How many attacks does a Magus have in Spellcombat?


Rules Questions

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

You say they have been replaced by a specific rule, only that this specific rule is never mentioned?
The only thing given is a vague impression that there should be more than one attack present, from whatever source. The rules on BAB clearly state they are not given.

Don't understand me wrong, I do not and never have doubted that giving them is indeed what they most likely intended and that most people who have played the game and browsed the forum for a long time would arrive at that conclusion. But someone who does ONLY read the rules (+FAQ), maybe for the first time? No and the fact that there were quite a few other people here who followed my argumentation should further stress that.

Saying that the rules do actually spell it out is just plain wrong. The game never defines what "all attacks" means, besides interpretation on basis of past experience (which a new player wont have and whose value is rather low in a rules discussion), the rules give is no reason to assume it means "the BAB given iteratives and only those".
For all we know it could be a rules snipped in there to account for possible future rules.
This doesn't mean that this is the interpretation they intended in any way, but just because it is not intended doesn't make it any less valid (in the context of Book + FAQ).
Which is a problem in my eyes. If the devs also believe this entails any errata is fully their decision, but please stop using changed/incomplete quotes or personal interpretation to claim that the rules say what they don't say.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Teller of Tales wrote:

Yes, lets ignore the rules text where it does not fit our end, start to insult everyone who isn't concurring with you argumentation and declare the argument over by power of your sovereignty.

THAT my friends is how you win an argument...
As far as I can see, not one of your "instructions" every took the rules about BAB (to which the Full Attack Action text even references) into account in any way.

One of us is either deliberately misinterpreting the RAW to achieve a desired outcome or is failing his reading comprehension roll.

Remembering specific > general, we read the first part of spell combat.

Quote:
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

Notice the word attacks is plural and taken in addition to any spell cast. This means I can:

1. take all my attacks (plural)
2. cast a spell

Second sentence:

Quote:
If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty.

I have the possibility of multiple attacks even if my spell fails.

Third sentence:

Quote:
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.

The magus can choose to make his weapon attacks (plural) before casting a spell. If the magus has more than one attack (explicit coverage) the spell cannot be cast between attack rolls (plural).

Given half of the text for spell combat is explaining how the ability functions with multiple attacks, it is very clear that the phrase all of his attacks is NOT referring to a free attack granted by a spell. All verbiage regarding the resolution of multiple attacks is discussing that possibility outside of spell resolution.

Taken in whole: the general rule on iterative attacks being full round only do not apply. The rules you insist on quoting are not relevant to the discussion, they have been replaced with ability specific rules.

Following the same logic, before the FAQs, people has argued that the magus can make all of his secondary attack in conjunction with spell combat, i.e. use a barbazu beard, bite attack, claw attack, tail attack, hair attack if he is a hexcrafter.

But these FAQs make abundantly clear that he is limited to the attack with the weapon in his other hand:

FAQ wrote:

Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13 Back to Top

Magus: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13

So "all of his attacks" is undefined. You could be right, probably you are, but as Teller of Tales has pointed out, the rules, taken as a whole, don't support that interpretation.


Quote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

It is pretty easy to see why so many people assumed that Spell Combat inluded a Full Attack Action with the main hand. It is also natural to progress from "all of his attacks" to including a haste attack given at any other time getting multiple melee attacks is considered a Full Attack Action.

Spell Combat was compared to two-weapon fighting, which also is considered a Full Attack.

It was unclear to at least half the people reading it. Pretending to have some kind of superior comprehension ability because after the fact a developer makes a decision concerning the ability doesn't mean it was clear that "all of his attacks" meant iterative attacks only.


Kazaan wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
I've stated numerous times, how could anyone that has throughly read the Magus class somehow infer "all of his attacks" would not include haste when the Magus has three different methods of obtaining an extra attack from haste.
The same way people read the Titan Mauler Barbarian archetype and question whether Jotungrip affects oversized weapons benefited by Massive Weapons. Or how people read the Two-Handed Fighter archetype and question whether you can Overhand Chop on the first attack of a Full-Attack and then use Backswing for the rest of your attacks. Many classes and archetype have abilities that are mutually exclusive; why should Magus be any exception? How can people think that a Magus should be able to use his "primary class feature" with every other ability he possesses? Because of the fundamentally flawed stance that any class is meant to be a one-trick pony, focusing on one "keystone" ability to the exclusion of all else. Yes, Spell Combat and Spellstrike are very important abilities in the Magus toolkit... but they aren't his only abilities.

