I have a question for Cheapy and Wraithstrike, according to the FAQ a magus no longer receives an extra attack when using Haste as part of a full attack when he is using his Spellstrike class ability. Does this mean he no longer gets the extra 30’ added to his movement as part of the haste spell or part of hasted assault?
•
The 30 feet from haste/hasted assualt is separate from the extra attack gained during a full round action. They should still get everything else from haste since those are not tied into getting a full attack.
edit:I was ninja'd.
As long as we can reasonably understand the intent of a rule it should not have to be rewritten. I have never seen anyone seriously try to argue that a magus would get all of its attacks during spell combat, once it was explained to them.
RAI is generally taken over RAW at most tables anyway so if the devs say we said X, but we meant Y, then go with Y.
If we going to be this pandemic about the rules why not start a thread demanding they rewrite the dead condition.
There are other examples also, where the stricter reading of RAW goes against RAI.
But he gets more than one attack. He gets two. Sure, they could have said "both" but what about any other abilities that grant extra attacks? For example, with cleave you could get more than 2 attacks. The wording is fine.
The problem with that reasoning is, once something is explained to you, the rules as written don't matter at all, since then you are following the explanation, not the rules.
The problem here is, that (at least in my eyes) the rules as written don't support the RAI in any way.
As in, this is no case of "it could go either way" or "the rules are not forbidding it, thus it goes", this is a case of "if one rules not to give Full attack effects (like, but not restricted to, haste), then the rules explicitly spell that iteratives are also excluded".
There is simply no way for the RAW to support the RAI.
There is, and it was pointed out earlier in the thread.
A full-attack action is a type of full-round action. Wraithstrike's earlier quote of SKR (quoting the CRB) makes it pretty clear; it supports both the RAW and the RAI. The CRB actually states "...you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." Spell Combat is a full-round action (meaning that it allows all iterative attacks from wielding two weapons, a double weapon, or from BAB); however, it is not a full-attack action (a specific type of full-round action), and therefore cannot benefit from Haste (since it requires the specific "full-attack action" full-round action).
RAW and RAI are synonymous in this case. Could they perhaps package all of it up neatly in one place? Sure. Is it necessary? I don't really think so, but I have nothing against it if they do.
I'm sorry, but that line just says that the iteratives REQUIRE a full round action, not that every full round action GRANTS them, while the Glossary entry about BAB specifies that they are only granted on the specific action "Full attack action".
Otherwise every full round action (like Coup de grace etc) would grant the additional attacks, which they clearly don't.
Which by the way was also not what SKR argued about, all he tried to do was to show that Spellcombat being a Full Round Action does not make it a Full Attack, which is completely clear.
I'm sorry, but that line just says that the iteratives REQUIRE a full round action, not that every full round action GRANTS them, while the Glossary entry about BAB specifies that they are only granted on the specific action "Full attack action".
Otherwise every full round action (like Coup de grace etc) would grant the additional attacks, which they clearly don't.
Which by the way was also not what SKR argued about, all he tried to do was to show that Spellcombat being a Full Round Action does not make it a Full Attack, which is completely clear.
Are you saying that it is not Paizo's intent to give you all of the attacks?
Yes or no?
Just to be clear I am asking what you believe the intent is. I am not asking you about RAW.
If the explanation of rules is not good for understand how to follow rules then you're just chasing your tail. What I said was accurate and true. There are plenty of instances where other things besides BAB and haste grant extra attacks that work with spell combat. The best choice of wording was one to include all potential attacks you get at that moment in time which can change from build to build and situation to situation.
Otherwise every full round action (like Coup de grace etc) would grant the additional attacks, which they clearly don't.
Also not all full round actions work the exact same way, so that logic is false. As an example charge is a special use of a full round action which calls out a single attack.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
I'm pretty sure (from past experience, the fact pretty much everyone up to now went the "all" interpretation (including James Jacob) and the discussions on the board) their intent is to give them, but the rules, after applying the FAQ, don't support it.
The text of the ability does only allow for "all or nothing", so after the FAQ says it is not all leading to nothing.
Don't understand me wrong, I don't have a problem with unclear RAW in general, but when the RAW goes completely against the RAI, I feel the need to point it out and would advise to change it (the RAW, not the RAI).
If the devs actually do change anything is their call though.
...while the Glossary entry about BAB specifies that they are only granted on the specific action "Full attack action". Otherwise every full round action (like Coup de grace etc) would grant the additional attacks, which they clearly don't.
