Flurry of Blows
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
Haste
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.
FAQ
Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).
Haste specifies using a Full-Attack. Flurry of Blows specifies using a Full Attack. Haste is allowed to work with Spell Combat. I would allow Flurry of Blows to work as well.
Of course, at a culmanative -4 penalty. Considering the Magus lacks ways to increase his to-hit bonus and would require multiclassing (which puts off his class features). Then again, there is the whole "metaphorical hands" issue...
The only way you can resolve that is by ignoring the fact that Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat both use the off-hand.
Does it matter? If gravity didn't work you wouldn't have to worry about rules for falling.
If people agree with you, you have shown that you can use a Natural Weapon with a full attack action and Spell Combat.
But the question was, can you use FOB with Spell Combat. The answer is: No.
|
I hate to throw gasoline on this fire, but I think the TWF argument doesn't hold water. Since the monks attacks aren't limited to his hands, the action economy of the second hand is irrelevant. A monk can FoB with his knees and elbows while holding a torch in one hand leaving the other perfectly free.
Thematically, the FoB should be a burst of quick action that prevents spell casting so I doubt I'd allow it even in a home brew.
Do you know what else is a full attack action? Making more than one attack per round with iterative attacks.
You can clearly Spell Combat with iterative attacks. So you can clearly make a Full Attack Action and Spell Combat in the same round.
That said, Flurry uses the off-hand attack. Spell Combat uses the off-hand attack.
You can not use the off-hand attack for two different things in the same round.
Wrong. You can spell combat which allows you attacks and to cast a spell. It does not give you extra actions.
I hate to throw gasoline on this fire, but I think the TWF argument doesn't hold water. Since the monks attacks aren't limited to his hands, the action economy of the second hand is irrelevant. A monk can FoB with his knees and elbows while holding a torch in one hand leaving the other perfectly free.
Thematically, the FoB should be a burst of quick action that prevents spell casting so I doubt I'd allow it even in a home brew.
There is a recent FAQ that ties "off hand" to a state instead of your actual hands. Which prevents say two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon and armor spikes.
You have an "off hand" which must be free, and it's not free if you are two weapon fighting. Also you can't do two equivalent two weapon fighting things at the same time.
Wrong. You can spell combat which allows you attacks and to cast a spell. It does not give you extra actions.Do you know what else is a full attack action? Making more than one attack per round with iterative attacks.
You can clearly Spell Combat with iterative attacks. So you can clearly make a Full Attack Action and Spell Combat in the same round.
That said, Flurry uses the off-hand attack. Spell Combat uses the off-hand attack.
You can not use the off-hand attack for two different things in the same round.
I wrote a post about not understanding you, but I just reread everything and I think I get what you are saying.
Even though you are making all your attacks with the one weapon, it is not a full attack action. It never says that you are under the Spell Combat entry:
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.
Like others (I believe), I was defining the bold section as a Full Attack because they are a lot a like. But that is not the case. As such, you cannot change it out for any type of full attack. There is a case that says you cannot even fight defensively since you are not attacking as a standard action or as a full attack.
So yeah, now I believe there are two distinct reasons why you cannot Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat at the same time:
1) Spell combat does not contain a "full attack" action and therefor it cannot be replaced with a different "full attack" action.
2) Both Flurry of Blows and Spell Combat both use the "off-hand" and it cannot be used twice.
Eh the hand issue is a whole other bunch of headaches, but I can see the idea of why it's not allowed. As an alternative though, the player should try to be a Maneuver Master Monk instead. Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't have the same TWF baggage that Flurry of blows has, and allows you to make an extra combat maneuver anyway. Plus it includes things like feint and Dirty Trick as part of your Flurry Attack.
Of course it matters, they might errata the metaphorical off hand rulings. Furthermore, there might be other full attack effects (like haste) which are not constrained by off hand.Does it matter? If gravity didn't work you wouldn't have to worry about rules for falling.
If people agree with you, you have shown that you can use a Natural Weapon with a full attack action and Spell Combat.
