Somehow, this Faq made Spell Combat more confusing


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

@Seebs and others arguing/debating the rules. I'd stop doing so or else Sean may nerf the magus into only being able to make single attacks with Spell Combat.


Unlikely, improbable, and not a real worry.


What boggles me is why SKR comes in to answer people who ignore what he and his developer team has said. The rules of pathfinder are their interpretation. If you don't like it, play in your own home game and feel free to ignore them!


There is a difference between ignoring it, and disagreeing with it.

In order to disagree with something you must acknowledge that thing. If you acknowledge it you cannot be ignoring it.

Also it's interesting to see how this plays out from here. Consider the pounce thread for example. This ruling would indicate that if you pounce you don't get a haste attack since you didn't take a full attack action.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:

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.

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

You can use 1 natural attack together with spell combat, and only a form of natural attack that is linked with your other hand.

And the new FAQ seem to reiterate that even more:

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 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.

—Pathfinder Design Team, yesterday

Incidentally that replies to seeeb "why" question too.

The developer feel that spell combat should give you the ability of casting 1 spell and make 1 sequence of attack with 1 hand. Not a sequence of attacks with all available limbs. So the new kind of action.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
seebs wrote:

...

I assume there's some reason for this. But I am not looking for the "how do you reach this conclusion, given this wording" argument, because obviously we've seen that. I'm looking for "why on earth would you invent this new category of attacks, rather than just making this work like other things which let you modify a full attack action to do something else also?"
...

seebs, the sum of your post is "I am very upset because a new mechanic was introduced in the game."

New mechanics are introduced regularly.
Only to cite those that are class related:
- the alchemist use new mechanics;
- the witch use new mechanics;
- the summoner introduce new mechanics;
- the magus introduce new mechanics;
- the gunslinger introduces new mechanics;
- the oracle introduce new mechanics.

"Why the magus has a special mechanic for spell combat?"
"Because the Developers have thought that that was the appropriate way to represent what they want the magus to be capable to do."
"But why the magus should be capable to do this and is incapable to do that?"
"Because that is what the Developers want him to do."
"But why ..."
After the fist why you are simply saying that you disagree with how the magus work and the abilities and limitations that the Developers have chosen.

seebs wrote:


If a book is introducing a new category of combat actions, which behave confusingly similarly to an existing category, it needs a combat section.

Not if the ability is meant to work for a class. You define the soppecific ability within the class description.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Newer FAQs supersede older FAQs
Where is this stated?

I think he means the general consensus is that when newer prints hit the shelves and stuff is reprinted in a new book those rulles supersede the older versions of the new book.

like with scorpion whip for example its printed twice as a difrent weapon and pfsrd uses the new rules as they are newer so asumed more acurate.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

@Diego, I corrected myself a couple posts after that.

Scarab Sages

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Quote:
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.
So new mechanics are not allowed to differ from previous mechanics? Wouldn't that make it difficult to come up with something new?

New =\= inconsistent.

If Spell Combat functioned in a manner consistent with every other form of iterative attack, we would not have constant threads from people seeking clarification.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

...

I assume there's some reason for this. But I am not looking for the "how do you reach this conclusion, given this wording" argument, because obviously we've seen that. I'm looking for "why on earth would you invent this new category of attacks, rather than just making this work like other things which let you modify a full attack action to do something else also?"
...

seebs, the sum of your post is "I am very upset because a new mechanic was introduced in the game."

New mechanics are introduced regularly.
Only to cite those that are class related:
- the alchemist use new mechanics;
- the witch use new mechanics;
- the summoner introduce new mechanics;
- the magus introduce new mechanics;
- the gunslinger introduces new mechanics;
- the oracle introduce new mechanics.

"Why the magus has a special mechanic for spell combat?"
"Because the Developers have thought that that was the appropriate way to represent what they want the magus to be capable to do."
"But why the magus should be capable to do this and is incapable to do that?"
"Because that is what the Developers want him to do."
"But why ..."
After the fist why you are simply saying that you disagree with how the magus work and the abilities and limitations that the Developers have chosen.

seebs wrote:


If a book is introducing a new category of combat actions, which behave confusingly similarly to an existing category, it needs a combat section.