Would you like to take a poll as to the number of people that confused Overhand Chop or Jotungrip versus the phrase "all of his attacks."

I certainly had no trouble reading the other two abilities and adjudicating them correctly. When I read Spell Combat and read over all the Magus abilities, it seemed natural to assume "all of his attacks" included a haste attack.

When a Magus is hasted, all of his attacks are his BAB attacks and an extra haste attack, same as for every other class. If I were running you in a game and I said, "Take all of your attacks", would you not take your haste attack or any other extra attacks assuming I meant only your iterative attacks?


Raith Shadar wrote:
When a Magus is hasted, all of his attacks are his BAB attacks and an extra haste attack, same as for every other class. If I were running you in a game and I said, "Take all of your attacks", would you not take your haste attack or any other extra attacks assuming I meant only your iterative attacks?

If I'm performing the Spell Combat action, then yes, I'd presume it to mean iterative attacks with a single weapon only. If I were performing some other action that was a Full Round Use Special Ability or Use Feat action that similarly called out "make all your attacks with a particular weapon", I'd only make the iterative attacks with a single weapon. If it called out "make all your attacks" without the particular weapon limitation, I'd potentially include off-hand attacks as well; I didn't initially think they'd be included, but I found additional info that changed my mind. I'd also include Natural Attacks in this case. But if I'm not performing the Full-Attack action, I wouldn't get Haste bonus attack, Flurry of Blows bonus attacks, or other such sources reliant on making the Full Attack action. Why? Because it's the most logical analysis given the information available.

1) You definitely can make multiple attacks, disregarding whatever additional attack the spell might give in Spell Combat.
2) Haste (and other similarly termed bonuses) are not included.

These two simple facts lead invariably to the conclusion that "all your attacks" refers to BAB iteratives and inherently excludes Haste, FoB bonus attacks, and any other similarly worded bonus attacks. If either of these change (ie. they retract the FAQ on Haste not working with Spell Combat or errata Spell Combat itself), I'll re-evaluate. But until then, the rule is clear and I'm not one to take undue advantage by breaking the rules. So yes, I very well would refuse to make my Haste bonus attack when doing Spell Combat, I'd likely chastise you for being a bad GM because I know the same information has been presented to you, and if you allowed someone else to abuse the ability or, worse, abused it yourself for an NPC, I'd leave the table.


@Kazaan
You still haven't even even recognized the rules text that actually states about that BAB iteratives falls under "other such sources reliant on making the Full Attack action" and "other similar termed bonuses".
You yourself have even brought up another way to legally get far more than one attack in spellcombat, which are, in difference to the BAB iteratives, NOT reliant on an Full Attack Action in any way and may all by itself warrant the part about multiple attacks:

Greater Cleaving Finish

As many attacks as you drop foes, no dependency on a Full Attack Action and usable in Spellcombat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
When a Magus is hasted, all of his attacks are his BAB attacks and an extra haste attack, same as for every other class. If I were running you in a game and I said, "Take all of your attacks", would you not take your haste attack or any other extra attacks assuming I meant only your iterative attacks?

If I'm performing the Spell Combat action, then yes, I'd presume it to mean iterative attacks with a single weapon only. If I were performing some other action that was a Full Round Use Special Ability or Use Feat action that similarly called out "make all your attacks with a particular weapon", I'd only make the iterative attacks with a single weapon. If it called out "make all your attacks" without the particular weapon limitation, I'd potentially include off-hand attacks as well; I didn't initially think they'd be included, but I found additional info that changed my mind. I'd also include Natural Attacks in this case. But if I'm not performing the Full-Attack action, I wouldn't get Haste bonus attack, Flurry of Blows bonus attacks, or other such sources reliant on making the Full Attack action. Why? Because it's the most logical analysis given the information available.