But the question was, can you use FOB with Spell Combat. The answer is: No.
I guess I see your point, but I just thought that if one rule would stop it from being legal, that would be enough.
But like I pointed out above, there are two reasons why it doesn't work.
Eh the hand issue is a whole other bunch of headaches, but I can see the idea of why it's not allowed. As an alternative though, the player should try to be a Maneuver Master Monk instead. Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't have the same TWF baggage that Flurry of blows has, and allows you to make an extra combat maneuver anyway. Plus it includes things like feint and Dirty Trick as part of your Flurry Attack.
I don't think that would work with Spell Combat either. Just sayin'.
Eh the hand issue is a whole other bunch of headaches, but I can see the idea of why it's not allowed. As an alternative though, the player should try to be a Maneuver Master Monk instead. Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't have the same TWF baggage that Flurry of blows has, and allows you to make an extra combat maneuver anyway. Plus it includes things like feint and Dirty Trick as part of your Flurry Attack.
Ehhh,
At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver,
Spell combat isn't a full-attack action, it's a full round action...
But with that said I think you are still right under the "effects" FAQ discussed earlier (since spell combat counts for effects related to a full attack action).
they might errata the metaphorical off hand rulings.If you believe that is even astronomically remotely likely to happen, then you are hoping for something that won't happen until Pathfinder 2.0. I don't see them leaving that concept until a whole system redesign.
I used to feel the same way. Then the SLA FAQ was reversed with no explanation. Why couldn't they reverse their "hands" FAQ if they all felt like it?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I used to feel the same way. Then the SLA FAQ was reversed with no explanation. Why couldn't they reverse their "hands" FAQ if they all felt like it?
When they made the SLA original ruling, they said it was an experiment. The hands ruling is more "mater of fact" and I strongly get the impression from all discussion about it that it is as it is and isn't going to change.
I used to feel the same way. Then the SLA FAQ was reversed with no explanation. Why couldn't they reverse their "hands" FAQ if they all felt like it?When they made the SLA original ruling, they said it was an experiment. The hands ruling is more "mater of fact" and I strongly get the impression from all discussion about it that it is as it is and isn't going to change.
One can hold out hope that they'll eventually realize how stupid the whole metaphorical hands vs. real hands thing is, and consider revising it. PDT has reversed itself on a few rare occasions when their FAQs were particularly bone-headed, like undoing some of the "Paizo hates monks" FAQs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the metaphorical hands thing is a game balance issue that makes sense. I agree with it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think the metaphorical hands thing is a game balance issue that makes sense. I agree with it.
+1 and one they don't seem to think needs fixed no matter how bad some minority of players wish. I remember one thread where the development team basically said if you didn't understand why it is this way, don't use these rules. So I get the impression there is no way they will ever reverse the course on the metaphorical hands idea.
I'm of the opinion that constantly wishing they would change a rule is a waste of your (my) emotions. It is best to take it how it is and if they reverse it, be thrilled. As a result, I've been disappointed only temporarily from about 3 of the last 40 FAQ answers. Those 3 were the ones I didn't expect them to rule that way. The others I fully expected them to rule the way they did.
I'm still unsure how "hands" got into the equation. Flurry of Blows can be performed with one weapon so its not relevant. In the Spell Combat entry for Magus it says that it functions much like TWF but goes on to specifically call out how it functions so that line feels more like flavor text than elaborating rules. What exactly is 'metaphorical hands' and why is it a part of this issue?
Not to be trite, but the fact that you don't understand how hands got into the conversation is exactly why you think you can use FOB with Spell Combat.
There once was a valid play style that allowed someone with +1 BAB to attack with a Two-Handed Sword and Armor Spikes in the same round, by using two-weapon fighting (the option, not the feat.)
It was FAQ'ed away. The reasoning given was that Primary Attack and Off-Hand attacks are part of the action economy and not based on physical hands. I think it was BlackBloodedTroll that started using the term "Metaphorical Hands". There were over 500 posts in the threads, might have been two threads that size.