The term "full-round action" is a category that contains a number of other actions. The specifics of how those 'sub'-actions behave is dependent on their specific descriptions. Just because one specific example of a full-round action grants a certain benefit doesn't mean that every other action that falls under the "full-round action" category also gets that benefit.
Just because B is A and C is A does not mean B must be C.
|
they cant make spell combat into a full atack action as a full atack action is already defined!
what they could do is change "all of your attacks" into Your atacks only including those gained by your BAB.
If they wanted to hit the magus with the nerf bat then they should change somthing els.
you cast a spell and can stil attack, when you gain BAB+6 you gain an aditional attack in spell combat. And so on for BAB11 and 16
this would be alot simpler and stil solid abilety! I do think this is what they want it to be tho!
And if the rule was written that way spell combat and spellstrike wouldn't work as they do today as the "free" attack from casting a tough ranged spell isn't part of your BAB sequence.
It need to be written a bit better than that.
They could also just rely on their readers not being anal pedants that refuse to understand what's clearly the intent.
But that may be too much to ask.
True, but the problem is that you need only 1 guy on 100 trying to exploit a loophole in how the rules are written to push the others in being pedants on how rules should be written.
So long as you play within your circle of friends it isn't a problem, as soon as you go to a convention or play with different groups rule comprehension and uniformity is important.Houserules are a good thing when you are aware that they are houserules. A bad thing when who use them is sure that they are what the rulebook say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not see how the extra attack from haste is out of balance. The magus does not get to use spellstrike twice or cast an extra spell. He increases the number of iterative attacks available when using Spell Combat by one.
Anytime you attack more than once, it is considered a Full Attack action according to the rules with some feat exceptions. I don't expect the developers to cover every single instance involving feats or special abilities. That would be absurd.
In the case of Spell Combat, I think the haste attack should apply as the idea behind it is using your full iterative attacks using a weapon in one hand with a spell in the off-hand. I don't see why haste or speed wouldn't enhance the base number of iterative attacks same as it does for every other class.
I don't consider it imbalanced. One extra iterative attack isn't going to be anymore effective than an extra iterative attack for a rogue with sneak attack, an archer with bow, a two-hander fighter, a paladin using Smite Evil, and the like. Each one of those classes abilites are not stopped by energy resistance, spell immunity, spell resistance, readied actions to stop spellcasting, or the like.
The magus is also limited in the number of spells he can use with spellstrike. And limited in the number of times he can use it according to spells per day. He also has no options to move and take a full attack either without further limiting himself.
I see zero balance problems with an extra attack. I don't consider it a smart decision concerning the ability from the developers. It's a sloppy FAQ that didn't take into account the abilities of the Magus in my opinion. Unless I see the Magus ability rewritten stating only base iterative attacks or something of the kind, I'm allowing all attacks including a haste attack if conditions apply. Basically as I see it the Magus gets a full attack action with his main-hand weapon and an off-hand attack with a spell. If two-weapon fighters get a haste attack, I see zero reason to deny the Magus with his mainhand weapon.
I do not see how the extra attack from haste is out of balance. The magus does not get to use spellstrike twice or cast an extra spell. He increases the number of iterative attacks available when using Spell Combat by one.
My guess is that its because you can combine spellstrike with spell combat, and spellstrike gives a free attack already. With haste you have 2 extra attacks on a character designed to do burst damage.
I have already seen complaints of a magus one-shotting PC's in PFS, and that was without 2 extra attacks. Now I don't play PFS, but I am sure if the magus was to get more attacks this would happen more and they might over-nerf it. I think the ability is fine as is for now.
I always agreed with the RAW and the explanation SKR gave before. Full Attack and Full Round are not the same, it's not like TWF/etc it's ROUGHLY like TWF/etc (so it was always intended to be a little different from them).
I had assumed they'd modify RAW to match what (strongly seemed to be) the original RAI, that a key buff spell, weapon enchant, and arcana should be usable by Magi. [Edit: during spellcombat, their prime class feature]
For whatever reason the powers that be went a different way, but what has always been the RAW of it, and did have some RAI justification before.
Did they clean it up perfectly? No. Did they clean it up pretty well? Yeah, especially with SKRs later comments, they did.
