im fine with haste not working on my magus as im already dooing alot more damage than most of my party and stil casting spells and have awsome knowledge rolls.
so that said.
i do think they should change either the wording of spell combat to a more specific state ment like.
when you do spell combat you get 1 attack and an aditional attack at BAB+6/11/16/20
So that there is no way you can get more than the itteratives and there is NO confusion!! OR just change the wording of "all of your attacks to attacks as a full attack action. just like flurry of blows is worded!
Yeah I love when people question my motives and suggest they aren't what I say they are.
Because you know that's what I love to do to others.
Instead of simply explaining my point from different positions over and over, or simply leaving it alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I think the point has been argued enough, everybody knows everybody's positions, even if they differ. The devs do not seem likely to change the wording again soon, so lets give it a rest and go back to the rules questions.
A few other things are still unclear to me regarding spell combat:
- Core rulebook p. 182 describes natural attacks, and how they can be combined with regular attacks (mind the errata). Bizarrely, this is done in the section for standard actions, not for full-round actions.
That in turn leads to the description of combining natural attacks with regular attacks not referencing the full-attack action. Am I right to assume that that still means I cannot use spell combat with a spell and a weapon and add a bunch of secondary natural attacks from my polymorphed form? (And that although this is written under Standard Actions, you only get one natural attack with a Standard action unless you can pounce?)
- When I cast a touch spell, I get a free touch attack (or weapon attack with spellstrike). Core rulebook p. 185 says "You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target." Do I understand this correctly that when using spell combat with spellstrike, I can cast a touch spell, take a 5-foot step, attack with the free weapon attacks including the touch charge, and then make my other normal attacks? Or does "take your move" only mean "use a move action to move", which we don't have in a full-round action?
- The FAQ cleared up that natural attacks and unarmed strikes can be used with spellstrike. Do we have an official word yet about whether the Arcana Pool enhancement can be used with unarmed strikes? With a natural attack? With a monks unarmed strike, whose "counts both as natural and manufactured" rules is seen by some as implying it should be treated like any other weapon attack?
- When I cast Shocking Grasp with spellstrike, does my weapon attack also get the +3 to attack vs. metal-clad or wielding opponents? Seems counterintuitive that wielding a metal weapon makes it easier to hit someone wiith a sword.
|
All of these other questions have been answered before, but I'll give it a go again here.
You can combine natural attacks and weapon attacks with Spell Combat. I was originally of the camp that you could not, but when the developers ruled I was in the wrong.
You can take your 5 foot step in between any of your Spell Combat actions.
You do indeed get the +3 to hit targets wearing metal armor when using Spellstrike with Shocking Grasp.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that after reading the FAQ, I would have said haste worked with it just fine. Without seeing this thread and Sean saying that it didn't work, I'd wouldn't have thought twice about adding them. As such, I think the FAQ failed at 'clearing things up'. If the intent is as Sean said, it NEEDS a rewrite as it's in no way clear.
So I take you're missing that there is a separate FAQ explicitly saying that Spell Combat doesn't get the extra attack from Haste?
That wasn't new information brought up here, it was just a tangential reference as to what is already in the FAQ.
Notice the earlier date:
Magus: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
No. Spell combat is its own kind of full-round action, and is not a full attack action.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13
I was aware of the relevance of the RAW before that actual FAQ, but the FAQ has been out there for nearly half a year.
You can combine natural attacks and weapon attacks with Spell Combat. I was originally of the camp that you could not, but when the developers ruled I was in the wrong.
I'm not quite so sure of it, I don't see anything allowing COMBINING them, and it is not a Full Attack action to normally allow doing that.
The FAQs add some nuances, but I don't see anything suggesting you can use ALL your natural weapons, or combine them with iteratives like a Full Attack.
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.
Now how the one natural weapon (i.e. Claw) works there is unclear, if Paizo is saying you can make iterative attacks with it they should spell that out. Otherwise, you should be limited to one attack with it. This FAQ feels lacking, although the most direct way to apply it would be allowing a Claw to make iterative attacks since the FAQ essentially says you treat it as the 'weapon' held in hand.
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.
In other words yes to 'specific weapon in hand' (as amended by previous FAQ), no to 'use mixture of weapons and natural weapons'.
So I take you're missing that there is a separate FAQ explicitly saying that Spell Combat doesn't get the extra attack from Haste?
That wasn't new information brought up here, it was just a tangential reference as to what is already in the FAQ.
Nope. The "You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack" part of the new and most up to date FAQ seems to contradict the previous FAQ.
Looking up full attack, you find that you add extra attacks for "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". The FAQ just told me to look here and haste sounds a LOT like "some special reason".
