Somehow, this Faq made Spell Combat more confusing


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:


The Magus get the benefits from Haste. When he is full attacking, like every other character.

People, your maguses (and mine too) has lost some power? Live with it. We were wrong.

So.. never. Got it.

I'm not even playing a magus. Nor am I saying that the ruling is wrong. Just that one of the staple spells to enhance melee damage is not doing so in this case.


Wow...this class. Is the most confusing thing of all time. I'm so glad none of my players are using it.


Skeletal Steve - Have you ever seen a Synthesist Summoner? I've got a fairly inexperienced player running a 15th level one in one of my games, and it can be a real circus. The power level is pretty high too, but it is really the constant confusion which makes that archetype troublesome IMO.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was, quite frankly, clear enough before, and it's crystal clear now. The only logical reason I can find for people competent enough to operate a computer well enough to post these questions and statements claiming the issue is "confusing" and "unclear" and "contradictory" is that they are doing it deliberately in an attempt to exploit features in the rules to their benefit.

Spell Combat allows you to make as many attacks with your designated weapon as you could make with a single weapon in an unmodified, unadulterated full-attack. Haste is a non-issue. Flurry's Bab bonus boosting you over the threshold for another iterative attack is a non-issue. Any other feature that affects your Full-Attack is a non-issue. If your natural BAB is +5 or less, you get 1 attack. +6 to +10 gets you two attacks. So on and so forth. If the spell you cast also happens to give you a weapon attack, that's its own issue and completely segregated from everything else. If your spell is a touch spell, you can deliver it via weapon attack and that is an extra attack because the touch spell combined with spellstrike allows it. You could also just deliver the touch spell normally vs touch AC if you so choose. If you cast some non-attack spell, then the spell is just cast; end of story. If you cast Bladed Dash, the spell specifically gives its own attack (or several attacks in the case of Greater Bladed Dash) and that is its own issue. But regarding the normal allowance of attacks, it goes by the normal, un-fooled-around-with full-attack. Not rocket science. Not brain surgery. Simple.


Skeletal Steve wrote:
Wow...this class. Is the most confusing thing of all time. I'm so glad none of my players are using it.

Just in case one of the Devs reads this and thinks people are generally unsatisfied with the magus class design: No sir. The magus class is a really great and unique take on the magical fighter idea that other classes like eldritch knight have tried to emulate with less flair. We argue about it so much because we like it so much.

I agree that most issues regarding this class have been cleared up satisfactory by now. Sure, I was sad to see Haste go from my spell combat attacks, but I can understand the ruling, and I am sure the others will, too, following the seven stages of grief...

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All the confusion and discontent around Spell Combat and the resulting FAQ's could be easily solved with one minor errata.

Errata full-round to full-attack. The class ability becomes consistent with how every similar ability functions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was, quite frankly, clear enough before, and it's crystal clear now. The only logical reason I can find for people competent enough to operate a computer well enough to post these questions and statements claiming the issue is "confusing" and "unclear" and "contradictory" is that they are doing it deliberately in an attempt to exploit features in the rules to their benefit.

Spell Combat allows you to make as many attacks with your designated weapon as you could make with a single weapon in an unmodified, unadulterated full-attack. Haste is a non-issue. If you cast Bladed Dash, the spell specifically gives its own attack (or several attacks in the case of Greater Bladed Dash) and that is its own issue. But regarding the normal allowance of attacks, it goes by the normal, un-fooled-around-with full-attack. Not rocket science. Not brain surgery. Simple.

First of all. I'm a GM. I have never played a Magus. Secondly, assuming that my confusion about how a class works comes from some nefarious place about exploiting the rules is pretty insulting.

Dosn't Haste give an extra attack specifically when you use the Full Attack Action? So if Spell Combat is a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from Haste, right? But the Devs are saying no. See the confusion?


Artanthos wrote:

All the confusion and discontent around Spell Combat and the resulting FAQ's could be easily solved with one minor errata.

Errata full-round to full-attack. The class ability becomes consistent with how every similar ability functions.

Yes. Please try to keep things as consistent as possible.


It really isn't that big a deal nor is it confusing. Nor does it nerf the use of haste.
First in the case of spells like chill touch or its like the spell portion of spell combat doesn't have to be the first thing you do.