I look up, the sky isn't falling. I may not be 100% happy, but of dozens of classes the Magus, if not in my top 4, is still in my top 6 or 7, so I don't think they killed the class. It does feel like they went the direction they did at least partially for balance [edit: 'nerf''ing I guess], but they're the devs, right or wrong that's, you know, their job. At least paizo cleans rules up at all. That's something maybe 1 in 4 game makers try and do, tops. If this did end up seriously hurting the class they'd change it again, but I don't see that happening, and this wasn't that bad of a nerf.
Guess I'll just have to have the cleric use BoF on me now when I play a Magus, and see what fun can be had from free metamagics on my L1 and 2 spells.
|
Just to Spell this out for you a Magus using Spell Combat is actually using the Effect of haste already.
Incorrect
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
A magus using spell combat is no more benefiting from a haste effect than a character using two weapon fighting.
I'm pretty sure (from past experience, the fact pretty much everyone up to now went the "all" interpretation (including James Jacob) and the discussions on the board) their intent is to give them, but the rules, after applying the FAQ, don't support it.
The text of the ability does only allow for "all or nothing", so after the FAQ says it is not all leading to nothing.
Don't understand me wrong, I don't have a problem with unclear RAW in general, but when the RAW goes completely against the RAI, I feel the need to point it out and would advise to change it (the RAW, not the RAI).
If the devs actually do change anything is their call though.
You did not answer my question.
@Reecy: You don't get an additional action from Spell Combat.
You get the same free touch attack that every caster gets upon casting a touch spell. Spellstrike happens to allow you to instead deliver the touch spell using your light or one-handed weapon (versus their touch AC - which has the benefit of doing weapon damage).
If anything, you're getting the exact same number of 'actions' as a different caster casting a touch spell; by using Spellstrike, you 'lose' the free touch attack, but gain an extra melee swing.
Whereas Haste actually gives you a completely extra melee attack; it's not replacing another action you were already getting on your round.
Xara
Do the math
At level 1 you can do an Attack and Cast
A normal caster gets Cast or Attack
You get an extra action.
I am doing the math.
At level 1, a normal caster casts a touch spell and gets a free touch attack to attempt to deliver the spell. The fact that a touch attack in itself does no damage doesn't alter the fact that it is a 'free' action granted by the casting of the touch spell.
Ok now where is your weapon attack... Your still not writing that in the actions...
You can attack with your sword (action 1)
Then you cast Shocking Grasp (Action 2)
Then you make your Free Touch Attack (action 3)
what a load of bull crap casting shocking grasp and dilivering the spell is one action it is the same for anny caster
the bonus spell combat gives is you get to do all your normal melee attacks befor or afther the spell you cast wich could just as easily be mirror image. but you take a -2 for it
dont forget this is a class abilety it doesnt have to be equaly balanced to a full attack action.
you say other casters have to chose cast ot attack but you are forgetting to mention they get to cast alot more and higher lvl's of spels this is why you cant just compare it to another caster!
and mellee charachters have a full bab progression getting more other class abiletys so nothing is unfair here!
and so is Spellstrike its a class abilety its a boon it alows for this spell to posibly be deliverd trough a weapon deal weapon damage and a high crit range
it just hapens to be 2 class abiletys that work verry well toughter and maybe they should have written them a bit better but that is what we are trying to get done! even if i only get 1 attack combined with a spell ill just kick ass with my inensefied shocking grasp critting at a 15
|
|
Ok now where is your weapon attack... Your still not writing that in the actions...
You can attack with your sword (action 1)
Then you cast Shocking Grasp (Action 2)
Then you make your Free Touch Attack (action 3)Now at level 2
You can attack with your sword (action 1)
Then you cast Shocking Grasp (Action 2)
Then you make your Free Touch Attack, which you now add your weapon damage in (action 3)Now if you read further down it states if you fail your concentration check, you weapon still hits and does damage you just lose the spell.
This is effective a Second attack in which you add a bonus effect.
If you cast a different spell that does not require an attack or does something different you still get a Second action.You are under the effects of an Additional Action which is why haste will not work and you can use it.
So a Magus with 2 Attacks Using Spell Strike with Spell Combat gets 3 attacks as long as he is using Spell Strike... Therefore he gets all Attacks.
A magus with 2 Attacks Not Using spell Strikes gets an Additional Standard Action (The max Spell cast Time is the only reason I worded it this way)
So infact they are under the effects an ability or Feat that grants an additional action and does not allow haste to Stack
You make a couple of statement that I don't see supported in the rules:
1) "Then you make your Free Touch Attack, which you now add your weapon damage in (action 3)"
No, you make a weapon attack that if successful will deliver the spell. Not a touch attack.