Not if the ability is meant to work for a class. You define the soppecific ability within the class description.

If you are creating a new category of actions specific to a class, then yes, that category of action needs to be explicitly defined.

How does this new category, created by FAQ not the author, interact with preexisting rules that discuss only standard attacks and full attacks. Fighting defensively for example: it is an option available to people making both standard and full attacks. It is not available to people using this new, undefined, action type.


Perhaps, the following wording would work better for spell combat:

Spell Combat (Ex)
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. As a full attack action, the magus may take a -2 penalty to all attack rolls and cast a spell on the magus spell list, as long as the following conditions are met:

* The weapon used is either light or one-handed
* The magus has a hand free for the entire turn
* The spell has a casting time of a standard action
* The full attack action is not enhanced in any way that would provide additional attacks, such as Haste, spending Ki, etc.

If the spell is being cast defensively, a magus may take an additional penalty on all attack rolls to gain an equal amount of circumstance bonus to the 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are people acting like Spell Combat is some "new, undefined action type"? It's a Use Special Ability action. Similar to the Use Feat action or the Cast a Spell action, it's a very versatile type of action that may subsume one of several types of basic action types (standard, move, full-round, etc) and functions as the specific instructions for the special ability detail. There's nothing "new" about it. You follow the instructions as Spell Combat lays them out. Those instructions boil down to: You cast a spell and make "all your attacks" with your designated weapon. Now, people had a clarity issue on what "all your attacks" means. The FAQ clarifies it to mean "the iterative attacks you could make with a normal full-attack with a single weapon". What does "normal" mean? That's basic English and even SKR has chimed in to clarify what "normal" means for the "thick" people... it means "unmodified, unadulterated, unmolested, un-fooled-around-with, unchanged, mundane, no-frills, banal, and, generally, NORMAL". So... Spell Combat lets you make "all your attacks" and "all your attacks" means "the attacks you could make with a "normal full-attack" and a "normal full-attack" means "a full-attack unmodified by bonuses such as from Flurry of Blows or Haste effects". So, for those who are claiming "The ability doesn't say unmodified full-attack"... well, it does, just using fewer, simpler words by saying "all your attacks" and the FAQ and developer statements qualifies that we can extrapolate out of "all your attacks" the "unmodified full-attack" part.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Newer FAQs supersede older FAQs
Where is this stated?

It doesn't need to be stated. FAQs are corrections applied to existing material. If they are in contradiction, as they are here for a clear and common interpretation of the newer FAQ, the newer FAQ must be correcting the older FAQ because the older can't possibly be correcting the newer since it didn't exist.

If new FAQs did not supersede old FAQs they would also not supersede the printed rules, which they sometimes contradict at least between printings.

Seriously, instead of trying to play games with semantics just report that people on the forums are finding the FAQ creates ambiguity rather than resolving it.

Telling us on the forums that the old FAQ takes precedence in this case even though all other rules contradictions in all game systems between rules of different vintages are resolved in favor of the new rule only reaches people who use the forums. If the FAQs don't stand alone without forum commentary there's no point in having them.


Atarlost wrote:
It doesn't need to be stated. FAQs are corrections applied to existing material. If they are in contradiction, as they are here for a clear and common interpretation of the newer FAQ, the newer FAQ must be correcting the older FAQ because the older can't possibly be correcting the newer since it didn't exist.

If (and only if) FAQs are in contradiction, you don't just take the most recent one. They must be re-evaluated and the correct one must be determined. Most recent doesn't necessarily mean most correct. Furthermore, the FAQs in question here aren't in contradiction... people are just being thick. Most of us understand and can differentiate just fine. This is no racial heritage vs half-breed issue.


Kazaan wrote:
If (and only if) FAQs are in contradiction, you don't just take the most recent one. They must be re-evaluated and the correct one must be determined.

This is wrong.