1) You definitely can make multiple attacks, disregarding whatever additional attack the spell might give in Spell Combat.
2) Haste (and other similarly termed bonuses) are not included.

These two simple facts lead invariably to the conclusion that "all your attacks" refers to BAB iteratives and inherently excludes Haste, FoB bonus attacks, and any other similarly worded bonus attacks. If either of these change (ie. they retract the FAQ on Haste not working with Spell Combat or errata Spell Combat itself), I'll re-evaluate. But until then, the rule is clear and I'm not one to take undue advantage by breaking the rules. So yes, I very well would refuse to make my Haste bonus attack when doing Spell Combat, I'd likely chastise you for being a bad GM because I...

I'm not talking about Spell Combat in particular or the FAQ entry.

I'm asking if I as a DM say "Make all of your attacks" and you're hasted, how many attacks are you going to make?

This is about the initial poor wording using "all of your attacks" and examples like "two-weapon fighting with the off hand being a spell". In two weapon fighting, you get the haste attack usually made with the main-hand weapon.

I've decided to go with the FAQ for the moment. I do find it absurd that there are people arguing that it was clear from the beginning. It certainly wasn't clear. RAI more than likely lead most to believe a haste attack was included even if RAW lead to an argument. Pretty natural to think "all of his attacks" included haste given all the abilities involving haste.

This is another example of Paizo and game developers in general not all being on the same page. The guy that designed the class gave Magus a bunch of haste options and wrote "all of his attacks" implying haste worked, while Sean K Reynolds comes along later and says "No. It's a full round action. Forget about ever taking Speed with your Arcane Pool, Hasted Assault, or wasting your time casting the haste spell. We don't even know why those options were included as they are a complete waste of the Magus's arcane points, spell slots, or a Magus Arcana."

I don't care how someone tries to argue, Magus play a certain way. They use Spell Combat as often as they are able. Which basically means they will never benefit from the main benefit of an extra attack from haste and never use Speed from their Arcane Pool. If Sean K. Reynolds is trying to convince us all that that was the original intent when the class was designed, well I flat out don't believe him.


Kazaan wrote:
But if I'm not performing the Full-Attack action, I wouldn't get Haste bonus attack, Flurry of Blows bonus attacks, or other such sources reliant on making the Full Attack action.

Except that making more than one attack EVER is reliant upon making a full-attack action. There is no other way in the rules to make multiple attacks on your turn. You can get cleave attacks (which are essentially a rider on a primary attack) and AoOs, but with an action on your turn, all methods of achieving multiple attacks require you to take the Full Attack action. This includes multiple natural attacks, two-weapon fighting, armor spikes, etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Raith Shadar wrote:
This is another example of Paizo and game developers in general not all being on the same page. The guy that designed the class gave Magus a bunch of haste options and wrote "all of his attacks" implying haste worked, while Sean K Reynolds comes along later and says "No. It's a full round action. Forget about ever taking Speed with your Arcane Pool, Hasted Assault, or wasting your time casting the haste spell. We don't even know why those options were included as they are a complete waste of the Magus's arcane points, spell slots, or a Magus Arcana."

Actually I asked that to SKR and this is the reply:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I have only a question: whoever made Hasted Assault kept that consideration in mind when creating the Arcana?
I'm pretty sure that was Jason, so I assume yes. It's not like a magus doesn't gain any offensive benefit from haste... if he uses hasted assault, he'll probably stick to full attacks for its duration rather than use spell combat... but still has the option of using spell combat if it's better under the circumstances than gaining that extra weapon attack.

Kazaan reading of how it work is right at posteriori, but there was plenty of people with a good mastery of the rules arguing that "all of his attacks" mean everything, from secondary attacks to every possible extra attack you can get, included haste.


It's clear to me that this "faq" was not based on the intent of making things more clear, but was just a "let's hopp on the RAW ship" to get across a nerf to the magus following all the Pathfinder Society complaints of the magus "breaking encounters". It's extremely counterintuitive and it's pretty clearly against the concept of the class.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9r45

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 with a full attack. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.