2) "Now if you read further down it states if you fail your concentration check, you weapon still hits and does damage you just lose the spell."
Care to cite what piece of the rules allow that? I am very interested as I am playing a magus and I don't see anything stating that.
I think you are mixing the text of spellstrike and spell combat.
3) You are forgetting the -2 to the to hit, the same penalty you get for 2two weapon combat.
So let us redo you list:
You can attack with your sword at -2 on the to hit(action 1)
Then you cast Shocking Grasp and deliver your Free Touch Attack that come with the spell at -2 on the to hit (action 2)
Two actions, the touch attack is a secondary effect of the spell, not an extra action.
Compare with two weapon combat:
You can attack with your main weapon at -2 on the to hit(action 1)
Then you attack with your secondary hand at -2 on the to hit (action 2)
Wait, if I an unusual humanoid with a bite ans 2 claw attack I can make 3 attacks, 3 actions by your logic.
Now at level 2
You can attack with your sword at -2 on the to hit (action 1)
Then you cast Shocking Grasp and deliver your spell with a weapon attack at -2 (action 2)
Still two actions.
I do not see how the extra attack from haste is out of balance. The magus does not get to use spellstrike twice or cast an extra spell. He increases the number of iterative attacks available when using Spell Combat by one.
Anytime you attack more than once, it is considered a Full Attack action according to the rules with some feat exceptions. I don't expect the developers to cover every single instance involving feats or special abilities. That would be absurd.
In the case of Spell Combat, I think the haste attack should apply as the idea behind it is using your full iterative attacks using a weapon in one hand with a spell in the off-hand. I don't see why haste or speed wouldn't enhance the base number of iterative attacks same as it does for every other class.
I don't consider it imbalanced. One extra iterative attack isn't going to be anymore effective than an extra iterative attack for a rogue with sneak attack, an archer with bow, a two-hander fighter, a paladin using Smite Evil, and the like. Each one of those classes abilites are not stopped by energy resistance, spell immunity, spell resistance, readied actions to stop spellcasting, or the like.
The magus is also limited in the number of spells he can use with spellstrike. And limited in the number of times he can use it according to spells per day. He also has no options to move and take a full attack either without further limiting himself.
Actually giving a two-hander an extra attack increases damage by a good amount, and for the magus we don't know how that extra attack will affect future abilities so its better to be cautious.
As for spells per day the magus in my game has never run out of uses. All you have to do is use a first level spell, and everyone's favorite spell for it seems to be shocking grasp.
The fact that you are comparing rogue's sneak attack to any other class as an equal comparison makes me think you are arguing from a point of personal desire, and not due to any comparisons you have taken the time to think through.
Just to be clear I am asking what you believe the intent is. I am not asking you about RAW.
You did not answer my question.I'm pretty sure (from past experience, the fact pretty much everyone up to now went the "all" interpretation (including James Jacob) and the discussions on the board) their intent is to give them, but the rules, after applying the FAQ, don't support it.
I'm pretty sure I did exactly that, but here again in simple terms:
Their intent is clear, but not from the rules text + FAQ alone, but from the context of the forum etc..
Which is bad, because a player should not be required to browse the forum to understand the rules.
And that is all.
So Book + FAQ alone: RAI NOT clear
Book + FAQ + Forum: RAI pretty clear
Just to be clear I am asking what you believe the intent is. I am not asking you about RAW.You did not answer my question.I'm pretty sure (from past experience, the fact pretty much everyone up to now went the "all" interpretation (including James Jacob) and the discussions on the board) their intent is to give them, but the rules, after applying the FAQ, don't support it.
I'm pretty sure I did exactly that, but here again in simple terms:
Their intent is clear, but not from the rules text + FAQ alone, but from the context of the forum etc..
Which is bad, because a player should not be required to browse the forum to understand the rules.
And that is all.So Book + FAQ alone: RAI NOT clear
Book + FAQ + Forum: RAI pretty clear
Got it. :)
Diego You are correct I was merely Counting every Action you get.
And yes I was combining Spell Strike with Spell Combat...
It allows you Swing your weapon and if the Concentration Check Fails you still get your Weapon Damage regardless of whether you succeed or fail your spell.
I was not argueing the Free Action if you read further up Xara was counting the Free Action. All i did was break it down completely.