So lvl 6 magus casts chill touch gets 6 charges. Uses free attack round 1 followed by 2 melee attacks. Round 2 he has 3 touches left does 2 attacks then sell combat. He used 5 of his six chill touches then casts a new spell. Looses 1 chill touch.

Now if he was hasted, round 1 is the same, in round 2 he full attacks and makes 3 attacks using all his chill touches.

It works fine it doesn't end the world or remotely cripple a strong class. As a general rule if your concerned about getting full use of lvl 1 spells maybe you shouldn't base your whole combat ruoutine on a lvl 1 spell.


Skeletal Steve wrote:

First of all. I'm a GM. I have never played a Magus. Secondly, assuming that my confusion about how a class works comes from some nefarious place about exploiting the rules is pretty insulting.

Dosn't Haste give an extra attack specifically when you use the Full Attack Action? So if Spell Combat is a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from Haste, right? But the Devs are saying no. See the confusion?

Oh, I see exactly where the "confusion" is. "So if Spell Combat is a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from Haste, right?" Let me expand that out:

"So if Spell Combat (gets the attacks of) a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from (a Full Attack modified by Haste), right?"

What part of "unmodified, unadulterated Full-Attack" is not getting through to people here? How can you, with a straight face, claim that an unmodified Full Attack includes the bonus attack when modified by Haste?

Then, there are those who claim that the presence of 3 sources of a Haste bonus available to a Magus means that they must be able to use Haste in conjunction with Spell Combat. That predicates on the idea that Magus is and ought to be played as a one-trick pony. Does that mean that Magus should have nothing but Touch Spells as well so that all his spells work with Spellstrike? Does that mean that a Sorcerer with the Efreeti bloodline must only learn Fire spells? Does that mean that a Monk should gain Pounce so that he can combine Fast Movement with Flurry of Blows? Does that mean that a 2-h Fighter is not permitted to take TWF feats and be a "switch hitter" between 2-h and dual-wielded weapons? A Magus also gets increased move speed from Haste... I guess that means Spell Combat should be made a Standard Action so the Magus can also benefit from enhanced Move Speed when he uses SC. After all, Magus is prohibited from making a normal Full-Attack. See my confusion?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:


What part of "unmodified, unadulterated Full-Attack" is not getting through to people here? How can you, with a straight face, claim that an unmodified Full Attack includes the bonus attack when modified by Haste?

Then, there are those who claim that the presence of 3 sources of a Haste bonus available to a Magus means that they must be able to use Haste in conjunction with Spell Combat. That predicates on the idea that Magus is and ought to be played as a one-trick pony. Does that mean that Magus should have nothing but Touch Spells as well so that all his spells work with Spellstrike? Does that mean that a Sorcerer with the Efreeti bloodline must only learn Fire spells? Does that mean that a Monk should gain Pounce so that he can combine Fast Movement with Flurry of Blows? Does that mean that a 2-h Fighter is not permitted to take TWF feats and be a "switch hitter" between 2-h and dual-wielded weapons? A Magus also gets increased move speed from Haste... I guess that means Spell Combat should be made a Standard Action so the Magus can also benefit from enhanced Move Speed when he uses SC. After all, Magus is prohibited from making a normal Full-Attack. See my confusion?

No. But I can see your condescension.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was, quite frankly, clear enough before, and it's crystal clear now. The only logical reason I can find for people competent enough to operate a computer well enough to post these questions and statements claiming the issue is "confusing" and "unclear" and "contradictory" is that they are doing it deliberately in an attempt to exploit features in the rules to their benefit.

Spell Combat allows you to make as many attacks with your designated weapon as you could make with a single weapon in an unmodified, unadulterated full-attack.

What I like is how you're so confrontational and insulting, and doing it based on the way that the words you are bolding here ever exist in the rules in any way at all.

Here's the full text:

Magus wrote:
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.

Note how it says "unmodified" or "unadulterated".

Oh. Wait. It doesn't. You made that up. It's not there. It is not stated. Heck, it doesn't say "full attack". It says "all of his attacks", and it says "much like two-weapon fighting".

Everyone agrees that two-weapon fighting would let you get an extra primary-hand attack from haste, right?

Look, I've never played a magus. I have no intention of playing a magus. I've only ever seen one in a PF game once, and we were fighting against him. The accusations of bad faith are insulting, and totally inappropriate, and that's amplified by the fact that the thing you are stressing so heavily is not present in the rules in any way, shape, or form.

