spell combat with arcane mark without spell strike? No. It has no benefit. So trying to use it to get a "free" weapon attack at level two by spellstriking with arcane mark is cheese. I don't allow it, because arcane mark is not an attack spell, and using it in this manner is cheese.
wait what!?
Maybe if he changed his name he would find it easier to understand the rules...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ says Arcane Mark isn't an exploit. So you are behind the times.no its not OP, it is essentially 'just' TWF with spell and sword (the intent of the design) that is limited by the number and types of spells you can cast a day (as opposed to regular TWF which isnt limited to number of times per day)
There are ways to use zero level spells, indefinitely with spell combat/spellstrike but, IMO, arcane mark isn't one of them, and is a deliberate attempt at exploit/abuse.
Not quite. It says that you can use Spell Combat with cantrips (after James said you couldn't, which fueled a big discussion IIRC).
FAQ says Arcane Mark isn't an exploit. So you are behind the times.no its not OP, it is essentially 'just' TWF with spell and sword (the intent of the design) that is limited by the number and types of spells you can cast a day (as opposed to regular TWF which isnt limited to number of times per day)
There are ways to use zero level spells, indefinitely with spell combat/spellstrike but, IMO, arcane mark isn't one of them, and is a deliberate attempt at exploit/abuse.
Playing by strict RAW is silly and pointless - there's too many weird quirks that are best solved with house rules. If the FAQ says it's no exploit, I read that as an opinion, not a fact. We'll consider it and form our own opinion from there. Which often coincides - and sometimes not.
Mind, I agree that Magus isn't OP in most (if any) level brackets. Doesn't make Arcane Mark any less of an abuse. If you feel that without AM it's underpowered, find a modified rule that works better.
Granted, the FAQ is the only thing to go by in PFS gaming, but I swore off organised play ("Living" campaigns) several years ago. It's too railroady and I'd rather work with our own stories. Usually, I'd even prefer Adventure Paths, although those are getting pretty close to PFS territory.
|
It's a question thats been well debated.
Basically the language of the ability "spell strike" does not specify a touch attack, just range touch.
Arcane Mark is a bit of a stretch of imagination, (you write on the target, permanently- no AoO?) but mechanically it is a range touch spell. As mentioned above, there is no "free" melee touch attack with arcane mark, but many spells do not specify they have a touch attack, just range touch.
That said, the Magus still provokes an attack of opportunity unless casting defensively. If the concentration check fails they lose the spell and the extra attack as the spell is not completed. At higher levels not a problem, at lower levels DC15 can be hard to reach, only 50% for most 2nd level characters.
You only get the free touch attack in the round you cast the spell. If you hold the charge you don't get the extra attack. Making a touch attack after the initial free action is an attack action I believe.
Generally this is not felt to over power the class. Really its up to your GM, some still feel Arcane Mark is an abuse of the power. Personally I think its amusing to think of all those people going round with permanent Magi signatures following the Arcane Mark attacks! (well for a month at least)...
Thank you.Spellcombat lets you cast a spell with one hand, and melee attack with the other hand.
It borrows the draw backs of two weapon fighting -2/-2
It CAN be modified by adding in spellstrike at level 2.
Spellstrike does not change the action economy, it modifies it, instead of a touch attack with off hand (spell) and a melee attack, you can melee attack and then channel the touch attack through the melee weapon.
So you DONT get two attacks, plus a spell. You get one attack, and one spell (unless at higher levels you get more iterative attacks), with spell strike, that spell can be channeled through your sword.
As to the silliness with arcane mark, would you spell combat with arcane mark without spell strike? No. It has no benefit. So trying to use it to get a "free" weapon attack at level two by spellstriking with arcane mark is cheese. I don't allow it, because arcane mark is not an attack spell, and using it in this manner is cheese.
conundrum, this is 'kinda' the same thing, just simplified wording.
Spell combat = spell plus sword (using full attack action)
Spellstrike + spell combat = cast spell, attack with sword, and INSTEAD of the touch spell (against touch AC) you CAN attack with your sword (again) to deliver the OTHERWISE touch attack of the spell you cast, but not against touch AC anymore.
so at 6/1 using spell combat/strike
the magus would cast his touch spell,
attack his normal +6
attack his normal +1
then deliver the spell through his sword (effectively another sword attack)
Spellstrike lets the magus CHOOSE to attack with the sword (using normal AC) or attack by touching (touch AC)
against an opponent that is hard to hit, spell strike might not be a great option.
This is no more action economy than another character with 6/1 who has TWF.
According to touch attack spells, any normal caster (say a sorcerer) casts shocking grasp (for example) and as part of casting that spell (a standard action), make a touch attack.
So if you will, the touch attack IS the somatic component of the spell. (its included in the act of casting it)
TWF takes what would otherwise be two standard actions (attacking with the left and attack with the right) into a full attack action.
SpellCombat takes what would otherwise be two standard actions (casting a spell and attacking with one hand) into a full attack action.
Spellstrike modifies the "touch attack" part of the standard action of casting a spell, allowing it to be channeled through the sword (if you choose) rather than through the casting hand.
Arcane mark does not, as part of the spell, have any attack associated with it. The range is touch, but there is no associated attack or combat effect with the spell, there for, there is no associated attack action, with which to "exploit" and gain a "free sword attack" with, because it's not part of the spell to begin with.
Ranged touch attacks (like scorching ray) gives the caster a touch attack, as PART of casting the spell.
Touch attack spells (like shocking grasp) gives the caster a touch attack, as PART of casting the spell.
Arcane mark does not do this, there is no spell resistance, no saving throw and NO associated attack roll, you simply place your mark, because there is no 'Roll' involved with the spell, no "Roll' can be transferred from your hand to the sword.
All spellstrike does is let you chose to deliver the spell (and use THAT spells roll) with the weapon INSTEAD of with your free hand. it does NOT ADD an attack, in and of itself.
Not attack rolls is made with arcane mark. no attack can be transferred to the sword arm.
Bear in mind, the attack roll is PART of the spell (like shocking grasp) spellstrike is NOT adding an attack, the caster gets that attack by CASTING that spell, so we are still dealing with the same action economy of spell combat. no "new" or additional attacks/actions are gained at 2nd level, just the choice on how to channel that spell energy.
So at 2nd level can a magus cast shocking grasp. roll to attack with his sword, roll to attack with his sword again and roll damage for the sword, the sword and shocking grasp if it hits both times, yes.
Does it look at first glance like three actions? sure, but its TWO actions. you cannot attack twice with your sword and once with shocking grasp. you attack once with your sword and once with shocking grasp ON your sword. You give up the ability to attack the touch AC of an enemy by channeling it through your sword, but in trade get the option to do the sword damage in addition to the spell damage IF you hit (and get the crit threat range of the weapon instead of the measly one of a touch attack)