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with haste not working with it, I'm just saying the new FAQ does not read the right way to say what the team wants it to say. As the thread said, before it was clear what happened. Now with a new 'clarification' it's less clear.
|
|
Actually, that sounds more correct. Reading through my posts I was of the camp that your natural weapons didn't count as "wielding" a light or one-handed weapon, and the design team ruled otherwise.
Wow, was that really that long ago? My Magus was 1st level back then. Now he's 10th! O.O
Edit: this was meant to be a response to Quandary.
@Greystone: I'm not sure I understand you. Before this thread, and the latest FAQ, there already was another FAQ that explicitly said Spell Combat does not get an extra attack from Haste. So "without seeing this thread" you already had a solid reason to understand that Haste's bonus attack doesn't apply, because another FAQ directly states that.
I see it as similar to other cases: Zen Archers can eventually make arrows deal damage equal to their UAS damage. Bards can make skill checks using the ranks of another skill. That doesn't mean you apply other bonuses applicable to the original, i.e. Weapon Spec:UAS or Magic Fang bonuses to UAS. I understand why people might think the wording could be better, and I agree with the poster who thought it would be clearer for Spell Combat just to say "1 attack with 1 more for each 5 BAB". But the FAQ has been clear on that since mid-April of this year.
@Nefreet: Gotcha... I do think the FAQ (or Errata) needs to clear that up more, if they're allowing iteratives with a Claw that needs to be stated, lumping in a Natural Weapon with UAS like the FAQ does is just evading the issue. The alternative is saying you can Spell Combat making just one attack with a Claw (possibly +1 via Spellstrike), but from direct application of the FAQ I believe allowing iteratives with the Claw IS the most straight-forward application of the FAQ just because it IS equated with a weapon for purposes of Spell Combat.
I'm not sure I understand you. Before this thread, and the latest FAQ, there already was another FAQ that explicitly said Spell Combat does not get an extra attack from Haste. So "without seeing this thread" you already had a solid reason to understand that Haste's bonus attack doesn't apply, because another FAQ directly states that.
It is NOT unheard of for FAQ's to change or alter previous ones. Just looking at the new FAQ and not digging through to find the old FAQ, I went by what the new FAQ said. Even after knowing both are there, once again they seem to contradict each other. Since the new one is newer, I'd have guessed the oldest one in error.
LOL don't think that needs done, the wording of the newest FAQ is just bad.
I would suggest at this point completely removing the two weapon fighting language as it just stands to add to the confusion.
Since this is apparently the way it is supposed to work then I would suggest the following wording:
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. 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 any attacks he gains from BAB 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.
This removes the two weapon fighting text (which is confusing since the only way to two weapon fight is with a full attack action), and explicitly states that you are only gaining attacks from BAB -- which means no speed, no ki point for extra attacks, no Medusa's Wrath, nothing.
The two weapon fighting part is important because it implies full attack (since again the only way to two weapon fight is with a full attack), and instead of the ambiguous "all of his attacks with his melee weapon" we have it clearly spelled out that only attacks from BAB are gained.
In addition it saves on word count.
I don't find the 2WF reference troublesome in regards the main topics of this thread, 2 Weapon Fighter Archetype already allows 2WF'ing as Standard Action and AoO, so a non-Full Attack having a connection to 2WF just isn't problematic. Post Vital Strike/Attack Action, anybody should be well aware that when an action is stated to be something that is what it is, and it isn't something it isn't stated to be.
But I do find the reference to a specific game mechanic troublesome on other accounts, which I've already mentioned:
Is Spellstriking with a Spell Combat Touch Spell supposed to count as an off-hand attack, i.e. for STR damage? Is using a non-Light weapon for a Spellstrike/Spell Combat spell meant to suffer bigger attack penalties, if it is like 2WF? Can you trigger 2 Weapon Rend or 2 Weapon Defense by using Spell Combat? All those questions really also apply to Monk Flurry which still has wording saying it works like 2WF, even though it specially lets you use one weapon.
If it isn't meant to do any of those, then there is no functional reason to reference the specific game mechanic of 2WF, and doing so for fluff reasons is simply confusing.
For Flurry, if it isn't meant to be subject to non-Light 2WF penalties, etc, but also isn't meant to 'stack' with 2WF, that can just be simply stated that it doesn't stack/isn't compatable with 2WF, in about the same room it takes to say it works like 2WF and subsequent Feats.
From one of my first posts:
Spell Combat is explicitly not a full-attack action, because by definition part of your turn is spent casting a spell.That is an interesting interpretation, but it is inconsistent with the prior history of 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder rules on the topic of action types.