The FAQ doesn't really say that either; it just says "normally". If SKR says that means "not including any current circumstantial modifiers", then that is presumably what it means. But if you had asked me what it meant in the absence of that statement, I would have assumed it meant "what you would get if you were not using spell combat". And what you would get if you were not using spell combat would be an extra attack at your highest bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe that this is under discussion - again. This is really simple:

Are you using an ability that specifically states that it is a full attack action? Not that it is like a full attack action, but actually is a full attack action?

If yes, then you get Haste attack.

If no, then you don't get Haste attack.

If no, and you dislike, house rule it and move on.

Sczarni

I don't understand why there is still arguing. To the people that claimed the FAQ wasn't clear, we've answered your questions. What is left to explain?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It does make sense.

Spell combat is a full round action.
Spell combat is not a full attack action.
Spell combat gives you the number of attacks you'd get if you were taking a full attack action.
Haste only triggers when you're actually taking a full attack action.
Because spell combat is not actually taking a full attack action, haste does not trigger.

Is there a reason for which Spell Combat is not a full attack action, even though everything else similar (flurry, TWF, etc.) is a full attack action?

I think there are two separate questions here:
1. What does the current text mean?
2. Considered merely in terms of game balance, would it be better or worse for spell combat to gain an extra attack when hasted?

To put it another way: Can you identify any other circumstance in PF where you get to make a full set of iterative attacks, but your action is not considered "a full attack"? I can't. And I would hesitate to introduce the special concept of "a thing which lets you make a full set of iterative attacks, but is not a full attack action", without some kind of compelling argument that, without such a thing, the game would be broken.

To the best of my knowledge, "using spell combat" is the only instance in PF of a circumstance where (1) you get extra attacks based on BAB, (2) you do not get an additional attack if hasted.

Sczarni

Read my posts earlier. I answered this question already.


Nefreet wrote:
I don't understand why there is still arguing. To the people that claimed the FAQ wasn't clear, we've answered your questions. What is left to explain?

See my post asking SKR questions. Basically, this ruling is highly surprising to me, because so far as I can tell, this is a brand new category of actions without anything else in the rules similar to it. This, in fact, directly contradicts the statement that spell combat is "much like" two weapon fighting, because two weapon fighting doesn't preclude getting an extra attack from haste when making a full set of iterative attacks.

So what's left to explain is why this class needed what appears to me to be a completely unique new combat mechanic which differs from every other combat mechanic only in that it is a full set of iterative attacks which does not benefit from haste.

Alternatively, can you present:

* any other differences between this and a full attack?
* any other abilities which work that way?

Because I can't. And I haven't memorized all the rules or anything, but this seems really weird to me.

Sczarni

Read through the thread again, slower, please.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:

To put it another way: Can you identify any other circumstance in PF where you get to make a full set of iterative attacks, but your action is not considered "a full attack"? I can't. And I would hesitate to introduce the special concept of "a thing which lets you make a full set of iterative attacks, but is not a full attack action", without some kind of compelling argument that, without such a thing, the game would be broken.

To the best of my knowledge, "using spell combat" is the only instance in PF of a circumstance where (1) you get extra attacks based on BAB, (2) you do not get an additional attack if hasted.

Thus the lack of consistency in the rules, resulting in much confusion.


Nefreet wrote:
Read my posts earlier. I answered this question already.

I don't think you did.

And since you do think you did, and I have re-read your posts and still don't get it, we must consider possible explanations.

1. I'm stupid. I suspect this is an indefensible position; I have too much track record of demonstrated ability to think and read.
2. You didn't make the point as clearly as you thought.
3. My question is not what you thought it was.

Could you point out to me the place in this thread where you identified a specific example of another circumstance under which you get iterative attacks from BAB, but do not get an additional attack if hasted? I can't think of a single circumstance other than full attacks and spell combat where you get iterative attacks. Everything else that gives iterative attacks appears to be considered a full attack action.

Because I've seen you hammering over and over on "but this isn't a full attack", but that is not in any way relevant to my question. If you don't immediately see the truth of this, then I tell you true, you do not understand what my question is. In which case, I'm not the one who needs to read more carefully.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When a Monk uses Flurry of Blows, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Ranger uses two weapons, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Magus uses Spell Combat, he is casting a spell and attacking. By it's very definition, that is not performing a full attack action.