If the FAQs are in apparent contradiction -- and this thread only exists because people think they are, which is the definition of apparent -- you choose one how? Print the FAQ pages and throw darts? No, you assume the more recent takes priority because it was put out with the knowledge that the older FAQ existed and can only be intended to supersede it. If the newer FAQ were intended to be superseded by the older FAQ it would self evidently never have been issued.

Because nobody who hasn't read this thread has any other insight into which FAQ entry is right and are just as likely to find it ambiguous as the people complaining about it here. It's not just a few people. There are few people in this thread at all and those who think there's a problem are a substantial fraction.

Nobody can read the devs' minds. Most people can't read the devs' forum posts, only those who used the forums when they were posted and happened to notice the thread and read it to see SKR posted in it. Those coming after the fact and searching won't find it because they'll be searching for posts from the "rules team" account. The FAQ must stand alone unambiguous without commentary or telepathy. Otherwise there's no point in having a FAQ.


Atarlost wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
If (and only if) FAQs are in contradiction, you don't just take the most recent one. They must be re-evaluated and the correct one must be determined.

This is wrong.

If the FAQs are in apparent contradiction -- and this thread only exists because people think they are, which is the definition of apparent -- you choose one how? Print the FAQ pages and throw darts? No, you assume the more recent takes priority because it was put out with the knowledge that the older FAQ existed and can only be intended to supersede it. If the newer FAQ were intended to be superseded by the older FAQ it would self evidently never have been issued.

That predicates on the presumption that the dev team has 100% awareness of all information at all times and are immune from making mistakes or misconceptions. They are people too and it is entirely possible for them to make errors and misconstrue even their own information; and the bulk of Pathfinder is piggybacked on the work of entirely different people going back over the course of decades. Who can keep all that straight and not miss a single thing? The issue between Racial Heritage and Half-Breeds is a perfect examplar; one FAQ says that "effects related to race" includes qualifying for racial archetypes, and the other FAQ says "effects related to race" doesn't include racial archetypes. That is a clear contradiction and one for which the solution is not to just presume that the most recent FAQ is more correct because it also flies in the face of other aspects of RAW. The same can be said about the history of Flurry of Blows in which they wrote a FAQ stating it worked one way, then subsequently repealed that ruling, stating that they were incorrect in their analysis and decided to do a complete 180 and rule it the other way. So, in the case of actually contradictory FAQs, recent doesn't necessarily mean correct and it should not be presumed as such; it must be re-addressed by the dev team to remove the contradiction.

The issue over Spell Combat, however, is not a contradiction. The reasons why have been presented several times by several different people, including a member of the dev team. The reasons for it being a contradiction are a result of people being stubborn and refusing to accept good logic. Being wrong isn't a democracy... just because several people see an "apparent" contradiction doesn't make it an "actual" contradiction any more than several people seeing "apparent" water on a hot street when it hasn't rained recently doesn't make it "actual" water. The contradiction here is a mirage. If you want to know why it's a mirage, go back and read the statements that have been so generously provided.


Atarlost wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
If (and only if) FAQs are in contradiction, you don't just take the most recent one. They must be re-evaluated and the correct one must be determined.

This is wrong.

If the FAQs are in apparent contradiction -- and this thread only exists because people think they are, which is the definition of apparent -- you choose one how? Print the FAQ pages and throw darts? No, you assume the more recent takes priority because it was put out with the knowledge that the older FAQ existed and can only be intended to supersede it. If the newer FAQ were intended to be superseded by the older FAQ it would self evidently never have been issued.

Because nobody who hasn't read this thread has any other insight into which FAQ entry is right and are just as likely to find it ambiguous as the people complaining about it here. It's not just a few people. There are few people in this thread at all and those who think there's a problem are a substantial fraction.

Nobody can read the devs' minds. Most people can't read the devs' forum posts, only those who used the forums when they were posted and happened to notice the thread and read it to see SKR posted in it. Those coming after the fact and searching won't find it because they'll be searching for posts from the "rules team" account. The FAQ must stand alone unambiguous without commentary or telepathy. Otherwise there's no point in having a FAQ.

Since the FAQs are clear, I'm not certain why you feel there's a contradiction.

