Flurry of Blows with Spell Combat

[James Risner]

So it doesn't work because:

• Flurry of Blows (FB) and Spell Combat (SC) are both off-hand attacks.
  
• SC isn't a Monk weapon or Unarmed Strike, it is a spell.
  
• FB and SC are both Full Round actions that can't be combined.

So in short, it doesn't for a litany of reasons.

[Darkblitz9]

James Risner wrote:

So it doesn't work because:

• Flurry of Blows (FB) and Spell Combat (SC) are both off-hand attacks.
  
• SC isn't a Monk weapon or Unarmed Strike, it is a spell.
  
• FB and SC are both Full Round actions that can't be combined.

So in short, it doesn't for a litany of reasons.

Agreed.

People are trying to bring up Haste and Medusa's Wrath... etc, etc.

It's all about how it's worded.

"When making a full attack action" = Adds to a Full Attack action

"As a full attack action" = IS a full attack action.

IE: If the wording uses "As a full attack action" it is mutually exclusive to other abilities that use "As a full attack action".

[JCedar2212]

Vincent The Dark wrote:

I am kind of guessing what you guys would say, but can a monk/magus combine Flurry of Blows with Spell Combat. I am thinking two attacks with the same weapon from the flurry and a spell from the spell combat. Doable or not?

I would allow it. The only benefit is a better attack bonus for spell combat--which they could get with one level of fighter and taking Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.

FoB is a full attack, sure, and so is Spell Combat. Spell Combat requires a free hand to cast.

Improved unarmed strike specifically states that a monk's unarmed attacks can be with knees, elbows, fist, and feet and that technicallyh none of his attacks are off-hand. Meaning that his flurry of blows could be a combination of kicks, punches, elbow strikes and knee strikes--it need not be his -actual- hand, so the hand is technically free for casting purposes.

Consider the Magus/Fighter (1) vs Magus/Monk (2) scenario standing directly in front of an enemy:

(1 - Magus/Figher) Magus makes melee attack (-1) (-2 penalty + 1 Fighter BAB = -1), casts defensively, and (assuming attack spells, since this is an attack action)

a) Casts...say Chill Touch (touch attack) and tries to deliver the attack at a-1 penalty, doing no extra damage for improved unarmed strike (which is obviously not the intent of the build).

b) Casts chill touch, and delivers it as a melee attack, adding 1d4 + Strength damage with a higher miss chance than if he just used SpellCombat.

(2 Magus/Monk) Is the same scenario, except that the damage is 1d6 + Strength.

Either way, it doesn't break general game mechanics. Plus, as a monk, you can't FoB while wearing armor

If the Magus/either class decides to take a 5 foot step between attacks to avoid casting defensively, then the whole question is moot. If they decide to caste then take a 5 foot step, also moot.

I see no reason why they couldn't work in tandem. They are both full attack actions (in that they take a full round to do), and literally the only significant difference is that one intends to make a melee attack twice, and one allows a melee attack and a spell delivered in an unarmed strike (which is actually more difficult to achieve than the using Spell combat generally). Does it add damage? Sure, but more than likely the player will have to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell and provoking an attack of opportunity.

[JCedar2212]

Actually, in a way, the Monk build is worse. At level 2 SpellStrike comes into play for the Magus, and then the FoB would be restricted to using SpellStrike with Monk weapons only. And Monks (aside from a couple of archetypes) use Wis as the primary stat for things like AC and Stunning First DC, with Dex and Strength being the next best states. Taking a level of Monk to do this (sans archetypes) would be limiting, since the magus can't wear armor and us FoB. So assuming a Dex based Magus is doing this, the primary stats are going to be Int (spells and arcane pool), Dex, and Strength, with Wis as a dump stat.

Taking a level in monk really just allows a slight increase in unarmed damage while taking some pretty sturdy alignment and equipment limitations.

From a rules perspective, they are both full attack actions, but as a DM I would allow it since the increase attack bonus would be balanced out by trying to deliver the touch attack as a melee attack instead.

[JCedar2212]

To further clarify, this is to say that you could use FoB in conjunction with Spell Combat, but the player would be restricted to:

Spell (delivered in unarmed strike as melee attack from FoB) + Unarmed Strike (FoB).

[Postocles, Thread Necromancer]

Re-raising and already re-re-raised thread? That is some grade-A thread necromancy there.

Well done.