See, "full attack" doesn't say "no part of your turn is spent doing anything other than making to-hit rolls". Indeed, it explicitly includes 5 foot steps as options. For that matter, you can take a full attack action and cast a quickened spell. (And there's a Sage Advice ruling that a readied spell action in response to casting takes effect before even a quickened spell, so obviously it takes at least some amount of time to cast even a quickened spell.)
"Full attack" only says "you spend a full-round action to take attacks". It doesn't say anything about not doing anything else on your turn. That is usually the case implicitly (because most of the time, you can't do much else if you are taking a full-round action), but there are multiple obvious exceptions, such as spells which are swift or immediate actions, or five foot steps.
This distinction was clearer under the 3.0E haste, which let you take an additional standard action, making the distinction between "full-round action" and "the only thing you do on your turn" even sharper. But we still have slow, which limits you to a standard action; thus, when slowed, you can't take a full attack even if you spend your entire turn doing nothing but attacking. (And if they didn't explicitly counter-and-dispel each other, the combination would let you make only one attack, because you couldn't take full attack actions.)
This invention of "if you are doing something other than making an attack, it's not a full attack action" is not present in the rules. There are no real cases in the rules we could use to show that this interpretation made sense, and frankly, it obviously doesn't. The game...
You do understand the Magus is a new class with a new ability and that might explain why there are not previous examples.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do understand the Magus is a new class with a new ability and that might explain why there are not previous examples.Normally, if I were going to introduce a significant change to something as fundamental as "there are exactly two ways you can be attacking, either a full-round action which gets all your attacks, or a single attack", I would introduce it explicitly and give it a name, not just claim in a FAQ months later that it was a side-effect of an ability describing iterative attacks but not being "a full attack action".
If it let you cast a spell while attacking you could call it Spell Combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it let you cast a spell while attacking you could call it Spell Combat.You do understand the Magus is a new class with a new ability and that might explain why there are not previous examples.Normally, if I were going to introduce a significant change to something as fundamental as "there are exactly two ways you can be attacking, either a full-round action which gets all your attacks, or a single attack", I would introduce it explicitly and give it a name, not just claim in a FAQ months later that it was a side-effect of an ability describing iterative attacks but not being "a full attack action".
Yes. An ability that references TWF for how it mechanically works.
If the original RAI was that the class could not benefit from a full attack action while using spell combat, that reference would not have been included. It makes it quite clear what the authors intended for the class.
If I had intended to create such a category, I would have had, over in the combat section, a new term like "iterative attack action":
You realize the "combat section" is in a different book right?
Haste works with full attacks.
Spell Combat is a full round action.
See the difference. I understand you don't like it but if you can't understand it at this point then you probably shouldn't be calling other people stupid.
Normally, if I were going to introduce a significant change to something as fundamental as "there are exactly two ways you can be attacking, either a full-round action which gets all your attacks, or a single attack", I would introduce it explicitly and give it a name, not just claim in a FAQ months later that it was a side-effect of an ability describing iterative attacks but not being "a full attack action".
The idea that there are normally only two possible combat actions, full attack and single attack, and Paizo never introduces unique actions with their own functionality is itself an insult to anybody who plays this game.
About Magus´ Spell Combat, was the wording cleared up about ´functioning much like two-weapon fighting´ i.e. exactly how it counts as / doesn´t count as 2WF
(i.e. would 2 Weapon Rend apply if your spell included an attack roll that hit?)
Does it still not count as a Full Attack Action, thus Haste doesn´t apply?
How could that possibly be? Do I have a direct psychic link to Paizo? Does Paizo simply issue FAQs in order to conform to my posts here on the boards? 8-D
Who could have known before Paizo's FAQs that a Full Attack Action is a Full Attack Action,and things that state that apply to Full Attack Actions only apply those and not other actions?
[Pounce:] Is that a "full attack action"? Is it a "charge action"?
It's never called a full attack action. Even if it does something similar to what a FAA does, that doesn't mean it's the same action, they're clearly different. A FAA also does a similar thing to the Attack Action (makes an attack at Full BAB, plus other stuff, like Charge/Pounce's other stuff) but that doesn't make the FAA count as an Attack Action. When something specifies one specific named action, that's what it means. Doesn't matter whether you "like" that Haste doesn't work with Spell Combat or Pounce, that's how the rules work, and you're free to like or dislike them.
Or else I'm psychic.
Still looking for that example of any other point in the rules where the game distinguishes between "full attack" and "make all your iterative attacks".And I'm still waiting for a reason why you need another example. Spell Combat is different. Get over yourself.