The FAQ clarifies:

-that Spell Combat is a full-round action, not a full attack action, and therefore does not benefit from the bonus attack granted by Haste
-that Spell Combat allows you to take all of your attacks as if you were making a full attack

"As if" is not equal to "equals". A grapefruit is like an orange, but it's not an orange; stating that Spell Combat grants you attacks as if making a full attack doesn't make it a full attack - which is explicitly stated by the earlier FAQ noting that it's a full-round action, not a full attack.

Hypothetically speaking, it would function in exactly the same way as an ability that did use a full attack action but explicitly stated in the ability text that it did not benefit from Haste.

The only possible contradiction is if you assume that two things being similar make them equal in all ways - and that's not true.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Kazaan wrote:
If (and only if) FAQs are in contradiction, you don't just take the most recent one. They must be re-evaluated and the correct one must be determined. Most recent doesn't necessarily mean most correct.

True.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I've removed some posts. Calls to ban the magus class are not productive. Observe the most important rule of the Paizo message boards.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Abraham spalding wrote:


Also it's interesting to see how this plays out from here. Consider the pounce thread for example. This ruling would indicate that if you pounce you don't get a haste attack since you didn't take a full attack action.

That's actually wrong. Pounce is specifically called out as allowing a full attack action so this FAQ in no way impacts Pounce.

Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

Shadow Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


Also it's interesting to see how this plays out from here. Consider the pounce thread for example. This ruling would indicate that if you pounce you don't get a haste attack since you didn't take a full attack action.

That's actually wrong. Pounce is specifically called out as allowing a full attack action so this FAQ in no way impacts Pounce.

Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

DM Beckett wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


Also it's interesting to see how this plays out from here. Consider the pounce thread for example. This ruling would indicate that if you pounce you don't get a haste attack since you didn't take a full attack action.

That's actually wrong. Pounce is specifically called out as allowing a full attack action so this FAQ in no way impacts Pounce.

Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

I don't know what point you're trying to make since Pounce specifically says you can make a Full Attack, which is what Haste calls for.


It's not a full attack action -- which is the only thing that gets you the extra attack.

It's a charge which is an action unto itself that also gets you a full attack. Not a full attack action in and of itself which is what gets you a haste attack.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Abraham spalding wrote:

It's not a full attack action -- which is the only thing that gets you the extra attack.

It's a charge which is an action unto itself that also gets you a full attack. Not a full attack action in and of itself which is what gets you a haste attack.

There is no difference between a full attack and full attack action. If you can find something that differentiates between the two, please show me.


Except it's not a full attack.

It's a charge -- with a special ability that gets the rest of the attacks.

Here's what is happening:

Charge == full round action.
Pounce == get a full attack.
Haste requires a full attack action.

Did you take a full attack action?

No as that is a full round action, and your full round action was a charge.

Ergo you didn't take a full attack action (as then you couldn't have charged).

Since you didn't take a full attack action, you do not get the haste attack.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except Pounce specifically allows you to take a full attack and there is no distinction between taking a Full Attack and making a Full Attack action. Not even Spell Combat or the FAQs make a distinction between the two.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Except it's not a full attack.

It's a charge -- with a special ability that gets the rest of the attacks.

Here's what is happening:

Charge == full round action.
Pounce == get a full attack.
Haste requires a full attack action.

Did you take a full attack action?

No as that is a full round action, and your full round action was a charge.

Ergo you didn't take a full attack action (as then you couldn't have charged).

Since you didn't take a full attack action, you do not get the haste attack.

All full attacks(or full attack actions - the two are synonymous, see spoiler 1 below, which is the combat definition of full attack - note that it simply calls it "Full Attack") are full-round actions (as indicated by its location in the Full-round Action section of Actions in Combat table).

1:
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.

So all full attack actions are full-round actions. But not all full-round actions are full attack actions.

A charge is a full-round action. It would not benefit from Haste attacks because its text does not state anywhere that it is is a full attack.

Pounce offers specific rules (which trump general rules) that state that when you use it, you make a charge and can make a full attack (not that you're acting as if you had made a full attack, but that you are actually making one).