They tell you it uses the two weapon fighting rules because you are casting with your off hand so you can not duel wield without feats or class features.
If you are an Unnatural Creature and a Level 2 Magus and you did used a 1 claw to attack the other is technically waving around to cast a Spell.
Considering if you use Still Spell you may be able to do claw claw and cast/clawIf you break Spell Combat down it uses the Rule that Rapid fire Uses
Additional Attack at highest base attack -2. Just like Spell Combat. If you add Spell Strike it also takes the -2.In the end all I am saying you are getting a free Standard Action which is why you can not use haste. Or a Free Attack during your Full Round Action in which you get all your Attacks you are still getting an extra attack just like haste
so are you gooing to declare that when you have the pounce abilety you also get a free extra action (a full attack) after charging you dont get the aditional attack from haste?
because thats totaly not true!
the free touch attack is somthing based on the spell and should not be counted into the equasion of spell combat its just an efect of the spell you could have just the same cast a none touch attack spell!
this is where evryone gets the wrong idea of the magus!
so are you gooing to declare that when you have the pounce abilety you also get a free extra action (a full attack) after charging you dont get the aditional attack from haste?
Pounce specifically states that it allows the creature\character to make a "full attack [action]". This was reiterated in FAQ, and thus why Haste grants an extra attack when using Pounce.
Spell Combat's description states that it is a "full-round action". It does not state that it is a full attack action (which is what is required for Haste to grant an extra attack). Thus why the FAQ on Spell Combat states that you don't get that free Haste attack.
|
|
Diego You are correct I was merely Counting every Action you get.
And yes I was combining Spell Strike with Spell Combat...
It allows you Swing your weapon and if the Concentration Check Fails you still get your Weapon Damage regardless of whether you succeed or fail your spell.
I was not argueing the Free Action if you read further up Xara was counting the Free Action. All i did was break it down completely.
They tell you it uses the two weapon fighting rules because you are casting with your off hand so you can not duel wield without feats or class features.
If you are an Unnatural Creature and a Level 2 Magus and you did used a 1 claw to attack the other is technically waving around to cast a Spell.
Considering if you use Still Spell you may be able to do claw claw and cast/clawIf you break Spell Combat down it uses the Rule that Rapid fire Uses
Additional Attack at highest base attack -2. Just like Spell Combat. If you add Spell Strike it also takes the -2.In the end all I am saying you are getting a free Standard Action which is why you can not use haste. Or a Free Attack during your Full Round Action in which you get all your Attacks you are still getting an extra attack just like haste
1) Just to address a previous comment, rapid shot work with haste.
And manyshot too work with haste.And both together work with haste.
And if you are a Monk you can make a flurry of blow, use a Ki point for a extra attack and benefit from haste.
2) Read the FAQs. You need a free hand to use spell combat and you can't use that hand to attack the round in which you cast, regardless of having a spell modified by Still spell or not.
Even more precise the FAQs reiterate that using spell combat you make your attack with the melee weapon or unarmed strike wielded in the other hand (and in alternative the claw in that other hand, even if not mentioned), and only with that other hand, no bite, claw, kick, barbazu beard, et cetera.
So no Claw+bite+spell.
3) A ability available to everyone at level one (two weapon combat) allow 2 attacks in a round. As the to hit modifiers are high there is a feat to reduce them.
Spell combat is a class feature that, when in use, remove the possibility to use that ability, so, the round in which you are using it, you are trading the ability to make two attacks open to everyone with the ability to make one attack with a hand and cast a spell.
Class abilities are meant to be powerful. I feel that Rage is weak? We should nerf it as a enraged barbarian is more powerful than a member of another class that is not using rage?
4) The "free" attack isn't free at all. It is part of casting a spell with a range of touch.
I do not see how the extra attack from haste is out of balance. The magus does not get to use spellstrike twice or cast an extra spell. He increases the number of iterative attacks available when using Spell Combat by one.
My guess is that its because you can combine spellstrike with spell combat, and spellstrike gives a free attack already. With haste you have 2 extra attacks on a character designed to do burst damage.
I have already seen complaints of a magus one-shotting PC's in PFS, and that was without 2 extra attacks. Now I don't play PFS, but I am sure if the magus was to get more attacks this would happen more and they might over-nerf it. I think the ability is fine as is for now.
