|
I'm in a Rappan Athuk game and my character recently died. I have decided to run something I've never played and we've never had at our table. Our group is 10th level now and so my character enters play as a 10th level magus.
I'm using a build around the Dervish Dancer feat. I think it is a pretty good build, but I don't think it is relevant other than it is a Dexterity Magus build.
What I'm looking for is a suggestion for spells. What are good spells to use for a 10th level dex-based magus?
1: Frostbite, Reduce Person, Shocking Grasp, Shield, Obscuring Mist
2: Glitterdust, Mirror Image, Invisibility
3: Haste, Displacement
4: Black Tentacles, Dimension Door
If you are an half-elf, Paragon Surge allows you an extra arcana whenever you want and, basically, every wizard spell.
-Haste DOES work with spell combat, I have a link to JJ saying it does.
-Maguses don't maximize Int so Fireball isn't going to be as nice for you, you'll have a significantly lower DC than for a pure caster.
-Scorching ray could work well, though I wouldn't use Empowered Arcana; isn't it only 1/day?
Really Paizo board?! REALLY?!?!!!
@OP: Get Frigid Touch, as soon as possible. #1 priority!
4d6 damage is paltry, but staggered with no save is too good for ANY magus to pass up. :)
-Nearyn
i believe they don't stack per RAW, some people at paizo may have commented (either personally or officially, JJ is likely the former) on their opinion of intent/how it should work, but i don't believe official FAQ/errata has been issued to change RAW. i believe intent is for them to work together, but perceived intent is not the same thing as what the rules say.
|
If you're taking the trait Magical Lineage (Shocking Grasp), which I highly recommend, be sure to also take the feats Intensified Spell and Elemental Spell, so you can memorize 10d6 Shocking Grasps as 1st level spells and 10d6 acid/fire/or cold versions as 2nd level spells, for those baddies that are immune to electricity.
It seems to me that the clarification from James Jacobs confirms the way I always intended to play it: a magus with haste would get the same attacks as a Full Attack using his main hand (with any bonuses and penalties) with the addition of one spell (also with penalties). The attack rolls would probably be the same as a Full Attack with a dagger in the offhand, only rather than a weapon the magus wields a spell. The FAQ entry also clarifies that Spell Combat does not count as a Full Attack, so it would not work with any feats that require that specific full round action.
Too bad there isn't a feat such as Improved Two-weapon fighting that allows for more than one spell to be cast in a Spell Combat action. Maybe you could homebrew one, with the requirement being that it only functions while under the effect of Haste. That sounds fun.
|
Here's my link.
and since then the dev team has reversed that decision and categorically stated that haste and spell combat don't work together.
Magus: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
No. Spell combat is its own kind of full-round action, and is not a full attack action.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13
@digiredork, A few good spells to add to your daily memorization are the Monstrous Physique Line which gives you a whole host of combat abilities and ALL of which works with Haste.
The magus has an optional arcana that allows him to grant (only) himself Haste. One of his primary class features is incompatible with the best benefit granted by the spell. That seems incongruous.
@Mathwei- Tsk. Ah well.
@MeatForTheGrinder: And they have Haste on their spell list too. Believe it or not, the designers might just have envisioned that Magus' aren't just Spell Combating every round they have a Full Action. Limited number of spell slots would suggest that, unless the GM is playing to the Magus' 15 minute adventuring day. From Mr. Bulmahn's commentary, I'm pretty sure that while it works per RAW, Arcane Mark Spell Combat wasn't exactly INTENDED (as all-day-long Spell Combat spam). Of course, using Haste (spell/arcana) is incompatable with Arcane Mark Spell Combat spam, but it's BETTER because there is no penalties to hit, and you are getting bonuses on top from Haste, not to mention the movement bonus.