Thus a pounce does get Haste attacks.


Full Attack =/= Full Attack Action.

If this were true, then the following would also be true:

Using Two-Weapon Feint against a character with Uncanny Dodge does not make them lose their Dex to AC.

Why?

PRD wrote:

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.

---
Two-Weapon Feint (Combat)
Benefit:
While using Two-Weapon Fighting to make melee attacks, you can forgo your first primary-hand melee attack to make a Bluff check to feint an opponent.

Two-Weapon Feint says you can forego your first main-hand melee attack when two-weapon fighting to "feint an opponent". But that's not using the "feint action" so you cannot use the feint from Two-Weapon Feint to deny an opponent their Dex to AC if that opponent has Uncanny Dodge since it specifies that it requires the Feint Action to deny their Dex to AC. This, of course, falls under the logical princpal of Reductio ad Absurdum, acceptance of the initial premise (full-attack =/= full-attack action) leads to an absurd outcome, and the possibility should be dismissed as a logical possibility, thus disproving the initial premise that an equivalent action made as part of a larger action somehow doesn't qualify as making that sub-action. When you make a full-attack, either as the full-attack action or as the full-attack allowed in a Pounce-modified Charge action, it's still a full-attack and qualifies for any benefits that apply to a full-attack action. When you cast a spell, whether as the Cast a Spell action, or as part of Spell Combat, it still benefits from anything that applies to the Cast a Spell action. HOWEVER, Spell Combat does not allow you to combine casting a spell with making a full-attack. It allows you to cast a spell along with make "all your attacks with your weapon". "Your Weapon" refers to the single, hand-associated weapon held in a hand other than the hand you use for casting your spell and "all your attacks" refers to all the iterative attacks you could normally perform if you were making a normal, unmodified full-attack. That means you don't count higher bab from Flurry because you're not making a Flurry of Blows and you don't count your bonus attack from Haste because you're not actually making a full-attack; neither as the full-attack action nor as a sub-part of the Spell Combat action; you're making all your iterative attacks, the same iterative attacks you would make if making a full-attack. Haste bonus attack is not an iterative attack, thus it doesn't qualify.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
@Diego, I corrected myself a couple posts after that.

I was replying to the post while reading them, so I hadn't jet reached your correction when I posted that.


Kazaan wrote:

Full Attack =/= Full Attack Action.

If this were true, then the following would also be true:

This is actually the clearest, most reasonable explanation of what is going on, and manages to not belittle or insult the intelligence of anybody who disagrees. Thank you Kazaan.

I would however, point out that Charging Pounce was specifically pointed out not to be hampered by the Slow spell here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fo#v5748eaic9quy

Which we know is the opposite of Haste.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Relevant new design team post here.


Skeletal Steve wrote:

I would however, point out that Charging Pounce was specifically pointed out not to be hampered by the Slow spell here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fo#v5748eaic9quy

Which we know is the opposite of Haste.

While the word "slow" is the opposite of the word "haste" an the spells are used to dispel and counter each other, their effects are not entirely opposed. Slow gives you the Staggered effect which allows you to only take either a move action or a standard action. It doesn't directly affect your ability to make a full-attack and, in fact, the Mobile Fighter archetype gets a capstone ability called Whirlwind Blitz that lets you make a Full-Attack as a Standard action rather than Full-Round so you'd also be able to Full-Attack under the Staggered effect by using Whirlwind Blitz. In short, any feat, ability, or capacity on your part to make a full-attack as a standard action (for instance, a full-attack on a partial charge) will work regardless of the Slow effect. Haste, before the just-released Errata, applies to full-attacks (either as the action itself, or as part of a larger action such as Pounce). The errata further establishes that, yes, a full-attack = a full-attack action. That is concrete and makes complete sense in context so no reasonable person ought to argue it. I did pose a question in SKR's thread as to whether the attacks in Spell Combat constitute a full-attack as the full-attack in Charge does, or whether Haste is rather being changed to work with any ability that allows for making Iterative Attacks. The difference being that if Haste is allowing Iterative Attacks, but Spell Combat is iterative attacks rather than a full-attack, you still can't Fight Defensively, gain Flurry Bab, or use Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack with it. On the other hand, if Spell Combat is being changed to literally be a combo of Cast a Spell and Full-Attack, then you could fight defensively (letting back in Crane Style), you could use your higher Flurry BAB in calculating your attack bonus and number of iteratives and maybe even gain your extra flurry attacks since they can all be made with the same weapon, and you can use Rapid Attack to combine your attacks with a Move action to move during them.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Relevant new design team post here.