Because Paizo isn't allowed to introduce new classes with new actions that do different things than the Core precedent.
And no matter what they call an action, it still counts as whatever type of action it seems similar to.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one calling people stupid.
This is insulting, and dismissive. And I don't actually care, except that the side-effect is that while you're putting every last bit of brain power you can scrape together into trying to find witty ways to express your contempt, you're also failing entirely to understand what's being said.
See, now I get it. You don't know what words mean, do you?
I just want to know if I'm psychic.
|
|
Seebs, let me give you two hypothetical situations:
1) There is another clas feature exactly like Spell Combat, mixing things up that disturb you and attack your understanding of the rules.
2) Spell Combat is truly unique, and there really is nothing else outside of the "full attack" and "single attack" options.
What would you do if I gave you either answer?
I just want to know if I'm psychic.
If you were, wouldn't you know his answer already?
|
|
Still looking for that example of any other point in the rules where the game distinguishes between "full attack" and "make all your iterative attacks".And I'm still waiting for a reason why you need another example. Spell Combat is different. Get over yourself.
I believe the word you are looking for is: inconsistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Then errata Spell Combat to say: "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"
But it doesn't, it says full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haste works with "a full attack action". There is ambiguity in the rules as to whether all full-round actions which let you take multiple attacks ought to be considered examples of full-attack actions, or whether "full-attack action" is a special case.
Let me clear up the ambiguity. There is at least one full round action that lets you take multiple attacks but is not a full attack action. (Hint: It's called Spell Combat.)
I believe the word you are looking for is: inconsistent.Still looking for that example of any other point in the rules where the game distinguishes between "full attack" and "make all your iterative attacks".And I'm still waiting for a reason why you need another example. Spell Combat is different. Get over yourself.
So new mechanics are not allowed to differ from previous mechanics? Wouldn't that make it difficult to come up with something new?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Haste only kicks in it's bonus attack when you take the named Full Attack Action it gives. Likewise why Pounce doesn't qualify, even though it is doing a full attack, it's not the specified action given by Haste. In both cases, if you want the bonus Haste attack more than the "extra" allowed by Pounce/Spell Combat, then you just make a real Full Attack Action, nothing's stopping you. (You obviously can use the other benefits of Haste, +1att/AC/reflex and speed boost which also affects Pounce) Same concept as why only the "Attack Action" qualifies for Vital Strike, not the Full Attack Action even though it also does 1 attack at full BAB (plus extra), or any other action that may do exactly what the Attack Action does PLUS "you fart". When a game mechanical object is specified, that is what's specified, doesn't matter how much you think it resembles a dog's ass.
Doing "as many attacks" as something else doesn't mean it is the same thing as something else... If Spell Combat or Pounce were intended to be a Full Attack Action that is modified by Haste with additional special bit added, they would add on special "extra" abilities to the standard Full Attack Action. But they didn't, they are separate actions with separate names. Actions have names, and referring to them by name matters, just like Billy may share certain features as Jack, but when we refer to Jack by name, we don't mean Billy.
Doesn't matter why they designed the rules this way, because that's just how Paizo wrote the rules. Last time I checked, they are allowed to make arbitrary design decisions when creating new material. AFAIK, there is no grand meta-rule created in the dawn of time that foretold the possiblity of an action that allowed blending spellcasting with iterative attacks: they just did it. I'm sure they have their reasons, an obvious one would be "Spell Combat doesn't need Haste to be balanced, as anybody can take a Full Attack if they prefer that to the benefit of Casting a Spell simultaneously", but they haven't yet gotten in the habit of releasing an accompaning tome to each crunch release giving their exact design rationale for every choice. Maybe Paizo wrote PRPG because their grandma told them to. Doesn't really matter. I don't see these "why did they write it this way" questions for rules that people don't have any dispute with and just want to use them as they understand them. Those are the ones you really need to worry about. That's where Cthulhu plants his abominable plans in mortal minds.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Newer FAQs supersede older FAQs
Where is this stated?
Maybe the reason behind this is the same one as every other piece of the rules:
Paizo wrote the rules the way they did because they thought that was the best balanced way to complement the rest of the rules.
"Because Wizards did it" is the other answer, but that doesn't really apply here.
Which only leaves... because they are Eeevil. Sssh. Don't tell, or they may do something bad to you.
Full attacks normally include the attacks from effects that add attacks to full attack actions.
The Haste bonus attack is essentially an interrupt on the Full Attack Action.
Haste doesn't say "Your Full Attack does one more attack" it says "When you take the FAA, you can make an extra attack".I'm not opposed to the FAQ being clearer though.