Anyway, they further went on to explain that they did not want the ability for Streangth bonuses to damage while using the two weapon fighting option to equal Str bonus x2. By using the above example, the sword would be x1.5 and the armor spikes .5. They stated that the extra x.5 for using a second hand on a weapon uses up the "off hand" ability of the character.
This relates exactly to FOB. Even though you may use only one limb during a flurry of blows attack, you are using both your primary and off hand attacks, in the metaphorical sense. Beyond that, FOB specifically allows the x2 str bonus to damage because they treat all attacks during a flurry as x1 str, even the off hand ones.
It is hard to keep track of it all, especially since it defies the surface logic because you still have limbs that haven't "done" anything. It was specifically called out as a game balance issue by the Devs.
I hope that little history bit helps.
Flurry of Blows uses your offhand. Spell Combat uses your offhand. If you are a two handed creature, you can't do both.
That is exactly why people think they can do it. Because they are not using "hands" to make the attack. While I understand what you are saying, it does not actually explain the answer, it just repeats it.
I'm still unsure how "hands" got into the equation. Flurry of Blows can be performed with one weapon so its not relevant.
It is very much relevant due to the FAQ. You only have one "off hand" regardless if you use a hand or not. If you use something that is functionally two weapon fighting (which flurry of blows is) you cannot use something else that is also
functionally two weapon fighting (which spell combat is).Basically put just like you can't flurry of blows and two weapon fight, you can't flurry of blows and do something else that is like two weapon fighting.
In the Spell Combat entry for Magus it says that it functions much like TWF but goes on to specifically call out how it functions so that line feels more like flavor text than elaborating rules
What? It is literally in the middle of the mechanical part of how spell combat works, parenthetical even.
What exactly is 'metaphorical hands' and why is it a part of this issue?
Basically put you have an "off hand" and regardless of how many actual hands you have you can't use your "off hand" in more than one way at a time. This "off hand" is used to either two weapon fight, or two handed fight. So if you are doing either of those two things already you can't do either again because your "off hand" is already used.
Hence why you can't two weapon fight with a great sword and armor spikes -- your "off hand" is already used with the great sword.
I used to feel the same way. Then the SLA FAQ was reversed with no explanation. Why couldn't they reverse their "hands" FAQ if they all felt like it?When they made the SLA original ruling, they said it was an experiment. The hands ruling is more "mater of fact" and I strongly get the impression from all discussion about it that it is as it is and isn't going to change.
That's NOT exactly what they said. They said that they might reverse the PRESTIGE CLASS early access part if it turned out to be an issue. There was never an indication that SLA's qualifying for other things was up for possible change.
So due to an FAQ you need an actual off-hand in order for attacks that functionally use TWF regardless of whether or not the second attack is actually a literal hand? I'm seeing it as you need two 'limbs' to TWF, and if two limbs are occupied with one weapon whether it's two actual hands, two feet or a hand and shoulder you can't TWF because the game assumes a two limb max until multi weapon fighting comes into the equation. Makes sense to me.
I still don't think it's relevant because I think its an argument of full round actions and full attacks both being classified as different full round actions not whether or not the spell hand from spell combat is 'occupied'.(Which it is)
No malwing, you need an "offhand", not an actual offhand. You can hold a polearm in your hands and TWF with armor spikes and a dwarven boulder helmet, an essence not using any actual hands. As such, an armless person can still engage in TWF because it still two "hands".
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.
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 on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
Can you use two-weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting in the same round?
and to clarify ("hands") is the term we used for the metaphorical hand limit hands while (hands) means physical hands.
No malwing, you need an "offhand", not an actual offhand. You can hold a polearm in your hands and TWF with armor spikes and a dwarven boulder helmet, an essence not using any actual hands. As such, an armless person can still engage in TWF because it still two "hands".