Well that's clear as mud.
I mean, I would normally be able to make an additional attack with Haste (or similar effects) so doesn't this contradict the original ruling from 4/05 that the opposite is true?


Raith Shadar wrote:
I don't care how someone tries to argue, Magus play a certain way. They use Spell Combat as often as they are able. Which basically means they will never benefit from the main benefit of an extra attack from haste and never use Speed from their Arcane Pool. If Sean K. Reynolds is trying to convince us all that that was the original intent when the class was designed, well I flat out don't believe him.

I agree. It's simply ridiculous to believe that they would add three different haste options for the magus, 2 of which--hasted assault and the speed weapon pool buff--affect the magus only, if they believed he wouldn't get the attack. Taking those abilities without the extra attack is a serious waste of resources.

I don't mind losing the extra attack. The magus has plenty else going for it. Though I do wish they'd replace hasted assault and the speed pool boost with something useful. Throwing/Returning might be fun.


It's hard to believe that people are still having trouble understanding this. You have a single weapon; a Longsword. You can make as many attacks with that longsword as you could make with that longsword in a normal, unmodified Full-Attack. That means no bonus attack from Haste, that means that if you're using Unarmed Strike or a Monk weapon, you don't count higher BAB from Flurry, and you don't count any other effect that specifically benefits full-attack. Just your normal, plain, vanilla BAB iteratives. This isn't rocket science so the only logical conclusion that I can come up with is that people are purposefully acting like they don't understand the concept because a person who's eyes function well enough to see what they're typing can't be THAT blind without some doing on their part.

It's spelled out crystal clear and people still cry out "confusing" and "clear as mud" and "doesn't make sense". I've lost all capacity to even.


meatrace wrote:

Well that's clear as mud.

I mean, I would normally be able to make an additional attack with Haste (or similar effects) so doesn't this contradict the original ruling from 4/05 that the opposite is true?

No. Normally with a full attack you don't have Haste going. How many attacks do you get with an unadulterated full attack? In other words, how many iteratives do you get? That's how many attacks you get with Spell Combat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

While this is still fresh, I want to bring back up this part of spellcombat and hope for an answer.

Lady Melo wrote:

The Myrmidarch Magus's Ranged Spellstrike ability allows it to fire a ranged touch spell through a ranged attack weapon. The scatter property of the dragon pistol prohibits precision damage and those granted by feats. With this combination would you be able to...

A. Not use them together at all (kind of lame)

B. Only affect 1 target with the spell (this one kind of makes sense but the rules support it the least, i think)

C. Hit multiple targets with a single casting of a spell (possibly over power, most likely not intend at all, but you know would be awesome and might be what the rules allow RAW)

Lady Melo wrote:
I guess well I'm at it, the same ability {Ranged Spellstrike} with a double barrel pistol specifically becuase of "Both can be fired at once as the same attack" part, though this one i suspect anything less funny coming out of i was just wondering if there was anything that suggested it might actually hit twice. (Or something odd like being able to hit with both parts of a scorching ray early, though it doesn't say it)

And the text of ranged spellstrike

ranged spellstrike:
At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and deliver it through a ranged weapon attack. Even if the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies the attack.

At 11th level, a myrmidarch using a multiple-target spell with this ability may deliver one ray or line of effect with each attack when using a full-attack action, up to the maximum allowed by the spell (in the case of ray effects). Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost. This ability replaces spell recall and improved spell recall.

scatter weapon:
A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a scatter attack. If any of the attack rolls threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that attack roll alone. A firearm that makes a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls are misfires. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius.

So, to keep this simple, let's use snowball for our example. Single-target touch arrack ranged spell? check. Single missle accompanying the attack? check.

11th level deals with multiple-target spells with multiple attacks. Not looking at that right now.

So, scattering shot attacks all creatures within a cone. Ranged spellstrike delivers the spell to those hit by the attack. Is every hit target in the cone also hit by the spell?


Yes, actually, normally I have haste going.


meatrace wrote:
Yes, actually, normally I have haste going.