I DM a magus in my group right now. He does one shot major bad guys. He is doing this without haste. That extra iterative attack is entirely irrelevant and doesn't in anyway balance the Magus if you want to prevent bad guys from being killed quickly.
Why does the Magus one shot people? It is because of particular builds. The shocking grasp build with a scimitar is nasty. Intensify Spell boosting it up to 10d6 with a crit range of 15-20 is what causes a Magus to annihilate an enemy.
Many of the modules are designed with a single BBEG. If that BBEG can't counter the spell the Magus is using, then he's probably toast long before that haste iterative attack hits him.
I've DMed a magus and run with a magus. Both times it was the single attack Spell Strike that caused all the one hit and dead problems. If Pathfinder wanted to fix that, they would remove the easy crit and extra attack with Spell Strike rather than weakly try to claim balance issues by denying the extra iterative attack from haste or a speed weapon.
I really don't care for it when developers try to claim a balance problem for something small and utterly insignificant like an extra iterative attack when the real balance problem is caused by Spell Strike with a wide crit range weapon. It's like complaining about an extra short from a .22 pistol when the real worry is the 40mm chain gun.
Would anyone give a rip about an extra haste attack after the Magus Spell Strike crits someone for a 70 point shocking grasp? Let's just say as a DM I'm not going "Damn. The Magus just did another 16 points on top of that 86 point Spell Strike."
Well, I kinda understand why they did "nerf" it this way and think it is fine.
Especially in upper low to mid level play the burst is high and reducing it by one attack can make sense. 16 less damage are still 16 less damage after all.
Directly targeting spellstrike etc with a big change on the other hand would be quite messy.
Once one starts to change classes for balance reasons it opens obvious compatibility issues between printings, meaning it is only something for absolute emergencies or edition changes.
By clarifying a fringe case in favor of an uncommon, weaker (but quite possibly indeed intended) reading or to errata a "wrong" formulation on the other hand arguably doesn't break consistency, since one can say "it was always meant that way".
Forbidding Haste is thus just the, at least on the first glance, easiest way to slightly limit the one hitting issue.
And that it lets the Magus slightly fall behind in optimized high level play (>15) play is unfortunate, but, as that's outside of PFS and somewhat messily balanced either way, not that important.
The only problem is the (for new player) misleading reasoning...
Well, I kinda understand why they did "nerf" it this way and think it is fine.
Especially in upper low to mid level play the burst is high and reducing it by one attack can make sense. 16 less damage are still 16 less damage after all.Directly targeting spellstrike etc with a big change on the other hand would be quite messy.
Once one starts to change classes for balance reasons it opens obvious compatibility issues between printings, meaning it is only something for absolute emergencies or edition changes.
By clarifying a fringe case in favor of an uncommon, weaker (but quite possibly indeed intended) reading or to errata a "wrong" formulation on the other hand arguably doesn't break consistency, since one can say "it was always meant that way".Forbidding Haste is thus just the, at least on the first glance, easiest way to slightly limit the one hitting issue.
And that it lets the Magus slightly fall behind in optimized high level play (>15) play is unfortunate, but, as that's outside of PFS and somewhat messily balanced either way, not that important.The only problem is the (for new player) misleading reasoning...
It doesn't and won't eliminate the one hit issue. As I said, my players aren't even using haste right now and the Magus is one hit killing plenty with that shocking grasp build. That's why I find the haste limitation a poor attempt at balance. Sorry, it doesn't accomplish anything where the Magus is concerned but retroactively limit their attacks and options in their arcane pool.
Spell Strike is where the problem lies, not haste. So if they aren't going to target Spell Strike, I don't see any reason to target haste. If haste were a problem, there are a whole lot of classes that shouldn't be able to use it including Sneak Attacking rogues, smiting paladins, and two-hander fighters. Those are three off the top of my head that I know from experience benefit an inordinate amount from haste, especially at high levels.
I've seen a Magus score a 50 point crit at 2nd level using shocking grasp and a scimitar. No other class is capable of such a strike save maybe a two-hander fighter using a x3 weapon. Their crit range is a lot tighter.
The lvl 6 Magus I'm DMing in my current group averages 9 points of scimitar damage a hit and 24 points of shocking grasp damage for a 33 point non-crit hit. A critical Spell Strike at 6th level is on average 66 points of damage. 18 physical and 48 electrical. He can cast quite a few of these with Spell Recall. That is quite enough to kill most creatures at 6th level. It's only going to get worse as he gains levels.