Everybody acts like the Magus should be Spell Combating non-stop. Ignoring Arcane Mark (which, as per above, is inferior to Haste), you simply CAN'T Spell Combat all day long with real spells. In fact, it's a better use of spell slots to use them on buffs that apply for many rounds, rather than as offensive Spellstrike spells. If Paizo intended Spell Combat to be used with Haste, and for Spell Combat to be used every single time you Full Attacked, they would have made it a modification of the Full Attack Action. They didn't. They've answered a FAQ directly dealing with Haste/Spell Combat compatability (negative). I think they know what they intended with the rules. Some may not like it, but Paizo is clearly comfortable with Classes that grant multiple abilities that aren't usable at the same time, it's not just a Magus thing. Bigger arsenal to choose from, just can't combine it all at once.
Also Shield, after level 8 I have memorized this twice everyday.
I agree, Shield is great for everyone.
I find that at 15g per charge, a level 1 Wand of Shield is a great investment. If used just before combat, you have 10 rounds to finish the fight before Shield drops. You can also loan it out to others who can use the wand (including anyone trained in UMD) to have a go.
I exclusively use the wand on those days where I expect to burn all of my Shocking Grasp spells, such as when entering a dungeon. At other times (random encounters, typically one a day), you can use Shield cast from memory and save the wand charges. A Pearl of Power (or a few of them) can facilitate recalling the spell if needed for a second encounter that same day.
Everybody acts like the Magus should be Spell Combating non-stop. ... If Paizo intended Spell Combat to be used with Haste, and for Spell Combat to be used every single time you Full Attacked, they would have made it a modification of the Full Attack Action. They didn't. They've answered a FAQ directly dealing with Haste/Spell Combat compatability (negative). I think they know what they intended with the rules.
I am fully convinced now of the intent of the designers, as clarified in the FAQ.
That being said, I don't agree with it.
As a player, I see no reason to draw my DM's attention to anything other than the phrase within Spell Combat that states...
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
Knowing my DM, he will let me have the extra attack, because it just makes sense.
I agree with your implied position that Spell Combat should *not* be every round for the magus. I do believe that (for my magus) Spellcombat would be every round possible if he received an extra attack from Haste (with Arcane Accuracy on all of them). The following combat, with Haste expired, he may just move from target to target taking each one out with a single Spellstrike blow. The combat after that, he may stand back and just cast Fireball a few times.
Right, what you draw to your GM's attention "as a player" is likely to be "in your interests". ...Ethics aside ;-)
The crucial distinction here is Haste specifically says: "When making a full attack action..."
Well, the "full attack action" is a specific named action, detailed in the Combat chapter.
Mobile Fighter Archetypes can make main and off-hand attacks (like 2WF) as a Standard Action, but that doesn't make it a "full attack action".
That Spell Combat is a Full-Round Action and allows for iterative attacks doesn't fundamentally change anything.
The Mobile Fighter eventually gains the ability to make a full attack action as a standard action,
but that actually is using the named full attack action, just changing it's classification to standard.
Although Spell Combat isn't a full attack action, the RAW does say that Spell Combat is functioning like 2WF, which means things like 2 Weapon Defense and 2 Weapon Rend can be triggered by it... I'm not sure if/how that is changed if you choose to use Spellstrike to deliver the free off-hand touch attack with another free attack with the 'main-hand' weapon. I don't really think that's the intent, I think the 2WF reference was just sort of a vague comparison not an invocation of mechanics, but on a RAW basis that seems plausible. But it's still not a full attack action.
Right, what you draw to your GM's attention "as a player" is likely to be "in your interests". ...Ethics aside ;-)
I will do this with a clean conscience, feeling ethically correct (no insult taken thanks to your smiley).
If I had a dagger in my hand instead of a spell and took a Full Attack action I'd get my normal main hand attacks, with an extra for haste, and an offhand dagger attack (all at -2 for TWF). Replace the dagger with a spell and call it Spell Combat. That's what I see when I read "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
RAW does say that Spell Combat is functioning like 2WF, which means things like 2 Weapon Defense and 2 Weapon Rend can be triggered by it...
I'm not sure I'd agree there, but that's just my take. TWF is also a prereq for both of those, so maybe if you actually had TWF on a magus I could see a DM allowing it. There would be no question (to me) as long as you had more than two arms, a weapon in each of at least two hands, and another free to cast any spells.