One of these things is not like the others.


Artanthos wrote:
seebs wrote:

To put it another way: Can you identify any other circumstance in PF where you get to make a full set of iterative attacks, but your action is not considered "a full attack"? I can't. And I would hesitate to introduce the special concept of "a thing which lets you make a full set of iterative attacks, but is not a full attack action", without some kind of compelling argument that, without such a thing, the game would be broken.

To the best of my knowledge, "using spell combat" is the only instance in PF of a circumstance where (1) you get extra attacks based on BAB, (2) you do not get an additional attack if hasted.

Thus the lack of consistency in the rules, resulting in much confusion.

YES. Again, it's not the matter of understanding WHAT the ruling is, it is the WHY. Why is there a rules exception here? Does this benefit the game somehow? Every exception from the base ruleset is yet another thing that has to be remembered or ponderously looked up when there is confusion at the game table.


Nefreet wrote:

When a Monk uses Flurry of Blows, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Ranger uses two weapons, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Magus uses Spell Combat, he is casting a spell and attacking. By it's very definition, that is not performing a full attack action.

One of these things is not like the others.

This continues to not answer my questions:

#1: Is there any other circumstance in the entire game in which you make iterative attacks, but your action is not a full attack?
#2: Is there any distinction between making all your iterative attacks, and "a full attack", other than the extra attack from haste?

The actual text of the full attack action says nothing about "all you are doing is attacking, nothing else". All it says is that if for any reason you could make more than one attack, you must use a full round action to take those attacks.

To put it another way: Consider a selection of other standard actions. "Use a spell trigger device, like a wand." "Drink a potion." And so on. And imagine that, for each of these, we have some special ability (maybe a feat, maybe a class feature), which says:

Do That Too (Ex): This ability works much like two-weapon fighting. As a full-round action, you can take all the attacks you would normally get from a full attack action. You can also <do X>.

You have offered two conflicting rationales. One is that, no matter what that other action is, you never benefit from haste with these abilities, because they are not full attack actions. The other is that you benefit from haste with these abilities exactly and only when the other thing is an attack, because "All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else."

Seriously, I did not think I was making it unclear, or subtle, or in any way confusing, what I am confused by. I thought I had made it clear enough that what I am lacking is any previous example in all of PF's rules of a thing which takes all iterative attacks from BAB, but is not a "full attack".


seebs wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

When a Monk uses Flurry of Blows, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Ranger uses two weapons, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Magus uses Spell Combat, he is casting a spell and attacking. By it's very definition, that is not performing a full attack action.

One of these things is not like the others.

This continues to not answer my questions:

#1: Is there any other circumstance in the entire game in which you make iterative attacks, but your action is not a full attack?
#2: Is there any distinction between making all your iterative attacks, and "a full attack", other than the extra attack from haste?

#3: What happens if a character decides to attempt a Combat Maneuver, such as Sunder, with the extra Hasted action?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"seebs wrote:

This continues to not answer my questions:

#1: Is there any other circumstance in the entire game in which you make iterative attacks, but your action is not a full attack?
#2: Is there any distinction between making all your iterative attacks, and "a full attack", other than the extra attack from haste?

1. Is there any other circumstance in the entire game in which you make iterative attacks and cast a spell with a standard action casting time?

2. Is there any distinction between using your full round to attack and using your full round to get as many attacks as you can while also doing something else?

Sczarni

Sunder, Disarm, and Trip can always be made in place of a melee attack, even a Hasted one.

Sczarni

Quote:
Seriously, I did not think I was making it unclear, or subtle, or in any way confusing, what I am confused by. I thought I had made it clear enough that what I am lacking is any previous example in all of PF's rules of a thing which takes all iterative attacks from BAB, but is not a "full attack".

To echo your response, then, WHY do you need another example? If there is or is not another example, what does it matter? You have several people now that have explained to you why Haste does not work with Spell Combat. Why continue to frustrate everyone?


Nefreet wrote:
Sunder, Disarm, and Trip can always be made in place of a melee attack, even a Hasted one.

"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

So a spell in Spell Combat is much like a Two Weapon Fighter subbing out his offhand attack for one of those combat maneuvers, right? These are specifically not attacks, but yet you can use them with the Full Attack/Full Round Action.