This is how I would have read this FAQ, if I was not aware of all the threads on it.

The FAQ wrote:
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack.

If I were not using Spell Combat, and just had my blade in one hand, how many attacks would I get on a full attack? Iteratives + haste would seem to be the answer, but posting that in this thread prior to the above decision would have certainly invoked my Flame Resist 5.

I also assume that since it says weapon attacks, a Magus with natural weapons (say a bite and a tail slap) and a sword in hand could not spell combat, cast, take full sword iteratives, haste if applicable, and also make natural weapon attacks?

However, if the above Magus had Frostbite running, and did an actual Full Attack Action, would Frostbite go off on all sword attacks, and the natural attacks?

Dark Archive

Azuroth wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Relevant new design team post here.

This is how I would have read this FAQ, if I was not aware of all the threads on it.

The FAQ wrote:
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack.

If I were not using Spell Combat, and just had my blade in one hand, how many attacks would I get on a full attack? Iteratives + haste would seem to be the answer, but posting that in this thread prior to the above decision would have certainly invoked my Flame Resist 5.

I also assume that since it says weapon attacks, a Magus with natural weapons (say a bite and a tail slap) and a sword in hand could not spell combat, cast, take full sword iteratives, haste if applicable, and also make natural weapon attacks?

However, if the above Magus had Frostbite running, and did an actual Full Attack Action, would Frostbite go off on all sword attacks, and the natural attacks?

Well this is the unfortunate part since this faq undoes everything EXCEPT the natural attack nerf they did to spellcombat.

Faq wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: 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

All natural attacks are flagged as melee weapons but are specifically called out as not being valid for SPELLCOMBAT purposes unless they are associated with a hand. So claws yes, bites, gores, stingers and wings are not valid to be used when you are doing spellcombat.

Spellstrike on the other hand doesn't have that limitation and can freely be used to deliver any charges you still have on a regular or full attack.
Kind of an arbitrary exclusion but it causes less vocal complaining then the Haste nerf.

The real question is if the prehensile hair hex can be used during spellcombat. It specifically calls itself out as being treated like a limb and

Quote:
Her hair can manipulate objects (but not weapons) as dexterously as a human hand.

I'd love it if this power wasn't excluded from the other hand ruling for spellcombat. It goes a HUGE way towards removing the MAD issues for Magi.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell combat uses hands (a natural weapon that's part of that hand qualifies). There ya go.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Spell combat uses hands (a natural weapon that's part of that hand qualifies). There ya go.

Or prehensile hair, iirc. Just awesome hex for hexcrafter.

Dark Archive

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Spell combat uses hands (a natural weapon that's part of that hand qualifies). There ya go.

AWESOME!! Woot, my Defiler build is back in action!!


Man, for a second there I thought we finally got the answer to the whole question on where claws can go. Which is clearly the most pressing issue facing the design team these days.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
iammercy wrote:
Bottom line. Of those who melee, only the Magus is denied that benefit from Haste. If that is a balance issue then fine. If not, then it denies a class the benefit from a spell that is designed to help those who melee.

The Magus isn't "someone who melees" He is someone who melees and casts a spell. If you can't recognise that he is of an entirely different class of character who gets a heck of a lot done during his round, you're being pedantic.

That full iterative attack sequence + spell is on the average a heck of a lot more damage. Put in spellstrike, then not only are you getting that extra attack that fighters would need Haste to get, you're getting spell damage as a carrier ON TOP OF THAT TO BOOT.

Stop being so greedy.