So taking away the haste attack doesn't really do much to make the Magus any less effective. It's like a retroactively removing a feather from a ton of stones.
My main beef with the SKR's stance on haste and spell combat is that you can tell that Magus was designed to benefit from haste. The Arcane Pool gives Speed as an option to add to your weapon. One of the Magus Arcane abilities is Hasted Assault. And haste is on the Magus's spell list. If the original design of the Magus was to not allow an extra attack while using Spell Combat, I seriously doubt they would have given the Magus so many options to obtain haste. I doubt they use the words "all of his attacks" in spell combat if they didn't intend haste to benefit the Magus.
It's a copout to limit haste in my opinion when the elephant in the room is the balance problem created by Spell Strike. Spell Strike is one hitting creatures, so they throw a bone to DMs with the no haste with Spell Combat. It won't help much, but I guess it makes a few DMs happy. Myself, I know Spell Strike is the real reason the Magus is one hitting creatures. Until they take care of that, I'm not going to implement a something that wasn't intended.
My Magus player read a build on this very board in the Advice section outlining how to build a deadly scimitar-based shocking grasp build that didn't care whether he was hasted or not to do insane damage. It is very much working when he doesn't fight a creature resistant to electricity. That's a far bigger problem for me as a DM. I much prefer the developers to fix problems rather than create more arguments over whether or not Spell Combat works with haste. So I say to the developers fix the Spell Strike balance issue, then haste won't be an issue.
But do you actually have an easy to apply idea on how to accomplish that?
The only even remotely noninvasive way I could think of would be to remove the scaling of spell strike with the weapons crit range.
And that would still be more or less a complete rewrite of the ability, destroying printing consistency, breaking the vast majority of Magus characters currently in play and opening the Pandora's box of direct nerfs.
Both the amount of whining and demands of FURTHER balance changes to everything on the forum would probably never end.
|
|
I've seen a Magus score a 50 point crit at 2nd level using shocking grasp and a scimitar. No other class is capable of such a strike save maybe a two-hander fighter using a x3 weapon. Their crit range is a lot tighter.
I've seen barbarians crit for 50+ points of damage at 2nd level with a greatsword. Barbarians have far more rage then magi have shocking grasps. Are you planning on nerfing barbarians?
Imagine if the Magus in your game could combine his Spell Combat with a charge and tell me that would be balanced.
Bladed Dash, but the magus is burning limited resources.
@Raith: The haste limitation is a byproduct of the more important limitation of preventing Pounce>Spell Combat and other such combinations. Imagine if the Magus in your game could combine his Spell Combat with a charge and tell me that would be balanced. Furthermore, if said Magus can one-shot an enemy before even getting to the extra attack from Haste... he won't miss it whether he gets it or not. The point is that Spell Combat is a full-round Use Special Ability action, not a Full Attack action. That means the full deal for the sake of parity and consistency; they didn't just say, "Haste doesn't work with Spell Combat" as some random guess. It's based on the manner in which Haste and Full-Attack interact and the categorization of abilities under their respective action types.
Emphasis mine.
Not as much movement as a charge but bladed dash.
On a side note, the whole haste thing has no impact whatsoever on the fact that Spellcombat is not a full attack and can thus not be used with pounce.
Also yeah, bladed dash, force hook charge etc...
It's based on the manner in which Haste and Full-Attack interact and the categorization of abilities under their respective action types.
And basing the ruling on this iteraction without errataing the skill is the whole problem here, since that categorization also catches the iteratives....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, the whole haste thing has no impact whatsoever on the fact that Spellcombat is not a full attack and can thus not be used with pounce.
Also yeah, bladed dash, force hook charge etc...It's based on the manner in which Haste and Full-Attack interact and the categorization of abilities under their respective action types.And basing the ruling on this iteraction without errataing the skill is the whole problem here, since that categorization also catches the iteratives....
I've been following this thread for awhile and (though I fully agree with Teller of Tales on the ambiguity of the full round action) I'm beginning to think this is intentional.
As a Magus player I've personally had the massive 1 shot kills when I crit but just as often that crit didn't kill the BBEG but the follow up iteratives did finish him off. If this clarification DOES make spell combat work as Teller describes then perhaps the Dev's current intent is to reduce the magus down to 1 spell and 1 attack?
This would bring the magus DPR down to manageable levels across the board without requiring anything more then the errata notice they've put out so far. It would take some time to adjust to the new playstyle but overall I could see this as being a functional re-balance for the class.