Sczarni

Quote:
These are specifically not attacks

Incorrect.

Sczarni

So, I ask, again, if you accept the explanations we've given you regarding Haste and Spell Combat, what is the purpose of continuing this argument? Seriously. Accept it and move on.


Nefreet wrote:
Quote:
These are specifically not attacks
Incorrect.

Combat Maneuvers are Attacks? I thought they were combat maneuvers. So if they are attacks, could I Feint as an attack as part of a full attack action? Clearly I can't, as that is only pointed out to work with special maneuvers that are equal to attacks.

Some exceptions to the Full Attack action benefit from Haste, (Trip, Sunder, etc) others arbitrarily do not. (Spell Combat) But use language that do "Much like two weapon fighting"

It's a confusing, nonsensical mess. It needs to be brought in line with how Full Attacks are handled everywhere else. I can't even try to imagine explaining this to a player.

Sczarni

Yet everyone else does it just fine...

Sczarni

Your examples are riddled with inaccuracies, so I will assume you are new to Pathfinder. Take some time to read through the Core Rulebook, and the FAQs, and come back in a few months. I doubt you'll have any troubles if you approach the rules with an open mind, and don't argue incessantly when people try to explain them to you.


Nefreet wrote:
Yet everyone else does it just fine...

Apparently not. As there are more than a few people in this thread who disagree with this ruling on the same point about it being a strange exception to the general rule.


Nefreet wrote:
Your examples are riddled with inaccuracies, so I will assume you are new to Pathfinder. Take some time to read through the Core Rulebook, and the FAQs, and come back in a few months. I doubt you'll have any troubles if you approach the rules with an open mind, and don't argue incessantly when people try to explain them to you.

Ad hominem, eh? Cute.

Sczarni

Incorrect again, that was legitimate advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look, I understand the current rule and how it is supposed to work. But I'm with seebs et al. regarding the confusion of why Spell Combat isn't just changed to a Full Attack Action instead of a Full Round Action. I was actually going to start a thread regarding that exact topic in House Rules, because I think it would fix a lot of issues. If nothing else it seems like it would be more consistent.

If players without rules nitpicking experience consistently assume that an ability works a certain way, even if they are wrong, it says that it is probably the way the ability should work. Or it needs a rewrite to be more clear.

Obviously, this FAQ clarified intent (sort of, if you take into account SKRs added input it becomes very clear). But I don't see any reason to not just make Spell Combat a FAA and be done with it.

Sczarni

BECAUSE SPELL COMBAT IS *NOT* A FULL ATTACK ACTION


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It does make sense.

Spell combat is a full round action.
Spell combat is not a full attack action.
Spell combat gives you the number of attacks you'd get if you were taking a full attack action.
Haste only triggers when you're actually taking a full attack action.
Because spell combat is not actually taking a full attack action, haste does not trigger.

I'm fine with spell combat denying you haste, but if you want spell combat to deny you haste you really need to reword this FAQ to not reference the FAA.

The plainest reading for this FAQ is that spell combat gives you the attacks you'd get if you full attacked. You would get an extra attack from haste if you full attacked. Ergo spell combat benefits from Haste.

This is a terrible FAQ not because it's a bad ruling. It's a terrible FAQ because it does not say what you seem to think it says.

Please reword this FAQ to not reference full attacks if you aren't going to change the ruling. It's not like it's an errata that needs to fit into pagination constraints.


Nefreet wrote:
BECAUSE SPELL COMBAT IS *NOT* A FULL ATTACK ACTION

Obviously. Because that is the way the ability is written. Perhaps you missed the part where I implied Houserule.

Also, you seem rather angry. Just chill for a minute and think about the fact that I'm not disagreeing with you for how the rules currently stand, but instead am suggesting that the rules would make more sense to some of us with a rewrite. That is all.

Liberty's Edge

Skeletal Steve wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Quote:
These are specifically not attacks
Incorrect.

Combat Maneuvers are Attacks? I thought they were combat maneuvers. So if they are attacks, could I Feint as an attack as part of a full attack action? Clearly I can't, as that is only pointed out to work with special maneuvers that are equal to attacks.

Some exceptions to the Full Attack action benefit from Haste, (Trip, Sunder, etc) others arbitrarily do not. (Spell Combat) But use language that do "Much like two weapon fighting"

It's a confusing, nonsensical mess. It needs to be brought in line with how Full Attacks are handled everywhere else. I can't even try to imagine explaining this to a player.