LazarX wrote:
iammercy wrote:
Bottom line. Of those who melee, only the Magus is denied that benefit from Haste. If that is a balance issue then fine. If not, then it denies a class the benefit from a spell that is designed to help those who melee.

The Magus isn't "someone who melees" He is someone who melees and casts a spell. If you can't recognise that he is of an entirely different class of character who gets a heck of a lot done during his round, you're being pedantic.

That full iterative attack sequence + spell is on the average a heck of a lot more damage. Put in spellstrike, then not only are you getting that extra attack that fighters would need Haste to get, you're getting spell damage as a carrier ON TOP OF THAT TO BOOT.

Stop being so greedy.

You mean the magus casts a spell to get the same number of attacks a TWF character does without haste. But the TWF gets an extra attack beyond that with haste but the magus didn't.

The magus pure weapon damage is likely to be a lot less than the fighters pure weapon damage hit for hit. The spell stacked on top of that is there to put him back in the same ball park.

For example, a 3rd level magus will (if he hits with both attacks) do 2x weapon damage (2d6 for common magus weapons) + 3d6 shocking grasp.

A 3rd level rogue with TWF will do 2x weapon damage, or if flanking 2x weapon damage (2d6 for common rogue weapons) +4d6 SA damage (and spends no resources doing so).

The 3rd level fighter with TWF will do 2x weapon damage (possibly a 1d8 and a 1d6 if the fighter doesn't want to use weapon focus or takes it twice and probably with 1 or 2 points higher damage per hit due to higher strength). The fighter has +1 BAB advantage over the rogue magus. And probably has a better AC and HP than the rogue or magus.

The 3rd level THF fighter only gets one attack, but will have a higher damage range on the weapon, and will hit more often as they aren't taking a -2 to hit. And probably has a better AC and HP than the rogue or magus.

These relative power levels will vary at different levels of course. The fighter at level 6 gets an extra attack till level 8.

The strength of the magus is versatility in spells and crit fishing. Crit fishing a magus can put out a lot of damage which typically surpasses the TWF players, but usually can't keep up with a DPR focused fighter/barbarian for example.


Quandary wrote:
I just want to know if I'm psychic.

I don't think so. The text strikes me as ambiguous, spotting the ambiguity is not a psychic power. :)


Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

...

I assume there's some reason for this. But I am not looking for the "how do you reach this conclusion, given this wording" argument, because obviously we've seen that. I'm looking for "why on earth would you invent this new category of attacks, rather than just making this work like other things which let you modify a full attack action to do something else also?"
...
seebs, the sum of your post is "I am very upset because a new mechanic was introduced in the game."

No, it's not.

It's "I am confused because a new general combat mechanic was introduced by the implications of a careful reading of one spell and one special ability, with no indication that this was a considered or intentional act". ... and the new design team post seems to suggest that maybe it wasn't a very thoroughly considered point, rather just an accident of wording.


Nefreet wrote:

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?

With the first, I'd concede that I apparently did not understand the way the rules divide attack categories previously, and had missed this case, and would ask whether there was a general term in the rules for "a thing which gives you all your iterative attacks, but which is not a full attack".

With the second, I'd ask whether there was a specific design reason to need to create this new category, and if so, what it was. Was this a game balance thing, or what?

And looking at SKR's newer response, it looks to me like the design team has sort of concluded that the special case of "it's all your attacks but not a full attack" was indeed a special case, and not one which served a particularly useful purpose


seebs wrote:
And looking at SKR's newer response, it looks to me like the design team has sort of concluded that the special case of "it's all your attacks but not a full attack" was indeed a special case, and not one which served a particularly useful purpose

To be fair, the dev team is debating this issue because if the attacks for spell combat really do constitute a full-attack in the same way that the attacks in a Pounce-modified Charge do, then it means that a slew of other abilities can also be brought into play which may have unforeseen consequences. You could Fight Defensively and use Combat Expertise on your Spell Combat attacks and Fight Defensively, in turn, brings back in Crane style. If you have the Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack ability, you can combine a full-attack with a single move action, allowing you to move during your spell combat. You could make a Whirlwind Attack during your spell combat. So on and so forth. On the other hand, if they conclude that Spell Combat only allows you your iterative attacks as a specific exception to the general rule that you only get iteratives on Full-Attack, but maintain that Spell Combat itself neither is nor involves making a full-attack, they're essentially changing Haste such that it functions when you make Iterative Attacks rather than when you make a Full-Attack. Honestly, I hope the rule the second way as I think making Spell Combat involve a full-on full-attack will turn out incredibly unbalanced.