It's also in-line with the last several faq updates that significantly curtailed the power of some of the new classes.
I'm not a fan of the re-balances but I can see the reasoning if that's what they are doing.
I do not see how the extra attack from haste is out of balance. The magus does not get to use spellstrike twice or cast an extra spell. He increases the number of iterative attacks available when using Spell Combat by one.
My guess is that its because you can combine spellstrike with spell combat, and spellstrike gives a free attack already. With haste you have 2 extra attacks on a character designed to do burst damage.
I have already seen complaints of a magus one-shotting PC's in PFS, and that was without 2 extra attacks. Now I don't play PFS, but I am sure if the magus was to get more attacks this would happen more and they might over-nerf it. I think the ability is fine as is for now.
I DM a magus in my group right now. He does one shot major bad guys. He is doing this without haste. That extra iterative attack is entirely irrelevant and doesn't in anyway balance the Magus if you want to prevent bad guys from being killed quickly.
Why does the Magus one shot people? It is because of particular builds. The shocking grasp build with a scimitar is nasty. Intensify Spell boosting it up to 10d6 with a crit range of 15-20 is what causes a Magus to annihilate an enemy.
Many of the modules are designed with a single BBEG. If that BBEG can't counter the spell the Magus is using, then he's probably toast long before that haste iterative attack hits him.
I've DMed a magus and run with a magus. Both times it was the single attack Spell Strike that caused all the one hit and dead problems. If Pathfinder wanted to fix that, they would remove the easy crit and extra attack with Spell Strike rather than weakly try to claim balance issues by denying the extra iterative attack from haste or a speed weapon.
Well if the magus is already one-shotting BBEG's why does it needs haste for spell combat? <---That was sort of the point I think the devs would also make.
|
|
As a Magus player I've personally had the massive 1 shot kills when I crit but just as often that crit didn't kill the BBEG but the follow up iteratives did finish him off. If this clarification DOES make spell combat work as Teller describes then perhaps the Dev's current intent is to reduce the magus down to 1 spell and 1 attack?
Because that won't be the end result. It will marginalize spell combat outside of in-combat buffs/first round as the magus shifts over to either 2-hand or TWF combat styles. Once the focus shifts from using spell combat, spells that allow for multiple touch attacks (frostbite) will become dominate.
A fundamental shift in magus builds, but not a decrease in DPR.
Well if the magus is already one-shotting BBEG's why does it needs haste for spell combat? <---That was sort of the point I think the devs would also make.
The magus one-shotting BBEGs is something that occurs on a critical hit while expending a limited resource. A resource most players are not going to expend during every encounter.
More common is the magus spamming arcane mark, making concentration checks to pretend he has TWF. A more restrictive ruling on spell combat is going to push the magus from pretending into taking the actual feats. or just two-handing his weapon while hasted. Either way, DPR stays the same but the magi's class defining ability becomes marginalized.
Then why phrase it "cast a spell and make all his attacks" when they mean "cast a spell and make one attack"? A character with +11 Bab has 3 attacks. By default, he must make a full-attack to make all 3. If he makes a full-attack, he has options to increase his total number of attacks from the base but the base is still 3. TWF, Haste, FoB, etc. all add an attack if you make a full-attack. But even if you don't make a full-attack, you have 3 BAB iteratives (regardless of whether you end up using them or not). Spell Combat allows you to make all your attacks even though you're not making a full-attack; specific trumps general. However, the effects which allow added attacks above BAB only apply if you make a full-attack; Spell Combat provides no specific override to that general rule. Since you haven't made a full-attack, you don't get an off-hand attack, a Haste attack, a FoB attack, etc. Hence, all your attacks is still 3 from +11 BAB and Spell Combat allows you to make these 3 attacks. Plain, simple, black and white... well, not white... sort of an off-white, yellowish parchment color... you get the idea. They could change "all his attacks" to "all his BAB iterative attacks", but that would take more space and only make the topic more clear to people who aren't putting enough effort into comprehending it because some of us already figured out what it means and are graciously sharing that knowledge with those still struggling with it.
I think they know the intent. Some don't like the wording, and other don't like the restriction on haste. Now the wording could be better, but the magus does not NEED haste so I see no reason to change how it works.
edit:What I mean is that it does enough damage that changing a rule just to get access to one spell is not justified.
I think the magus is fine with doing the psuedo full attack. It is not hurting for DPR.