Maybe reading the rules will help you?

PRD wrote:


Combat Maneuvers

During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.

Feint is a skill use that take a standard action.

PRD wrote:


Feint

Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check.

They are both in the combat section of the rules, but the header is different.


Nefreet wrote:
Incorrect again, that was legitimate advice.

Oh. I am sure it was. I really am.

On topic the simplest solution to end some of the confusion around the Magus is to simply make Spell Combat a Full Attack Action and be done with it.

Liberty's Edge

Aureate wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
BECAUSE SPELL COMBAT IS *NOT* A FULL ATTACK ACTION

Obviously. Because that is the way the ability is written. Perhaps you missed the part where I implied Houserule.

Also, you seem rather angry. Just chill for a minute and think about the fact that I'm not disagreeing with you for how the rules currently stand, but instead am suggesting that the rules would make more sense to some of us with a rewrite. That is all.

Aureate, when something has been explained several times and people stubbornly reply "it is not so" you become a bit aggressive.

Add that some of the posters show hole in rules knowledge and 0 willingness to check them when someone point out that what they say don't follow the rules.

There is a very simple solution at this point, flagging the thread as Wrong section of the forum. When it has gone in the suggestion/homebrew section of the forum they will have all the rights to say: "I don't like this, I will play my way, and my way is ..."

Going to do that now.

Sczarni

If text written in bold, italicized letters conveys emotion to you, allow me to clarify that the purpose of that brief string of words was to emphasize a point that people keep missing.

Spell Combat, the FAQ, and the full attack action do not need a rewrite. People that misunderstand them simply need to listen to the answers they are given over and over again when they asked the question originally.

"Daddy, can I have some candy?"
"No."
"Mommy, can I have some candy?"
"No."

*child grabs some candy and eats it*

"We told you, no candy!"
"I know, so I decided to call it something else!"


Diego Rossi wrote:


Maybe reading the rules will help you?

Maybe perhaps being less condescending would help you? Just saying.

This is getting wildly off topic. But you are indeed correct about Feint not being a combat maneuver. I mentioned it more for the fact that it makes the most sense to be substituted for an attack, but is not. But yet something like a trip attempt, can be.

A Dirty Trick can not, but a Trip or Disarm or Sunder can be substituted as an attack. So a Haste would generate an additional Trip, Disarm or Sunder, but not a Dirty Trick or even a Feint (Which seems like the best use of being able to move faster than your opponent and feint one way before stabbing the other with something like Haste)

Back on point. I understand that per Spell Combat, haste would generate nothing despite it being a full round action "much like the two weapon fighting rules" The point is that it is unnecessarily confusing. The whole thing is.

Also, please note that if this ruling is correct, than the Hasted Assault Arcana and the inclusion of Haste itself on the Magus List seems rather strange.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcasters/magus.html#ha sted-assault

EDIT: Also this seems to directly contradict James Jacobs. Which is not impossible as he is the creative director.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=513?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#25619


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Spell Combat, the FAQ, and the full attack action do not need a rewrite. People that misunderstand them simply need to listen to the answers they are given over and over again when they asked the question originally.

The whole purpose of a FAQ is to prevent misunderstandings. If people are misunderstanding your FAQ it's objectively a failure as a FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

skeletal Steve,
Why? The Magus can still full attack and benefit from haste, he just can't use spell combat. As an arcane fighter class, haste is still incredibly useful.
Use hasted assault/haste. Cast a long lasting touch spell. Go to town with full attacks with your charged touch spell.

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:
BECAUSE SPELL COMBAT IS *NOT* A FULL ATTACK ACTION

But it would be if an errata was made. Which was the suggestion.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:

skeletal Steve,

Why? The Magus can still full attack and benefit from haste, he just can't use spell combat. As an arcane fighter class, haste is still incredibly useful.
Use hasted assault/haste. Cast a long lasting touch spell. Go to town with full attacks with your charged touch spell.

The magus receives full benefit from Haste only when he sets aside the class abilities that define the magus.

It was not the original RAI or how the class was played by the majority of people for the past two years.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There needs to be a new forum where people can go cry when the rules don't work like how they want them to.

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Somehow, this Faq made Spell Combat more confusing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.