You "typically" have haste going. But a normal, unmodified full-attack doesn't include Haste.

Shadow Lodge

Well, it's monday. Anything new for the ranged spellstrike?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There was another FAQ request going regarding the Myrmidarch. I clicked it a while back.

Scarab Sages

Kazaan wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yes, actually, normally I have haste going.
You "typically" have haste going. But a normal, unmodified full-attack doesn't include Haste.

Normally you apply the extra attack from Haste to a Full Attack.

*the word unmodified is something you added. It does not appear in RAW.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Relevant new design team post here.


Artanthos wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yes, actually, normally I have haste going.
You "typically" have haste going. But a normal, unmodified full-attack doesn't include Haste.

Normally you apply the extra attack from Haste to a Full Attack.

*the word unmodified is something you added. It does not appear in RAW.

We're not talking about words appearing in RAW here. The words in RAW are "all your attacks". What we're doing is trying to relate that to something that people can more easily wrap their heads around... that involves the usage of other words to describe what that phrase means. We're talking about how the FAQ clarifies it and people misconstruing what the FAQ means and seeing mirage contradictions because they failed their Will saves due to dumped wisdom scores.

"All Your Attacks = Your iterative attacks acquired by high BAB."
That's the basic meaning of the phrase... however, someone brought up the (stupid) idea that you don't get those extra attacks unless you make a full-attack. The FAQ clarifies:

FAQ wrote:
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

It's talking about "all your attacks" here because that's the phrase that was in question. Haste wasn't in question... that issue was already resolved. So, since "all your attacks" means "the attacks you could normally make in a full-attack" and Spell Combat is not a full-attack, thus doesn't qualify for an extra attack from Haste, the conclusion that a logical brain comes up with is that "all your attacks" means, as the smart people originally understood, "your iterative attacks from your BaB" and, despite it not being a full-attack, specific trumps general so you make your iterative attacks even though it isn't a full-attack... the extra attack from Haste, off-hand attacks, and the like are not iterative attacks. Most of us understood this to begin with. The devs stepped in and clarified it. SKR stepped in and clarified the clarification. And yet, certain individuals still can't get it through their heads that it works this way and doesn't represent a contradiction... I can only attribute this pattern of behavior to playing too much Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, and other spunkgargleweewee games. They rot the brain... stay away from them.

Edit: Looks like we have an errata on the matter now. I'm still waiting on an answer in that thread to a question, but both outcomes result, now, in you getting your haste attack on Spell Combat. Note that this is a reversal of a previous FAQ. It still wasn't a contradiction before and it's still not a contradiction now, though.

Scarab Sages

<--- Does not play FPS games ...... does not even own a console.


i stil think the newer faq is dumb

a=b and b=c would mean without anny consideration that also c=a

and if you can make all of your attack as dooing a full attack action. at the moment you are hasted. all of those attacks include haste!

in the newest faq it doese not state anywhere that all of your attacks when making a full attack action doese not include haste.


Kazaan wrote:
And yet, certain individuals still can't get it through their heads that it works this way and doesn't represent a contradiction... I can only attribute this pattern of behavior to playing too much Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, and other spunkgargleweewee games. They rot the brain... stay away from them.

I don't know, the brain rotting (based on this little quote) doesn't seem to be contained to just FPS players.

=)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You have read the update to the FAQ?
Or you are discussing the old version?

FAQ wrote:

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).

—Pathfinder Design Team, 09/07/13


Hallelujha. Good news indeed, i like they finally took a step toward cleaner rules instead of rules lawyering.


Quote:

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).

well the way they write this seems to me they are now saying Magi DO get the extra attack!

and the example is not considering Haste but that doese not mean it can't be included!

why can't they just say it outright!

Dark Archive

Dekalinder wrote:
Hallelujha. Good news indeed, i like they finally took a step toward cleaner rules instead of rules lawyering.

I especially love the justification. They mentioned that (paraphrased) "it doesn't improve the game or make it any easier for newer players to pick up if a "full attack" and a "full attack action" are different things. So for simplicity the two should be considered identical."

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How many attacks does a Magus have in Spellcombat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.