I think that's how I under stood it. I posted how I saw the post ("So due to an FAQ you need an actual off-hand in order for attacks that functionally use TWF regardless of whether or not the second attack is actually a literal hand?")...
And how I understood the FAQ in question ( "I'm seeing it as you need two 'limbs' to TWF, and if two limbs are occupied with one weapon whether it's two actual hands, two feet or a hand and shoulder you can't TWF because the game assumes a two limb max until multi weapon fighting comes into the equation.") In the sense that "occupied" means that you're using at max two limbs, unless some feat or ability alters how many 'off hands' you have, so using two limbs regardless of what those limbs are is using up your off hand.
Malwing: To clarify, for the "two limbs are occupied with one weapon" you actually have to attack with said weapon. Just holding something doesn't count as using up the "hands".
You also have instances, like flurry, where you may only be attacking with a weapon in a single hand but the action takes both "hands". Or Spell Combat where an off "hand" is occupied with a spell.
Malwing: To clarify, for the "two limbs are occupied with one weapon" you actually have to attack with said weapon. Just holding something doesn't count as using up the "hands".
You also have instances, like flurry, where you may only be attacking with a weapon in a single hand but the action takes both "hands". Or Spell Combat where an off "hand" is occupied with a spell.
I'm pretty sure thats what I said. Or at least that's how I said I understood it as opposed to how I read the post explaining it to me.
|
In terms of the intent, I'd like to also point out that neither Spell Combat nor Flurry allows you to get extra attacks with natural weapons*, which normally can be used with full attacks including TWF. This suggests that it's supposed to be even harder to add extra attacks to these two combat routines than to TWF. This makes sense since they have advantages on TWF - in the one case you can use a spell during the routine, and in the other you can use a single weapon and apply your full strength to all attacks.
Thus, if you can't combine TWF with Spell Combat or Flurry to get extra attacks, you shouldn't be able to combine Spell Combat and Flurry with each other to get extra attacks. The abstract off hand is the mechanism that prevents this while still allowing Spell Combat and Flurry to work with things like Deflect Arrows.
*Except in a limited form with Natural Spell Combat Arcana.
Spell combat doesn't just say two-weapon fighting it also says functions much like. To me a -2 to attack and adding an extra attack like thing that can be an attack sufficiently qualifies as This functions much like two-weapon fighting without actually being two-weapon fighting. It says it's like TWF but it never actually specifies how it's like TWF or that it actually is considered TWF.
"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" reads to me as "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, with the exception that the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
I'm pretty sure thats what I said. Or at least that's how I said I understood it as opposed to how I read the post explaining it to me.Malwing: To clarify, for the "two limbs are occupied with one weapon" you actually have to attack with said weapon. Just holding something doesn't count as using up the "hands".
You also have instances, like flurry, where you may only be attacking with a weapon in a single hand but the action takes both "hands". Or Spell Combat where an off "hand" is occupied with a spell.
Okie dokie then. I wanted to make sure, given that hands vs 'hands' can get confusing and I wasn't sure from the other post.
You gain no benefit from the Two Weapon Fighting feat tree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is "much like two weapon fighting" as in you get to do something with your off hand. That something, in this case, is cast a spell. It is "much like two weapon fighting" as you take a -2 to your attacks. These are two ways in which it is "much like two weapon fighting".
You are trying to change it from "much like two weapon fighting" into "exactly like two weapon fighting with the bonus of casting spells too."
That is not how it is written.
|
|
It is "much like two weapon fighting" as in you get to do something with your off hand. That something, in this case, is cast a spell. It is "much like two weapon fighting" as you take a -2 to your attacks. These are two ways in which it is "much like two weapon fighting".
You are trying to change it from "much like two weapon fighting" into "exactly like two weapon fighting with the bonus of casting spells too."
That is not how it is written.
EDIT - Sorry wrong class rule i realize now But i think I am backing you up. Hypothetically i cant see why these two rules should not work together but no DM will let you I'm sure.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. 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.
and it states here (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability)
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
so it is not off hand