I disagree Kazaan, but I do see your worry.

In my opinion if these options aren't overpowered with fighter or monk they shouldn't be overpowered for the magus either.

After all the fighter is going to generally out damage the magus and have better defense. The monk conceivably could as well. The magus is taking a lower attack bonus, dishing out less damage per strike and getting less overall use out of all these options than either of those other classes.

Add this with his squishiness and the fact that crane style only stops a single attack a round and I really don't see much issue here.


The only potential "problem" I can foresee is combining Crane Wing with Frigid Touch since this would result in your foe only being able to make one attack and you'd be able to block that attack if it hits.

If there's a problem here it is probably with Crane Wing rather than Spell Combat, but I guess there could be some mitigating factors too:
- This tactic wouldn't prevent multiple foes from attacking and hitting you
- It relies on you hitting the enemy. If you miss you will suffer a full attack like anybody else using Crane Wing.
- At least at lower levels spells are a fairly limited per day resource
- At mid to higher levels you're giving up a lot of potential damage to play this trick (which might not matter in a one on one duel but could be important in a larger combat)
- Any PC can already accomplish something fairly similar by having an Improved Familiar put Frigid Touch into a Spell Storing weapon each round
- A fair number of monsters only have one attack to begin with and are in this boat against anybody using Crane Wing

I guess that concerns over Crane Wing could also prevent the design team from allowing Fight Defensively to be used with any other form of casting since a caster could then "lock down" any single foe with Crane Wing plus Frigid Touch. I'm trying to imagine how a fight between two masters of the "Frigid Crane" style might go. Would it basically just come down to initiative? I guess Flyby Attack plus Crane Wing could lead to some similar situations (except against enemies with Pounce)

Scarab Sages

Kazaan wrote:
seebs wrote:
And looking at SKR's newer response, it looks to me like the design team has sort of concluded that the special case of "it's all your attacks but not a full attack" was indeed a special case, and not one which served a particularly useful purpose
To be fair, the dev team is debating this issue because if the attacks for spell combat really do constitute a full-attack in the same way that the attacks in a Pounce-modified Charge do, then it means that a slew of other abilities can also be brought into play which may have unforeseen consequences. You could Fight Defensively and use Combat Expertise on your Spell Combat attacks and Fight Defensively, in turn, brings back in Crane style. If you have the Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack ability, you can combine a full-attack with a single move action, allowing you to move during your spell combat. You could make a Whirlwind Attack during your spell combat. So on and so forth. On the other hand, if they conclude that Spell Combat only allows you your iterative attacks as a specific exception to the general rule that you only get iteratives on Full-Attack, but maintain that Spell Combat itself neither is nor involves making a full-attack, they're essentially changing Haste such that it functions when you make Iterative Attacks rather than when you make a Full-Attack. Honestly, I hope the rule the second way as I think making Spell Combat involve a full-on full-attack will turn out incredibly unbalanced.

I would prefer that Spell Combat is changed to a full attack action in and of itself, not become cast a spell + full attack.

My complaint all along has been lack of consistency.

The Mobile Fighter ability is not much of a concern. At 11 levels in, it's hardly a dip and you would, at most, have access to 3rd level spells. Minimum 18th level to Spell Combat a Haste + move. Fighters at this level have long since picked up boots of speed, and a Straight magus could already cast Bladed Dash at 4th level.

The big concern is Crane Wing, but any class has the potential to abuse the style. Take a fighter with a Katana, 2-hand attack on your turn, let go with one hand and assume Crane Wing after attacking. Rinse. Repeat.

151 to 200 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.